Reasons to trust..

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Hello, dear forum members.. Interesting custom to put this "dear" there,
isn't it... I wonder what does it tell about the nation's psyche...

Anyhow,

Concerning the murder of JFK, I would be very interested to find out about
your views on the reasons to trust the evidence brought up by the FBI or
the WC or DPD.

So in your opinion, what are the reasons to trust the evidence provided by
the FBI, WC or DPD.

Thank you!

[OHLeeRedux]

Prove that there is a reason not to trust them, Robert.

[bigdog]

The evidence was gathered and analyzed by multiple law enforcement
agencies and it all fits together. If only some of it had been tampered
with, that evdence would conflict with the genuine evidence. To claim that
it was all fraudulent is to claim that all of these various agencies acted
together to conceal the truth of the JFK assassination, an absurd
proposal.

[Bud]

On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:04:13 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

This what you do when you have someone you want to believe is innocent,
you misdirect away from that person and you put the people who gathered
the evidence that showed the person to be guilty and put them on trial.
It`s what you saw occur in the OJ trial. The weak minded will buy into
this, and there are plenty of those.

And if you think there is a way to determine whether someone is culpable
of a crime without evidence it would be interesting to hear it. Most of
the efforts of the hobbyists is to nullify the evidence that shows
Oswald`s guilt. And maybe you can explain how the WC or the FBI or the
Dallas police got Oswald to be a political extremist, pose with the murder
weapon, flee the scene of the crime, kill a cop and attack the cops who
tried to arrest him. You are welcome to try to explain these things in a
way that doesn`t smack of desperation or pure silliness. You`d be the
first.

[Robert Harris]

Unfortunately, some of the evidence was falsified by the FBI, including
CE399, as was confirmed by Governor Connally, District attorney Henry
Wade, and many others.

This article explains in detail:

http://jfkhistory.com/bell/bellarticle/BellArticle.html




Robert Harris

[tom...@cox.net]

hey Corbett;

you ever hear about Watergate ? ? ? ?
======================================================================

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:04:13 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> > Hello, dear forum members.. Interesting custom to put this "dear"

> > there,=
> =20

> > isn't it... I wonder what does it tell about the nation's psyche...

> >=20
> > Anyhow,
> >=20

> > Concerning the murder of JFK, I would be very interested to find out

> > abou=
> t=20

> > your views on the reasons to trust the evidence brought up by the FBI

> > or=
> =20
> > the WC or DPD.
> >=20

> > So in your opinion, what are the reasons to trust the evidence provided

> > b=
> y=20

> > the FBI, WC or DPD.

> >=20

> > Thank you!
>
> The evidence was gathered and analyzed by multiple law enforcement
> agencies and it all fits together. If only some of it had been tampered
> with, that evdence would conflict with the genuine evidence. To claim
> that it was all fraudulent is to claim that all of these various agencies
> acted together to conceal the truth of the JFK assassination, an absurd
> proposal.

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[David Von Pein]

None of those people (Connally, Wade, and "many others") "confirmed" any
such thing. It's only in Bob Harris' unique CT world that such allegations
of evidence manipulation blossom into full-fledged "confirmation". In the
real world, however, such confirmation doesn't exist---nor has it ever
existed.

[bigdog]

On Monday, June 8, 2015 at 10:21:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:

So you are claiming some of the evidence was falsisfied. If that is true,
why does it point to the same guy as the evidence that wasn't falsified?

[tims...@gmail.com]

Well the DPD and then the FBI (along with the USSS) were the ones charged
with gathering the evidence in the case.

If we disregard THOSE sources, what other PHYSICAL evidence do we have?

Very little, it would seem. You got some BETTER sources of evidence, Ott?

TB

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/8/2015 6:05 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, June 7, 2015 at 11:04:13 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
>> Hello, dear forum members.. Interesting custom to put this "dear" there,
>> isn't it... I wonder what does it tell about the nation's psyche...
>>
>> Anyhow,
>>
>> Concerning the murder of JFK, I would be very interested to find out about
>> your views on the reasons to trust the evidence brought up by the FBI or
>> the WC or DPD.
>>
>> So in your opinion, what are the reasons to trust the evidence provided by
>> the FBI, WC or DPD.
>>
>> Thank you!
>
> The evidence was gathered and analyzed by multiple law enforcement
> agencies and it all fits together. If only some of it had been tampered
> with, that evdence would conflict with the genuine evidence. To claim that

So what? The CIA had a stable of disinformation agents ready to explain
away anything.
Like JFK shot in the throat from the front because he had turned to look
at the TSBD.

> it was all fraudulent is to claim that all of these various agencies acted
> together to conceal the truth of the JFK assassination, an absurd
> proposal.
>
>

No one said ALL. Weak minds resort to Reductio Ad Asbsurdum.

[bigdog]

Of course what Ott suggests could be asked of any criminal investigation.
At trial, the defense would be required to show the jury why they should
not trust what the evidence shows. I was a juror in a check forging case
in which the defense called no witnesses of its own but simply suggested
the cops had planted the evidence and lied about the accused having made a
verbal confession. With no evidence to support the charge his argument
fell on deaf ears. The physical evidence alone was damning and we
convicted the guy in about a half hour.

[mainframetech]

Funny you would say that. Here's a witness that says the FBI
intimidarted her by threatening her if he said anything about her
experience of there being 2 men involved in the shooting of Tippit!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY

And here's a video of proof that the FBI lied about what 2 witnesses
said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODXoISgU-0M

Chris

[Robert Harris]

This is an important issue David, so I started a new thread, aptly
entitled, "Pure BS from Mr. Von Pein". I am looking forward to your reply.





Robert Harris

[Robert Harris]

That is among the stupidest things you have ever said - and that's quite
an achievement:-)

Unless Oswald was firing with two weapons, at least 2-3 of the shots
could not have come from him.




Robert Harris

[bigdog]

If my statement was as stupid as you claim, you should have been able to
explaiin why it is stupid. Instead you tried to change the subject rather
than answer a straight forward question. Marsh is starting to rub off on
you.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Bigdog, thank you for taking the time to answer this thread.

1) This is very interesting: could you bring out an example to illustrate
your statement:

" If only some of it had been tampered with, that evdence would conflict
with the genuine evidence."

Can you bring one theoretical example about the possible conflicting
evidence?


2)

Quoting you:
"To claim that it was all fraudulent is to claim that all of these various
agencies acted together to conceal the truth of the JFK assassination, an
absurd proposal. "

In your mind, is there a difference in saying that "agencies acted
together" and "separate people acted together?"


3) What do you mean by "acting together?", because it can be done in many
different forms.

4)
Could you be kind enough and demonstrate with an example, the following idea:
take a piece of evidence, suppose it is falcified and then explain, how
does it require multiple agencies to act together to conceal the truth.

Suppose that CA399 was falsified: how would it take MULTIPLE agencies in
order to achieve it?

5)
And finally:

It is a pretty known and provable fact, that the CIA and the FBI had close
connections to the mob. Both of these angencies had falsicied evidence
before and after. Remember the Pentagon Papers?

The FBI, for example, had a deeply corrupt director, with practically a
life long chair, with very high power, known to have ties to the
underworld. The FBI is known for falsifying evidence from many other cases
not related to the JFK. CIA, on multiple occasions, used the mob to
achieve their honorable goals. In the 60's USA, corruption was blooming
and enetering "every single home" one way or another.

One COULD say that Looking at the facts, that show some of JFK's
decisions and his way ALONE, COULD make elements from those agencies "the
prime suspects".

CONSIDERING this, what are the reasons to trust the evidence provided by
those agencies?

6)

With all the "Red Scare" propaganda of the 60s by the CIA, FBI and the
White House, at the time where the word "communsim" meant "bad, evil,
horrible etc", without people even understanding what this is, wouldn't it
seem odd, to have a single nutcase communist to kill JFK, after JFK had
successfully negotiated with the USSR in order to solve the Cuban Missile
Crisis, by taking away the USA's intermediate range missiles from
Turkey.

There are people, amongst them also ususally objective one's, who say that
this smells "propaganda all over" and if somebody would have wanted a
setup, that would be the way to do it.

What do you say to this?

7) And.. since the topic is brought up:

What are the reasons NOT to trust the evidece provided by those powers?


Note that I have not opposed to anything. I am just asking questions.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
==== while you (Corbett) have side-stepped every question ever asked about
official evidence/testimony in the commission's 26 volumes ! ! ! !
===========================================================================
===

[bigdog]

It seems self explanatory to me but if you insist.

Suppose person named Bob committed a murder by shooting someone with his
rifle from a concealed location. Bob inadvertently leaves his fingerprints
at location the shots were fired from. He also leaves ejected shells from
his rifle at the scene. He knows he can't be seen leaving the scene with
his rifle so he leaves it behind in a hidden location. Both the police and
sheriff's deputies are investigating the crime scene. The sheriff's
deputies find the hidden rifle and the police find the spent shells and
the fingerprints at where the shots were fired from. But the sheriff's
deputies decide they want to frame Ott for the murder so after collecting
the rifle, they get a warrant to search Ott's residence and seize Ott's
rifle. The swap that rifle with the one they found at the crime scene and
claim Ott's rifle was the one they found. However the police are not
trying to frame anyone. They are honestly gathering evidence. They ask the
FBI to compare the fingerprints found at the scene to their database and
discover they belong to Bob who has a criminal record. They then try to
ballistically match the shells to Ott's rifle and of course they don't
match. There's one conflict. The fingerprints at the scene don't belong to
the owner of the rifle. That's two conflicts. In order to make the frame
work, the sheriff's department would need collusion from the cops. They
would need the cops to swap the shells they found with spent shells from
Ott's rifle. They would also need the police to submit Ott's fingerprints
for comparison rather than the ones they actually found at the crime
scene. Now ALL the evidence would point to Ott rather than Bob but to do
that, all the investigators would need to be onboard with the framing of
Ott.

In the JFK assassination, we had police, sheriff's deputies, the Secret
Service, and the US military gathering various forms of evidence. We had
the FBI as the central repository of the evidence and also analyzing the
evidence. We had two different crime labs giving second opinions about the
FBI findings. Since all the evidence gathered and analyzed pointed to
Oswald, you would need collusion from all these various investigators and
you would need to falsify not just three pieces of evidence as in my
example but 53 pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt. Does anyone really
think that is remotely possible?

>
> 2)
> Quoting you:
> "To claim that it was all fraudulent is to claim that all of these various
> agencies acted together to conceal the truth of the JFK assassination, an
> absurd proposal. "
>
>
> In your mind, is there a difference in saying that "agencies acted
> together" and "separate people acted together?"
>

Not really. To make the frame up work, you need everyone investigating it
to be on board. If one person was doing his work honestly, his findings
would conflict with what the evidence handled by those trying to frame
Oswald.

>
> 3) What do you mean by "acting together?", because it can be done in many
> different forms.
>

Again, that seems self explanatory but again I will try to make it simple.
Acting together means they were all working toward the common goal of
framing Oswald for the crime.

> 4)
> Could you be kind enough and demonstrate with an example, the following idea:
> take a piece of evidence, suppose it is falcified and then explain, how
> does it require multiple agencies to act together to conceal the truth.
>

I think the example I already gave meets that request.

> Suppose that CA399 was falsified: how would it take MULTIPLE agencies in
> order to achieve it?
>

CE399 was collected by the SS and analyzed by FBI as were the fragments
found in the limo. The weapon was found by a sheriff's deputy and turned
over to the DPD who in turn turned it over to the FBI. The bullets matched
the rifle and another crime lab verified the FBI's findings.

> 5)
> And finally:
>
> It is a pretty known and provable fact, that the CIA and the FBI had close
> connections to the mob. Both of these angencies had falsicied evidence
> before and after. Remember the Pentagon Papers?
>

There is no evidence the CIA had any involvement in the assassination. The
FBI was not working alone in gathering and analyzing evidence. You would
need massive collusion to make the framing of Oswald work and then you
would need to make sure everyone kept quiet about it for all these decades
since.

> The FBI, for example, had a deeply corrupt director, with practically a
> life long chair, with very high power, known to have ties to the
> underworld. The FBI is known for falsifying evidence from many other cases
> not related to the JFK. CIA, on multiple occasions, used the mob to
> achieve their honorable goals. In the 60's USA, corruption was blooming
> and enetering "every single home" one way or another.
>
> One COULD say that Looking at the facts, that show some of JFK's
> decisions and his way ALONE, COULD make elements from those agencies "the
> prime suspects".
>
> CONSIDERING this, what are the reasons to trust the evidence provided by
> those agencies?
>

Hoover had enough dirt on the Kennedys which made it unnecessary for him
to do something as foolish as taking part in a conspiracy to assassinate a
president.

> 6)
>
> With all the "Red Scare" propaganda of the 60s by the CIA, FBI and the
> White House, at the time where the word "communsim" meant "bad, evil,
> horrible etc", without people even understanding what this is, wouldn't it
> seem odd, to have a single nutcase communist to kill JFK, after JFK had
> successfully negotiated with the USSR in order to solve the Cuban Missile
> Crisis, by taking away the USA's intermediate range missiles from
> Turkey.
>
> There are people, amongst them also ususally objective one's, who say that
> this smells "propaganda all over" and if somebody would have wanted a
> setup, that would be the way to do it.
>
> What do you say to this?
>

I say you have an overly active imagination.

> 7) And.. since the topic is brought up:
>
> What are the reasons NOT to trust the evidece provided by those powers?
>

Damned if I know.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Thank you for answering Bigdog.

However, your answers gave me more questiions than before...
I'll try to pose those questions specifically in connection to different
parts of your answers.

"Suppose person named Bob committed a murder by shooting someone with his
rifle from a concealed location. Bob inadvertently leaves his fingerprints
at location the shots were fired from.
He also leaves ejected shells from his rifle at the scene."

QUESTION 1

And the first question already popped in:

WHY and HOW would Bob leave thingerprints at the location the shots were
fired from?

Most criminals, who have planned a murder, know how important it is NOT
TO leave inadvertently any fingerprints. Not to mention the fact that
rather commonly, in case they do it really inadvertently, those
fingerprints most certainly would not be full prints at the very least.

Not to leave ejected shells is even older knowledge than fingerprints.

I realize that you are just presenting an example, but doesn't it strike
you as "odd" that a criminal who has planned something this big, and is
not planning to be caught, would do such a thing? ______

"He knows he can't be seen leaving the scene with
his rifle so he leaves it behind in a hidden location. Both the police and
sheriff's deputies are investigating the crime scene. The sheriff's
deputies find the hidden rifle and the police find the spent shells and
the fingerprints at where the shots were fired from. But the sheriff's
deputies decide they want to frame Ott for the murder so after collecting
the rifle, they get a warrant to search Ott's residence and seize Ott's
rifle."

QUESTION 2:

All nice and good, except, what do you mean by "hidden location". There is
a difference for example, hiding the riffle under the floor, or just leaving
it between some boxes so it would be a matter of minutes to find it.

Again: why would a criminal planning to kill someone, leave the murder
weapon to be found so easily?

_______

"The swap that rifle with the one they found at the crime scene and
claim Ott's rifle was the one they found. However the police are not
trying to frame anyone. They are honestly gathering evidence. They ask the
FBI to compare the fingerprints found at the scene to their database and
discover they belong to Bob who has a criminal record. They then try to
ballistically match the shells to Ott's rifle and of course they don't
match."

QUESTION 3

You do realize that all that is needed, is the head of the FBI realize
that is useful to them not to allow the truth to come out?

What if the FBI just provides fake evidence, without even conspiring with
the Sheriff's departement?

Your example assumes that the agencies have no personal interests in this
game.

All you need, is at least one agency proving fake evidence. So the FBI
will provide the fake report about the fingerprints and say that those
fingerprints found at the crmime scene, belong to Ott. They also present
a fake ballistic's report, that shows that shells found match the gun that
belongs to Ott. They do not even have to fake it, because they, of course
have Ott's gun, that they want to test.

And the FBI has done those kinds of things many many times in history. I
am not talking about the assassination of JFK, but many other cases. FBI
has defended crooks and murderers if they feel they can use them as they
informants or collaborators. For that, FBI has faked or covered up the
evidence times and times before. I am not gonna list all the other
occasions, because that would make this post too long...

________________

"They would also need the police to submit Ott's fingerprints
for comparison rather than the ones they actually found at the crime
scene. Now ALL the evidence would point to Ott rather than Bob but to do
that, all the investigators would need to be onboard with the framing of
Ott.

In the JFK assassination, we had police, sheriff's deputies, the Secret
Service, and the US military gathering various forms of evidence. We had
the FBI as the central repository of the evidence and also analyzing the
evidence."

QUESTION 4:
Why would the Sheriff's Department choose Ott as a patsy? Why him? Why not
Andrew?

QUESTION 5:

You are listing the different labs and agencies without and therefore making
the conclusion that they must have all conspired in order to frame someone,
and then make it appear that there would be a conflict...

Do you realize that therey might NOT be a conflict at all AND do you realize
that there ARE conflicts about the very evidence the FBI has provided in
relation to the case of the asssassination of JFK.
_____

" We had two different crime labs giving second opinions about the
FBI findings. Since all the evidence gathered and analyzed pointed to
Oswald, you would need collusion from all these various investigators and
you would need to falsify not just three pieces of evidence as in my
example but 53 pieces of evidence of Oswald's guilt. "

QUESTIONS 6-9:

Again, why collusion from all of the agencies?

Again, it is clear as a day, that all you need, is only one agency having
ITS interests and providing the evidence or know-how to other agencies who
trust or pretend to trust this one agency.

Again, where do you take the idea that you need to "falsify" ALL of the
evidence and why "falsify" at all? One can interpret the evidence based on
just a few falsifications, that is also known to be done.

And finally, even if something DOES require the collusion of multiple
agencies acting together, it is far from being impossible..

It is like saying that the Sun MUST revolve around the Earth, because it
is not POSSIBLE the ALL OF THE CHURCHES were CONSPIRING against
objectivism and science; this argument, btw, WAS used by some of the
people in Medieval times.

Looking forward to your answers.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 6/18/15 5:06 PM, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> Thank you for answering Bigdog.
>
> However, your answers gave me more questiions than before...
> I'll try to pose those questions specifically in connection to different
> parts of your answers.
>
>
> "Suppose person named Bob committed a murder by shooting someone with his
> rifle from a concealed location. Bob inadvertently leaves his fingerprints
> at location the shots were fired from.
> He also leaves ejected shells from his rifle at the scene."
>
>
> QUESTION 1
>
> And the first question already popped in:
>
> WHY and HOW would Bob leave thingerprints at the location the shots were
> fired from?
>
> Most criminals, who have planned a murder, know how important it is NOT
> TO leave inadvertently any fingerprints. Not to mention the fact that
> rather commonly, in case they do it really inadvertently, those
> fingerprints most certainly would not be full prints at the very least.
>
> Not to leave ejected shells is even older knowledge than fingerprints.
>
> I realize that you are just presenting an example, but doesn't it strike
> you as "odd" that a criminal who has planned something this big, and is
> not planning to be caught, would do such a thing? ______
>

By what magic would Oswald have expected not to get caught? I think he was
absolutely amazed that he was allowed to walk out of the building.

I think he was committing suicide by cop, and when that didn't happen, he
was left without a plan.

/sandy

[bigdog]

On Thursday, June 18, 2015 at 5:06:45 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> Thank you for answering Bigdog.
>
> However, your answers gave me more questiions than before...
> I'll try to pose those questions specifically in connection to different
> parts of your answers.
>
>
> "Suppose person named Bob committed a murder by shooting someone with his
> rifle from a concealed location. Bob inadvertently leaves his fingerprints
> at location the shots were fired from.
> He also leaves ejected shells from his rifle at the scene."
>
>
> QUESTION 1
>
> And the first question already popped in:
>
> WHY and HOW would Bob leave thingerprints at the location the shots were
> fired from?

Do you really need this explained to you. People leave fingerprints on
objects they touch. Criminals don't deliberately leave their fingerprints
at a crime scene. It just happens.

>
> Most criminals, who have planned a murder, know how important it is NOT
> TO leave inadvertently any fingerprints.

Many do not which is why fingerprint evidence is often a valuable tool in
identifying and convicting criminals.

> Not to mention the fact that
> rather commonly, in case they do it really inadvertently, those
> fingerprints most certainly would not be full prints at the very least.
>

You asked for my hypothetical. It's my story and Bob left sufficient
prints to allow him to be postively identified.

> Not to leave ejected shells is even older knowledge than fingerprints.
>

You seem to be trying to change the subject. You asked for a hypothetical
to illustrate why if some of the evidence was forged it would conflict
with the genuine evidence. Now you are challenging the validity of the
evidence that was genuine in my hypothetical. I gave you a hypothetical in
which the evidence of Bob's guilt was genuine and the evidence of Ott's
guilt was forged.

> I realize that you are just presenting an example, but doesn't it strike
> you as "odd" that a criminal who has planned something this big, and is
> not planning to be caught, would do such a thing? ______
>

If criminals planned their crimes perfectly they wouldn't get caught. They
make mistakes.

>
> "He knows he can't be seen leaving the scene with
> his rifle so he leaves it behind in a hidden location. Both the police and
> sheriff's deputies are investigating the crime scene. The sheriff's
> deputies find the hidden rifle and the police find the spent shells and
> the fingerprints at where the shots were fired from. But the sheriff's
> deputies decide they want to frame Ott for the murder so after collecting
> the rifle, they get a warrant to search Ott's residence and seize Ott's
> rifle."
>
> QUESTION 2:
>
> All nice and good, except, what do you mean by "hidden location". There is
> a difference for example, hiding the riffle under the floor, or just leaving
> it between some boxes so it would be a matter of minutes to find it.
>
> Again: why would a criminal planning to kill someone, leave the murder
> weapon to be found so easily?
>

Bob would know that the rifle would eventually be found so he didn't need
a good hiding place. He just needed to buy enough time to get out of the
building.

> _______
>
> "The swap that rifle with the one they found at the crime scene and
> claim Ott's rifle was the one they found. However the police are not
> trying to frame anyone. They are honestly gathering evidence. They ask the
> FBI to compare the fingerprints found at the scene to their database and
> discover they belong to Bob who has a criminal record. They then try to
> ballistically match the shells to Ott's rifle and of course they don't
> match."
>
> QUESTION 3
>
> You do realize that all that is needed, is the head of the FBI realize
> that is useful to them not to allow the truth to come out?
>

In my example the FBI was only asked to compare the fingerprints found at
the scene to their database. They did that honestly and matched the prints
to Bob. Why do you keep trying to change the hypothetical I gave you at
your request?

> What if the FBI just provides fake evidence, without even conspiring with
> the Sheriff's departement?
>

You're changing my story again. Try dealing with the hypothetical I gave
you to illustrate why genuine evidence would conflict with forged
evidence.

> Your example assumes that the agencies have no personal interests in this
> game.
>

It's my hypothetical. I'm allowed to make those assumptions.

> All you need, is at least one agency proving fake evidence. So the FBI
> will provide the fake report about the fingerprints and say that those
> fingerprints found at the crmime scene, belong to Ott. They also present
> a fake ballistic's report, that shows that shells found match the gun that
> belongs to Ott. They do not even have to fake it, because they, of course
> have Ott's gun, that they want to test.

Now we are dealing with your hypothetical which I have no interest in
discussing.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

There are easier ways to commit suicide, mr McCroskey, for example, shoot
one's brain out threre and then after killing the president. No?

[Ott Rovgeisha]

1) QUOTE:

"Do you really need this explained to you. People leave fingerprints on
objects they touch. Criminals don't deliberately leave their fingerprints
at a crime scene. It just happens. "

///

Aww.. Let me try again: fingerprint evidence is such a common knowledge
that one who is planning an assassination would most certainly do one's
best NOT to leave any fingerprints, unless his or her fingerprints are all
over the place anyhow for a good reason.

It is strange that you yourself do not ask questions like that. Why is
that?

2) QUOTE:

"In my example the FBI was only asked to compare the fingerprints found at
the scene to their database. They did that honestly and matched the prints
to Bob. Why do you keep trying to change the hypothetical I gave you at
your request? "

///

Well that is because you are using your hypothetical as sort of proof that
in order to fake evidence, you would need overall consensus and conspiracy
from multiple agencies to make this work and therefore it is impossible. I
just challenged your claim.

So let me try again: you do realize that all you need, is someone in high
power to provide fake evidence and the other agencies just take their
evidence for granted. You most certainly do not NEED massive conspiracy
from evil people all over.

And since we are at it: considering the FBI's history of fakery,
corruption again and again and again, even to this day, what exactly makes
you trust the evidence provided by them?

[Anthony Marsh]

Where you been? Hiding under a rock?
OSwald was caught and then let go. The grassy knoll shooter was caught
and then let go.

> I think he was committing suicide by cop, and when that didn't happen,
> he was left without a plan.
>

If he was the shooter and wanted to commit suicide by cop he would have
stayed on the sixth floor and waited for the cops to raid the building.
Or taken a swing at Baker.


How come Tippit didn't shoot him? Or McDonald?

> /sandy
>

[Sandy McCroskey]

HA
How easy is that?
You ever try it?

I don't think Oswald was much in the physical-courage department.
And suddenly he found himself walking out of the building, for the
moment in the clear...

[Bud]

He committed suicide when he killed Kennedy.

[bigdog]

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 8:43:07 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> 1) QUOTE:
> "Do you really need this explained to you. People leave fingerprints on
> objects they touch. Criminals don't deliberately leave their fingerprints
> at a crime scene. It just happens. "
>
> ///
>
> Aww.. Let me try again: fingerprint evidence is such a common knowledge
> that one who is planning an assassination would most certainly do one's
> best NOT to leave any fingerprints, unless his or her fingerprints are all
> over the place anyhow for a good reason.
>
> It is strange that you yourself do not ask questions like that. Why is
> that?
>

We were discussing the hypothetical situation you asked me to give. Who
said anything about an assassination?

> 2) QUOTE:
>
> "In my example the FBI was only asked to compare the fingerprints found at
> the scene to their database. They did that honestly and matched the prints
> to Bob. Why do you keep trying to change the hypothetical I gave you at
> your request? "
>
> ///
>
> Well that is because you are using your hypothetical as sort of proof that
> in order to fake evidence, you would need overall consensus and conspiracy
> from multiple agencies to make this work and therefore it is impossible. I
> just challenged your claim.
>
> So let me try again: you do realize that all you need, is someone in high
> power to provide fake evidence and the other agencies just take their
> evidence for granted. You most certainly do not NEED massive conspiracy
> from evil people all over.
>

In my hypothetical situation, the principal agencies were the police and
the sheriff's department, the latter being the one trying to falsify
evidence. The FBI's only involvement was their fingerprint database
correctly identifying the prints found at the scene as belonging to Bob.
You keep trying to change the hypothetical which I gave you.

> And since we are at it: considering the FBI's history of fakery,
> corruption again and again and again, even to this day, what exactly makes
> you trust the evidence provided by them?

You are obviously just playing games now. You asked me to for an example
to illustrate why faked evidence would conflict with genuine evidence.
After giving you what you asked for, now you want to change the narrative.
I'm not going to play your game.

[claviger]

On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 7:43:07 PM UTC-5, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> 1) QUOTE:
> "Do you really need this explained to you. People leave fingerprints on
> objects they touch. Criminals don't deliberately leave their fingerprints
> at a crime scene. It just happens. "
>
> ///
>
> Aww.. Let me try again: fingerprint evidence is such a common knowledge
> that one who is planning an assassination would most certainly do one's
> best NOT to leave any fingerprints, unless his or her fingerprints are all
> over the place anyhow for a good reason.
>
> It is strange that you yourself do not ask questions like that. Why is
> that?

What makes you think a depressed sociopath like LHO cared about
fingerprints and empty shells? If he had nothing to live for after Marina
rejected him, why should he care about such details? His evil deed was
done and he didn't bother to bring his pistol to shoot his way out of the
building. There is no indication he had a getaway plan and his escape was
mostly dumb luck. A fast acting, slow thinking police officer allowed LHO
to slip away. When he found his way home by bus and taxi he then armed
himself for a possible escape. Had he simply paid for a movie ticket he
may have been on the loose for several days or made it to some remote
destination for months or years.

The other side of the coin is LHO was ambivalent about leaving clues for a
couple of reasons. First, he could claim he was framed. Second, he
actually wanted the world to know, especially his Marine tormentors, that
Ozzie Rabbit/Pvt Oswaldkovitch did this ambush all by himself.

LHO as "poor little patsy" is an untenable proposition from any perspective of formal logic or commonsense.

> 2) QUOTE:
>
> "In my example the FBI was only asked to compare the fingerprints found at
> the scene to their database. They did that honestly and matched the prints
> to Bob. Why do you keep trying to change the hypothetical I gave you at
> your request? "
>
> ///
>
> Well that is because you are using your hypothetical as sort of proof that
> in order to fake evidence, you would need overall consensus and conspiracy
> from multiple agencies to make this work and therefore it is impossible. I
> just challenged your claim.
>
> So let me try again: you do realize that all you need, is someone in high
> power to provide fake evidence and the other agencies just take their
> evidence for granted. You most certainly do not NEED massive conspiracy
> from evil people all over.
>
> And since we are at it: considering the FBI's history of fakery,
> corruption again and again and again, even to this day, what exactly makes
> you trust the evidence provided by them?

Please outline how all this came about and the rationale for such
complicated planning and cover up, as opposed to having one sniper make
the hit and then make him disappear.

There is a theory that LHO was prepared for this hit on a ranch in South
Texas owned by the notorious "Duke of Duval County", George Berham Parr.
The trip to Mexico City by an impostor was a cover story for LHO being
trained and practiced by Mac Wallace on one of Parr's ranches, who would
manage LHO and perhaps make him disappear to Cuba, Mexico, or an unmarked
grave.

An alternative CT places Mac Wallace inside the TSBD as part of team of
snipers including LHO who was the only one who got caught. This theory is
presented in a book titled "The Men on the Sixth Floor". IIRC, LBJ knew
nothing about this ambush. Parr planned it on his own so Johnson, his
friend and political ally, would become President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berham_Parr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_Wallace
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwallaceM.htm
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKfactor.htm
search: the men on the sixth floor

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Thus the wedding ring left behind. The shooting of Tippit. Et cetera, et
cetera.

Still, I used to be a CTer - we all have skeletons in our youthful closets
- and one of the reasons was the choice of that rifle. And that method. If
he wanted to make history - and to do so he HAD to succeed since failed
assassins are footnotes to history - then using a rifle that had been
sitting in a garage for a couple of months was pretty risky. Risky in the
sense of not succeeding. Plus, did he really know what route the motorcade
would use? What kind of shot he'd have? It was a real gamble on his part.

He had a revolver. Why not bring that to work, stand outside the TSBD and
rush towards JFK and shoot him? Much lower risk.

If he's going to die, do so in a way that maximizes success.

Using that rickety rifle in a relatively exposed position in a situation
where he didn't even know what type of shot he'd have is really rolling
the dice.

Desperate men do desperate things to be sure.

[Sandy McCroskey]

He wasn't caught. He was seen before he left the building and
momentarily stopped.
But I know that precision of language is not your strong point.
Consolation prize: deliberate imprecision certainly is.

> The grassy knoll shooter was caught
> and then let go.
>

"The grassy knoll shooter"!
HA HA HA

>> I think he was committing suicide by cop, and when that didn't happen,
>> he was left without a plan.
>>
>
> If he was the shooter and wanted to commit suicide by cop he would have
> stayed on the sixth floor and waited for the cops to raid the building.
> Or taken a swing at Baker.
>

You seem to assume that Oswald was behaving rationally.

It is, however, possible for a person to have conflicting conscious and
unconscious motivations. I think he probably did talk himself into
thinking he might get away with it. Sure, he'd just disappear for several
minutes... long enough to kill the president... stash the rifle and
reemerge and no one would be the wiser. Sure, that's the ticket! Ha.

Viewed objectively, it was a crazy plan, with a high probability of his
being caught (as he eventually was). And Oswald was a fairly bright guy,
so he couldn't have been totally ignorant of this.

So once he talks himself into sneaking in the rifle, and then he actually
manages to get into position without anyone seeing him (some part of him
was surely hoping that something would intervene to stop him) and then he
actually takes the shots (he must have been amazed at himself) and
actually kills the president (and I can't imagine how he felt then), what
could he have done with the rifle, besides what he did? He must have known
that eventually it would be figured out where the shot came from. The cops
were already surrounding the building. So he wiped off (some of) his
prints (as if that would suffice), put the weapon out of sight and hurried
downstairs.

I think Oswald's plan went only so far as seeing if he could take the
shots. He put everything he had into one impulsive, desperate act, which,
if nothing else, would get his name in the history books. After that, he
was winging it.

/sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe he just remembered that he had forgotten to kill General Walker.
And he knew that Walker was at the movie theater giving out blow jobs.

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you think the FBI faked the fingerprints?

[Ott Rovgeisha]

What do yo mean "playing games". I am asking questions, legitimate
questions in order to understand your point of view.

Why won't you answer those questions. I even provide factual background to
base my questions on. What game? Why OBVIOUSLY?

Just answwer the questions or are you chickening out?

[Anthony Marsh]

He was caught by Baker who had a gun pointed at his stomach. Baker let
him go. Baker was looking for a stranger. Why didn't Baker arrest Truly?

>> The grassy knoll shooter was caught
>> and then let go.
>>
>
> "The grassy knoll shooter"!
> HA HA HA
>
>
>>> I think he was committing suicide by cop, and when that didn't happen,
>>> he was left without a plan.
>>>
>>
>> If he was the shooter and wanted to commit suicide by cop he would have
>> stayed on the sixth floor and waited for the cops to raid the building.
>> Or taken a swing at Baker.
>>
>
> You seem to assume that Oswald was behaving rationally.
>

I don't even assume that YOU re behaving rationally.

> It is, however, possible for a person to have conflicting conscious and
> unconscious motivations. I think he probably did talk himself into
> thinking he might get away with it. Sure, he'd just disappear for
> several minutes... long enough to kill the president... stash the rifle
> and reemerge and no one would be the wiser. Sure, that's the ticket! Ha.
>
> Viewed objectively, it was a crazy plan, with a high probability of his
> being caught (as he eventually was). And Oswald was a fairly bright guy,
> so he couldn't have been totally ignorant of this.
>

He was caught and then let go.

> So once he talks himself into sneaking in the rifle, and then he
> actually manages to get into position without anyone seeing him (some
> part of him was surely hoping that something would intervene to stop
> him) and then he actually takes the shots (he must have been amazed at
> himself) and actually kills the president (and I can't imagine how he
> felt then), what could he have done with the rifle, besides what he did?
> He must have known that eventually it would be figured out where the
> shot came from. The cops were already surrounding the building. So he
> wiped off (some of) his prints (as if that would suffice), put the
> weapon out of sight and hurried downstairs.
>

So now you admit that his prints weren't found on the rifle because he
wiped them off. You need to be ex-communicated for breaking rank.

> I think Oswald's plan went only so far as seeing if he could take the
> shots. He put everything he had into one impulsive, desperate act,
> which, if nothing else, would get his name in the history books. After
> that, he was winging it.
>

Shouldn't his name already be in the history books for shooting Walker?
You never think through the implications of your phony arguments.

> /sandy

[Anthony Marsh]

It's fun to see the way the twisted WC defenders minds work. If they do
something they are Gods. If Oswald does the same thing it proves he is
the killer.

> Still, I used to be a CTer - we all have skeletons in our youthful closets
> - and one of the reasons was the choice of that rifle. And that method. If
> he wanted to make history - and to do so he HAD to succeed since failed
> assassins are footnotes to history - then using a rifle that had been
> sitting in a garage for a couple of months was pretty risky. Risky in the
> sense of not succeeding. Plus, did he really know what route the motorcade
> would use? What kind of shot he'd have? It was a real gamble on his part.
>

I see you know nothing about rifles. And nothing about the evidence in
this case. You don't know that it was sitting in a garage for a couple
of months. It just sounds dramatic to you so you blab it out.

> He had a revolver. Why not bring that to work, stand outside the TSBD and
> rush towards JFK and shoot him? Much lower risk.
>

We already discussed this before. Not a good plan.
How well did Sarah Jane Moore do at 40 feet?

> If he's going to die, do so in a way that maximizes success.
>

Suicide vest? You don't even remember the attempt with dynamite in the
car.

> Using that rickety rifle in a relatively exposed position in a situation
> where he didn't even know what type of shot he'd have is really rolling
> the dice.
>

Naughty, naughty. As a WC defender now you have to say the Carcano was
in perfect condition.

[bigdog]

No you haven't. You asked me to provide a hypothetical situation to
illustrate why if only some of the evidence was fraudulent it would
conflict with the legitimate evidence. After I did that you tried to move
the goalposts by inserting factors that weren't part of the hypothetical I
provided you. You want to throw a whole bunch of "what ifs" into the
equation. I'm not playing that game with you.

> Why won't you answer those questions. I even provide factual background to
> base my questions on. What game? Why OBVIOUSLY?
>
> Just answwer the questions or are you chickening out?

No, Bob, I'm not chickening out.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

It's clearly obvious how you look at this: (1) the FBI faked evidence; (2)
there was evidence of Oswald's guilt; therefore (3) the FBI faked the
evidence.

There is no amount of explanation showing how that is wrong that you will
accept.

Whatever evidence is produced of Oswald's culpability is, for you, evidence
that he was innocent.

You cannot explain how this was done, who did it, why, where, when; you
already assumed they did and you argue from there.

You're welcome, of course, to believe whatever you want. But belief isn't
enough.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/21/2015 9:53 PM, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

No, you aren't. You are engaging in personal attacks in violation of the
rules.

> Why won't you answer those questions. I even provide factual background to
> base my questions on. What game? Why OBVIOUSLY?
>

Why won't YOU answer MY questions? Because an honest answer would reveal
what you are.

> Just answwer the questions or are you chickening out?
>

That's it, prove that you a bully.

[Sandy McCroskey]

How would you know anyway?

>> It is, however, possible for a person to have conflicting conscious and
>> unconscious motivations. I think he probably did talk himself into
>> thinking he might get away with it. Sure, he'd just disappear for
>> several minutes... long enough to kill the president... stash the rifle
>> and reemerge and no one would be the wiser. Sure, that's the ticket! Ha.
>>
>> Viewed objectively, it was a crazy plan, with a high probability of his
>> being caught (as he eventually was). And Oswald was a fairly bright guy,
>> so he couldn't have been totally ignorant of this.
>>
>
> He was caught and then let go.
>

No, he wasn't caught. "Aha! We've got you!" It was more like, "Who is
this?" "Oh, he's OK." "Fine."

>> So once he talks himself into sneaking in the rifle, and then he
>> actually manages to get into position without anyone seeing him (some
>> part of him was surely hoping that something would intervene to stop
>> him) and then he actually takes the shots (he must have been amazed at
>> himself) and actually kills the president (and I can't imagine how he
>> felt then), what could he have done with the rifle, besides what he did?
>> He must have known that eventually it would be figured out where the
>> shot came from. The cops were already surrounding the building. So he
>> wiped off (some of) his prints (as if that would suffice), put the
>> weapon out of sight and hurried downstairs.
>>
>
> So now you admit that his prints weren't found on the rifle because he
> wiped them off. You need to be ex-communicated for breaking rank.
>

No idea what you mean here. I was obviously speculating. We don't know
if he took the time to wipe any of his prints off, but if he did he
missed the palm print on the barrel and a fingerprint on the trigger guard.

>> I think Oswald's plan went only so far as seeing if he could take the
>> shots. He put everything he had into one impulsive, desperate act,
>> which, if nothing else, would get his name in the history books. After
>> that, he was winging it.
>>
>
> Shouldn't his name already be in the history books for shooting Walker?

Excuse me? He didn't shoot Walker.
Nobody (but his wife) knew he even shot *at* Walker until after he shot
the Prez.
Walker was small fry. If Oswald had killed Walker, his name would have
been in some specialized history books, and maybe the yearbooks for
1963, but it would not have been a matter of much national significance.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Bigdog, I have asked some extra questions, to which you have not answered.
How about commenting on the idea, that your example about how a cover-up
would not be possible, can be easily challenged.

You stated that I am changing a subject, because this is a hypothetical
issue. I do not follow the logic?

One other thing: in a bizarre way you really are right: well there IS
evidence of dishonesty in the JFK case, so in a way: cover-ups really ARE
hard to be organized too successfully.

[Anthony Marsh]

If he had killed Walker, wouldn't that be enough to be famous?

[Anthony Marsh]

So your idea is that there was evidence of Oswald's guilt; therefore the
FBI faked the> evidence. How's that work?

> There is no amount of explanation showing how that is wrong that you will
> accept.
>
> Whatever evidence is produced of Oswald's culpability is, for you, evidence
> that he was innocent.
>
> You cannot explain how this was done, who did it, why, where, when; you
> already assumed they did and you argue from there.
>

The mere fact that you say no one would use Oswald in a conspiracy
proves his innocence.

[Jason Burke]

I'm not following this too closely, but I seem to see a couple of extra
commas in this request.

Odd.

[OHLeeRedux]

Ott Rovgeisha

http://www.iplocation.net/hide-ip-address

[bigdog]

I've explained it to you once. If you didn't understand the first time
what reason would I have to expect you to understand the second time I
explain it to you.

[OHLeeRedux]

Jason Burke
- hide quoted text -

On 6/23/2015 2:27 PM, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

> Bigdog, I have asked some extra questions, to which you have not answered.
> How about commenting on the idea, that your example about how a cover-up
> would not be possible, can be easily challenged.
>
> You stated that I am changing a subject, because this is a hypothetical
> issue. I do not follow the logic?
>
> One other thing: in a bizarre way you really are right: well there IS
> evidence of dishonesty in the JFK case, so in a way: cover-ups really ARE
> hard to be organized too successfully.
>

I'm not following this too closely, but I seem to see a couple of extra
commas in this request.

Odd.

Absolutely. An unnecessary comma before the word "that." Seems like I've
seen that before.

Must be a virus going around.

[Sandy McCroskey]

But he didn't, so what does that have do with anything?

[Sandy McCroskey]

That's sure goofy, Marsh.

[bigdog]

Probably not. The only reason any of us even know who Walker was is
because LHO took a shot at him. Had Oswald been more accurate with his
shot, it would have been a national story for one news cycle, a local
story for a few weeks. Oswald probably would have gotten away with it and
who knows whether he would have still gone after JFK when given the
opportunity. We can only speculate on what might have been.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

GLENDOWER: I can call Spirits from the vasty Deep.

HOTSPUR: Why, so can I, or so can any man. But will they come when you do
call for them?

Anyone can claim that the evidence against "X" was faked or planted.

You have to prove that it was and that "X" was innocent.

Making the claim - calling the Spirits - isn't enough.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

"
I've explained it to you once. If you didn't understand the first time
what reason would I have to expect you to understand the second time I
explain it to you. "

OK, do YOU know, what Dunning-Kruger effect is?

Just humour me and try again please, honestly, not the only one, who feels
that you did not actually answer my questions...

[Anthony Marsh]

So Walker wasn't in the papers before the JFK assassination?
Was Jack Ruby? Trick question.

[bigdog]

I don't give a shit about your feelings.

[bigdog]

I would wager that of the people who even know who Walker is, 99+% know of
him only because Oswald took a shot at him. I would be in that 99%.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Actually, why would he hit the woden FRAME. Walker was a sitting
target...That is bizarre. As if it was a deliberate miss.

Why not just knock at the door and ask: mr Walker? -yes? -BANG BANG!

I mean..anybody asking those questions themselves?

[Bud]

People have been second-guessing Oswald`s actions for decades. Just a
silly hobby.

[OHLeeRedux]

Ott Rovgeisha
- show quoted text -

Actually, why would he hit the woden FRAME. Walker was a sitting
target...That is bizarre. As if it was a deliberate miss.

Why not just knock at the door and ask: mr Walker? -yes? -BANG BANG!

I mean..anybody asking those questions themselves?

Why not just put a voodoo curse on Walker, or hire zombies to eat his
brains?

Makes about as much sense as your proposal.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 6/27/15 10:20 PM, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

Not all. The thin wooden strip was not *visible* from a short distance
away.

> Why not just knock at the door and ask: mr Walker? -yes? -BANG BANG!
>

Oh, that's how you would have done it, eh?
Well, if the victim survived, he could ID you.
Could you even be sure Walker was the only person in the house and would
be the one to answer the door?
And you'd quite possibly be visible to people in nearby houses.
And to the crowd that night at the church right next door.
Warren Commission Report, pg. 187:
"[Marina] testified that her husband had postponed his attempt to kill
Walker until that Wednesday because he had heard that there was going to
be a gathering at the church next door to Walker's house on that
evening. He indicated that he wanted more people in the vicinity at the
time of the attempt so that his arrival and his departure would not
attract great attention."

Was Oswald just cowardly... or prudent?

In any case, it's no more an argument against Oswald having done this than
it is against *anyone* having done it. Do you simply not believe that
someone shot at Walker from the woods?

> I mean..anybody asking those questions themselves?
>

Don't think so! But I think I know why.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, June 27, 2015 at 10:20:36 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

Yes, those questions have been asked and answered. This the second time in
a week I have found myself agreeing with Marsh. I hope it isn't habit
forming.

Whether Oswald used the scope or the fixed sights, they were set for a far
greater distance than Oswald was trying to shoot Walker from. Shooting
from much shorter distance than what your sights are set at will cause you
to aim high because the bullet is not going to arc as much as it would for
the distance the sights are set at. If Walker's head was just below the
frame it would not be at all surprising that Oswald would hit that frame
if he put the sights or the crosshairs on Walker's head. His rifle would
have been pointing above the aiming point.

[Anthony Marsh]

It was a natural defect of his rifle. You've never shot a rifle.

> Why not just knock at the door and ask: mr Walker? -yes? -BANG BANG!
>

Because Walker had a bodyguard.

> I mean..anybody asking those questions themselves?
>

Asked and answered hundreds of times before.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

I think you do. For instance, if I'd drop dead right now, I bet there
would be a little tiny smile on your face. Although I am probably decades
younger than you are. That is actually interesting. One would expect older
to be wiser... hm...

[Ott Rovgeisha]

It funny, that nobody has actually answered the question this thread is
about.

" what are the reasons to trust the evidence provided by
the FBI, WC or DPD" .

[bigdog]

On Sunday, June 28, 2015 at 5:53:57 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>
> People have been second-guessing Oswald`s actions for decades. Just a
> silly hobby.

It had to suck being Oswald. There was only one thing in his entire life
he succeeded at and still so many people refuse to give him credit for it.

[bigdog]

Oswald was kind of new at the assassination thing and was getting on the
job training. He screwed up his first attempt but apparently learned
enough to get the job done on his second. Apparently the most important
lesson he learned was to not rely on one shot to get the job done.

[bigdog]

Conspiracy hobbyists expect lots of silly things. They actually expect
they are someday going to find real evidence of a conspiracy.

[Sandy McCroskey]

It's hilarious that you can say that.
I distinctly recall it being answered very well.

I gotta say, this reminds me of someone else...

[bigdog]

One more thing you have in common with Bob. He keeps insisting nobody
answers his questions when in fact he just doesn't like the answers given
so he keeps fishing for more.

[OHLeeRedux]

Ott Rovgeisha

And again -- What are your reasons for not trusting them?

Your premise. Your burden of proof.

[Bud]

I think the difference in circumstances impacted the way he carried out
the second attempt also. With the Walker attempt I think he felt he could
kill Walker and maybe get away with it. I don`t think he thought he would
ever get clear of the TSBD a free man. There were just too many cops, too
public, not the night time hit and run he planned for Walker. He may as
well stay and take as many shots as he could because win, lose or draw he
was spending the rest of his life in jail at best.

[Bud]

On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 11:04:59 AM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

What were the reasons that many people in all three of those groups
voted for Kennedy?

[BT George]

Yep. Must be hell in Hell not even getting credit for your greatest
misdeeds!

[Anthony Marsh]

From the woods? Which woods? Show me. Is that the famous Vienna Woods?
He shot from behind a fence. It's called concealment. You know, like the
shot from the grassy knoll. Not out in the open.

[Jason Burke]

BD has won the internet for the week.

And it's only Monday.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Come on, you cannot SERIOUSLY think that I am Bob.. That is...sick for the
lack of a better word.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Why are you so aggressive about this thing? Just give me your point of
view, not by cheating, but specifically, by ansering to the specific
question.

What are you all so shaked up about? What's wrong with people...

[Ott Rovgeisha]

teisipäev, 30. juuni 2015 4:09.14 UTC+3 kirjutas OHLeeRedux:

1) I didn't say I did not trust them. I asked a question.
2) I did give you the reasons NOT to trust, I explain the premise of my
question in the first post, if I am not mistaken.

What does that change in your answer? What?

[Ott Rovgeisha]

That's your answer? I wonder what psychologists would say about that.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

"
It's hilarious that you can say that.
I distinctly recall it being answered very well.
I gotta say, this reminds me of someone else..."

Mr McCroskey, that should remind you of any person, who tries to get
someone's point of view, but instead, gets a vague generalized text full
of information that is loosely connected to the original question.

Upon asking a follow-up question, one gets bizarre answers that show that
there was no intent to answer specifically...

Mr McCroskey, is your reach of mind and experience really so narrow, that
you HONESTLY believe that only one or two people in the word would repeat
the question that one did not get a specific and direct answer to?

Any good journalist does so, at least should., if one still wants to call
oneself a journalist.

So what's with that bizarre post?

Do YOU want to answer the original question?

Or you are just hanging here at the forum, sort of not having a relevant
point of view on those issues?

Try tackle instead of cackle...Tackle the subject, that is.

You probably are considerably older than me.. One would expect older and
wiser. No?

[bigdog]

Thank you. Why until you see what I come up with after I eat my Wheaties.

[Sandy McCroskey]

What was behind the house, besides a fence? Trees and the bushes, like
you would expect out there, and as mentioned a few places here:
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/walker_e.htm

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 1:00:25 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> teisipäev, 30. juuni 2015 5:58.02 UTC+3 kirjutas Bud:
> > On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 11:04:59 AM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> > > It funny, that nobody has actually answered the question this thread is
> > > about.
> > >
> > > " what are the reasons to trust the evidence provided by
> > > the FBI, WC or DPD" .
> >
> > What were the reasons that many people in all three of those groups
> > voted for Kennedy?
>
> That's your answer?

Yes, and it went over your head. Lets fire another over your head,
people aren`t fish, they don`t travel in schools. Heres another thing for
you ponder, why did they trust the crowds not to surge forward and tear
everyone in the limo into little pieces?

> I wonder what psychologists would say about that.

Ask them.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 12:59:43 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> teisipäev, 30. juuni 2015 4:09.14 UTC+3 kirjutas OHLeeRedux:
> > Ott Rovgeisha
> > It funny, that nobody has actually answered the question this thread is
> > about.
> >
> > " what are the reasons to trust the evidence provided by
> > the FBI, WC or DPD" .
> >
> >
> >
> > And again -- What are your reasons for not trusting them?
> >
> > Your premise. Your burden of proof.
>
> Why are you so aggressive about this thing?

He made a point. If you have one, state it and support it.

[Bud]

You are mistaken, you didn`t outline reasons not to trust those groups
in your first post. Bob Harris did chime in with reasons he felt the FBI
shouldn`t be trusted, so maybe that is what you were thinking of.

[bigdog]

I can think that. I'm just not allowed to say it.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 6/30/15 3:16 PM, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> "
> It's hilarious that you can say that.
> I distinctly recall it being answered very well.
> I gotta say, this reminds me of someone else..."
>
> Mr McCroskey, that should remind you of any person, who tries to get
> someone's point of view, but instead, gets a vague generalized text full
> of information that is loosely connected to the original question.
>
> Upon asking a follow-up question, one gets bizarre answers that show that
> there was no intent to answer specifically...
>
> Mr McCroskey, is your reach of mind and experience really so narrow, that
> you HONESTLY believe that only one or two people in the word would repeat
> the question that one did not get a specific and direct answer to?

You were given a specific and direct answer.

Why the gratuitous insults?

Why don't you set an example of the kind of behavior you claim you would
like to see here, instead of doing the exact opposite?

[OHLeeRedux]

Ott Rovgeisha

He replied to your question, as have others. The problem is that you don't
like the answers you received. That is because you are trying to corral
people's responses into your narrow, predetermined agenda. You are trying
to direct the discourse of others so that they say what you want them to
say; that is, either to agree with you, or to answer in a way that you
have anticipated, creating a straw man for you to knock down and then
pretend it supports your pet theory.

Sorry that didn't work out for you.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 3:16:35 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> "
> It's hilarious that you can say that.
> I distinctly recall it being answered very well.
> I gotta say, this reminds me of someone else..."
>
> Mr McCroskey, that should remind you of any person, who tries to get
> someone's point of view, but instead, gets a vague generalized text full
> of information that is loosely connected to the original question.
>
> Upon asking a follow-up question, one gets bizarre answers that show that
> there was no intent to answer specifically...
>
> Mr McCroskey, is your reach of mind and experience really so narrow, that
> you HONESTLY believe that only one or two people in the word would repeat
> the question that one did not get a specific and direct answer to?
>
> Any good journalist does so, at least should., if one still wants to call
> oneself a journalist.
>
> So what's with that bizarre post?
>
> Do YOU want to answer the original question?

The question is what we call in America call a bullshit question. It
shows that you need to be taken by the hand and taught how to think
critically. There have been cases where doctors and especially nurses have
killed dozens of people, do you trust your doctor? If your toilet is broke
and you call a plumber, do you trust him to fix it? Firemen have been
known to burn down buildings, if your house was on fire would you trust
them to come put it out? You can trust people to do their jobs up until
they show themselves to be untrustworthy. On an individual basis, implying
that all the members of a certain group are untrustworthy is the sort of
intellectual laziness practiced by conspiracy hobbyist because their ideas
aren`t valid.

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why didn't he keep the rifle and shoot his way out?
Didn't you read the note he wrote to Marina before he shot at Walker?

[Ott Rovgeisha]

"He replied to your question, as have others. The problem is that you don't
like the answers you received. That is because you are trying to corral
people's responses into your narrow, predetermined agenda. You are trying
to direct the discourse of others so that they say what you want them to
say; that is, either to agree with you, or to answer in a way that you
have anticipated, creating a straw man for you to knock down and then
pretend it supports your pet theory. "

You were doing OK untill you reached the "your agenda" part.

What an interesting accusation, so profound and extreme. I once met a
psychologist who said that a person making such extreme claims towards
another person without bringing on any basis of his accusations are
ususally suffering from a variation of what is sometimes called a reverse
mirror neuron effect: a person is actually talking about himsself/herself.

It is actually logical: "if I would do it, then most certainly the others
could do it" is the message that can easily dominate our brains.

You are right: I don't like vague answers and I do not like the tendency
of a person not to feel responsibility for his or her answers: that is not
even trying to explain the contradictions that are inbedded in the answer.

Yes I don't like. Nobody likes it. The only thing is: there is a
considerable amount of people, who don't like it themselves, but at the
same time DOING the very same thing.

It is sad, but true.

Regards.

[Ott Rovgeisha]

Please try to structurize your text: paragraphs, more space, more logical
steps, less long sentences etc. It would be easier to follow.

This is not an insult, just a proposition, because I know a few people,
who automatically won't read such a text.

[bigdog]

With one bullet? Who do you think he was? Barney Fife?

> Didn't you read the note he wrote to Marina before he shot at Walker?

Yes, he thought there was a good chance he might not come home. When he
decided to shoot JFK, he probably thought there was no chance.

[Bud]

Because he wasn`t looking to rack up a body count. He would have rather
not have had to kill Tippit. The people he decided to kill were political
figures. Walker was his first intended target. Failing that he decided to
take advantage of the target of opportunity that dropped in his lap.
Succeeding there and unexpectedly getting free of the building and knowing
his time as a free man was short, he decided to take another crack at
Walker. It all makes sense in a way that tortured hobbyist ideas never do.

> Didn't you read the note he wrote to Marina before he shot at Walker?

Has what to do with what? Are you struggling with the distinction
between thinking he could get away with killing and Walker and thinking it
was possible he might not?

[OHLeeRedux]

Ott Rovgeisha

"He replied to your question, as have others. The problem is that you don't
like the answers you received. That is because you are trying to corral
people's responses into your narrow, predetermined agenda. You are trying
to direct the discourse of others so that they say what you want them to
say; that is, either to agree with you, or to answer in a way that you
have anticipated, creating a straw man for you to knock down and then
pretend it supports your pet theory. "

You were doing OK untill you reached the "your agenda" part.

What an interesting accusation, so profound and extreme. I once met a
psychologist who said that a person making such extreme claims towards
another person without bringing on any basis of his accusations are
ususally suffering from a variation of what is sometimes called a reverse
mirror neuron effect: a person is actually talking about himsself/herself.

It is actually logical: "if I would do it, then most certainly the others
could do it" is the message that can easily dominate our brains.

Then you must be talking about yourself as well. Putting a mirror up to a
mirror.

Actually, neuron mirroring is not something a person "suffers from." It is
an adaptation that allows social animals to develop theory of mind, which
helps them to infer the intentions of others. Unless one is autistic or
brain damaged, we all do it.

Thanks for playing, though. We have some nice consolation prizes for you.

[Bud]

<snicker> Would you like me to use smaller words?

> It would be easier to follow.

I doubt you missed the point I made, it wasn`t that confused or hidden.

> This is not an insult, just a proposition, because I know a few people,
> who automatically won't read such a text.

I`ll stop reading your responses if you keep spinning off onto a tangent
instead of addressing the matters that you brought up that are being
discussed.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at 2:18:10 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> "He replied to your question, as have others. The problem is that you don't
> like the answers you received. That is because you are trying to corral
> people's responses into your narrow, predetermined agenda. You are trying
> to direct the discourse of others so that they say what you want them to
> say; that is, either to agree with you, or to answer in a way that you
> have anticipated, creating a straw man for you to knock down and then
> pretend it supports your pet theory. "
>
> You were doing OK untill you reached the "your agenda" part.
>
> What an interesting accusation, so profound and extreme. I once met a
> psychologist who said that a person making such extreme claims towards
> another person without bringing on any basis of his accusations are
> ususally suffering from a variation of what is sometimes called a reverse
> mirror neuron effect: a person is actually talking about himsself/herself.

I think you`ve hit on Bob Harris`s problem. Run and tell him.

> It is actually logical: "if I would do it, then most certainly the others
> could do it" is the message that can easily dominate our brains.
>
> You are right: I don't like vague answers and I do not like the tendency
> of a person not to feel responsibility for his or her answers: that is not
> even trying to explain the contradictions that are inbedded in the answer.

You were running from the implications of your question.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/30/2015 9:46 PM, OHLeeRedux wrote:
> Ott Rovgeisha
> "
> It's hilarious that you can say that.
> I distinctly recall it being answered very well.
> I gotta say, this reminds me of someone else..."
>
> Mr McCroskey, that should remind you of any person, who tries to get
> someone's point of view, but instead, gets a vague generalized text full
> of information that is loosely connected to the original question.
>
> Upon asking a follow-up question, one gets bizarre answers that show that
> there was no intent to answer specifically...
>
> Mr McCroskey, is your reach of mind and experience really so narrow, that
> you HONESTLY believe that only one or two people in the word would repeat
> the question that one did not get a specific and direct answer to?
>
> Any good journalist does so, at least should., if one still wants to call
> oneself a journalist.
>

But he's not a journalist.

> So what's with that bizarre post?
>

Anything to attack.

> Do YOU want to answer the original question?
>

More likely to see the ice caps melt.

> Or you are just hanging here at the forum, sort of not having a relevant
> point of view on those issues?
>

Well, it's a nasty job, but someone has to do it.

> Try tackle instead of cackle...Tackle the subject, that is.
>
> You probably are considerably older than me.. One would expect older and
> wiser. No?
>

No.

>
>
> He replied to your question, as have others. The problem is that you don't
> like the answers you received. That is because you are trying to corral
> people's responses into your narrow, predetermined agenda. You are trying
> to direct the discourse of others so that they say what you want them to
> say; that is, either to agree with you, or to answer in a way that you
> have anticipated, creating a straw man for you to knock down and then
> pretend it supports your pet theory.
>

He is trying to force people to say what he wants to hear.

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 10:57:36 AM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

> > p=FChap=E4ev, 28. juuni 2015 3:32.24 UTC+3 kirjutas bigdog:
> > > On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 10:59:37 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> > > > "
> > > > I've explained it to you once. If you didn't understand the first

> > > > tim=
> e=20

> > > > what reason would I have to expect you to understand the second

> > > > time =
> I=20
> > > > explain it to you. "
> > > >=20

> > > > OK, do YOU know, what Dunning-Kruger effect is?

> > > > =20

> > > > Just humour me and try again please, honestly, not the only one,

> > > > who =
> feels=20

> > > > that you did not actually answer my questions...

> > >=20

> > > I don't give a shit about your feelings.

> >=20

> > I think you do. For instance, if I'd drop dead right now, I bet

> > there=20 would be a little tiny smile on your face. Although I am
> > probably decades=
> =20

> > younger than you are. That is actually interesting. One would expect

> > olde=
> r=20

> > to be wiser... hm...
>
> Conspiracy hobbyists expect lots of silly things. They actually expect
> they are someday going to find real evidence of a conspiracy.

===========================================================================
===== the 26 volumes that you never read prove that "the only provable
crimes committed in dallas on 11/22/63 were those committed by the
authorities ! ! ! see>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
===========================================================================
=

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 11:04:59 AM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:
> > It funny, that nobody has actually answered the question this thread is
> > about.
> >
> > " what are the reasons to trust the evidence provided by
> > the FBI, WC or DPD" .
>
> One more thing you have in common with Bob. He keeps insisting nobody
> answers his questions when in fact he just doesn't like the answers given
> so he keeps fishing for more.

===========================================================================
====== Corbett has been running from this one for two years
why was Oswald and, the FPCC HOUSED AT 3126 HARLENDALE AVENUE IN DALLAS
AKLONG WITH SEVERAL CIA SPSORED ANTI-CASTRO CUBAN ORGANIZATIONS ? ? SEE>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/3126%20%20HARLENDALE.htm
===========================================================================
=====

[tom...@cox.net]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 10:26:25 AM UTC-4, Jason Burke wrote:
> > On 6/29/2015 4:12 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 29, 2015 at 10:57:36 AM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha wrote:

> > >> p=FChap=E4ev, 28. juuni 2015 3:32.24 UTC+3 kirjutas bigdog:
> > >>> On Thursday, June 25, 2015 at 10:59:37 PM UTC-4, Ott Rovgeisha
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>> "
> > >>>> I've explained it to you once. If you didn't understand the first

> > >>>> ti=

> me
> > >>>> what reason would I have to expect you to understand the second

> > >>>> time=

> I
> > >>>> explain it to you. "
> > >>>>
> > >>>> OK, do YOU know, what Dunning-Kruger effect is?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Just humour me and try again please, honestly, not the only one,

> > >>>> who=

> feels
> > >>>> that you did not actually answer my questions...
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't give a shit about your feelings.
> > >>
> > >> I think you do. For instance, if I'd drop dead right now, I bet
> > >> there would be a little tiny smile on your face. Although I am

> > >> probably deca=

> des
> > >> younger than you are. That is actually interesting. One would expect

> > >> o=

> lder
> > >> to be wiser... hm...
> > >
> > > Conspiracy hobbyists expect lots of silly things. They actually
> > > expect they are someday going to find real evidence of a conspiracy.
> > >
> > >

> >=20

> > BD has won the internet for the week.

> >=20

> > And it's only Monday.
>
> Thank you. Why until you see what I come up with after I eat my Wheaties.

===========================================================================
===== WE ALREADY KNOW THAT YOU WILL NEVER ADDRESS THE CRIMES COMMITTED BY
THE AUTHORITIES
===========================================================================
==== SEE>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Just explain that you are trying to HELP him, not criticize him. Most of
us have been around long enough to see the same people making the same
mistakes over and over. But a couple of Grammar Nazis want to point out
any errors to try to gain the moral highground. You know the type. The
ones who can see the smallest defect, but can't see the mote in their
own eyes.