Questions Never Answered By Conspiracy Theorists

[David Von Pein]

JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about
fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F.
Kennedy's 1963 assassination. But conspiracists aren't so good at coming
up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that
lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:

1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who
hid those bullets? When did they hide them?

2.) What other weapons were used?

3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the
murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano
bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to
eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that
fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky
plotters?

4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces
it? And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail
to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's
back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets? And where did
those two bullets go? If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy
should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he
was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?

5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large
exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that
almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear
head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs
and X-rays)?

6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald, including every scrap
of the physical evidence in the whole case, if LHO was really innocent? A
patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his
co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of
saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his
totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment
that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA,
etc.?

7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63
(as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and
many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators
try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas'
Dealey Plaza? Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they
merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes
of shooting the President from so many different angles?

8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey
Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a
"patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him
(and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think
Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all
boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the
President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never
committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?

David Von Pein
April 2008
May 2012

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/MpbKunKQCIQ/RUdPhSlcFTwJ

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/5/2017 10:00 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about
> fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F.
> Kennedy's 1963 assassination. But conspiracists aren't so good at coming
> up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that
> lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:
>

The WC defenders are pretty good at proposing silly theories, but they
can't come up with answers when we ask them questions:

> 1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who
> hid those bullets? When did they hide them?
>

Where did the miss go?

> 2.) What other weapons were used?
>

Another Carcano. On the grassy knoll.

> 3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the
> murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano
> bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to
> eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that
> fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky
> plotters?
>

Explosive bullet.
Show me the third bullet you say Oswald fired. Did it just evaporate in
mid-air?

> 4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces
> it? And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail

The Modified Single-Bullet Theory (@copyright 1998 Anthony Marsh)

> to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's
> back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets? And where did

Double stoppage? WHat's that? Are you talking about the kook's short
shot theory?

> those two bullets go? If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy
> should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he
> was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?
>

Why should there still be bullets in JFK's body? Humes said one was
squeezed out during heart massage at Parkland and the other was an ice
bullet which melted. How dare you call Humes a liar!

> 5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large
> exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that

There is no wound on the back of the head. You've been reading too many
conspiracy books.

> almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear

Almost all? Nice smear tactic. Are YOU going to defend Free Frank Warner?

> head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs
> and X-rays)?
>

YOU have not seen ALL the autopsy photos and X-rays.

> 6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald, including every scrap
> of the physical evidence in the whole case, if LHO was really innocent? A

Well, maybe because he was framed. Or maybe because he was part of a
conspiracy and left to take the fall while the others partied at the
Tropicana.

> patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his
> co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of

AH, he dead.

> saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his
> totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment
> that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA,
> etc.?
>

You don't know whom Oswald meant when he said "they."

> 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63
> (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and
> many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators
> try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas'
> Dealey Plaza? Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they
> merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes
> of shooting the President from so many different angles?
>

Maybe because the grassy knoll shooter did not start shooting immediately
and only took the kill shot when he realized that Oswald's rifle jammed.
Why do many conspiracies use multiple shooters? Why were there 2 guns in
St. Peter's Square? Are you old enough to remember the assassination of
Archduke Ferdinand? How many weapons did they have? How many assassins?

> 8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey
> Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a
> "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him

Maybe he didn't know exactly who set him up.

> (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think
> Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all

Which poll did you get that frome? CBS? Gallup?

> boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the
> President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never
> committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?
>

Oswald kiled Tippit.

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about
> fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F.
> Kennedy's 1963 assassination. But conspiracists aren't so good at coming
> up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that
> lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:
>
> 1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who
> hid those bullets? When did they hide them?

The only whole bullet that was recovered, was the one that
fell from Connally's stretcher. It was delivered by officer
Nolan to the DPD and they gave it to the FBI.

It obviously, did not come from Oswald's rifle, which is why
the FBI never reported it.

I don't know what time of day, they hid them.

>
> 2.) What other weapons were used?

Only the killers could answer that, and probably the FBI
people who examined the Connally bullet.

>
> 3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the
> murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano
> bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to
> eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that
> fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky
> plotters?

The only recovered bullet that we know of, was undoubtedly
large enough to be tested, and was.

>
> 4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces
> it? And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail
> to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's
> back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets? And where did
> those two bullets go? If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy
> should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he
> was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?

One bullet probably did go through both men, but asking where
missing bullets are, is a bogus question, since the FBI's
stated agenda was to insure that the public didn't realize
that Oswald had accomplices.

To do that, they had to dispose of all non-Oswald bullets.

>
> 5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large
> exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that
> almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear
> head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs
> and X-rays)?

There was massive damage to the back of JFK's head.

http://jfkhistory.com/337.jpg

You need to read this article and educate yourself, David. It
cites Dr. Boswell who explains why the BOH damage was not
visible in some photos.

http://jfkhistory.com/LastShot2/BOHDamage.html

(quoting Boswell)

A. There was a big wound sort of transverse up like this from
left posterior to right anterior. The scalp was separated,
but it was folded over, and you could fold the scalp over and
almost hide the wound. When you lifted the scalp up, you
could really lay it back posteriorally, and there was a lot
of bone still attached to the scalp but detached from the
remainder of the skull. And I think these parts back here
probably reflect that.

Q. Dr. Boswell, I'm sorry to jump in here, but I just want to
make sure that the record is going to be clear here. And we
can come back to this, and I want you to explain it the best
you can. But would it be fair to say first that the diagram
that we're talking about is a drawing of the skull of
President Kennedy as seen from the top? Would that be fair?

A. Yes.

MR. GUNN: I'd like to ask the reporter if he could read back
Dr. Boswell's last answer with regard to the transiting and
the direction. When you hear this, I would like you to think
if this is what you meant to say. I may have heard it
differently from what you said, and I just want to make sure
we're all on the same page.

[The pertinent portion of the record, as recorded, was read
by the reporter.]

BY MR. GUNN:

Q. Dr. Boswell, you've just had an opportunity to hear your
prior answer read back. Was it correct that there was a wound
that went from the left posterior to the right anterior? Is
that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?

A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the
right frontal area...

>
> 6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald, including every scrap
> of the physical evidence in the whole case, if LHO was >really innocent?

He wasn't innocent.

A
> patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his
> co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of
> saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his
> totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment
> that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA,
> etc.?
>
> 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63
> (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and
> many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators
> try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas'
> Dealey Plaza? Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they
> merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes
> of shooting the President from so many different angles?

Three or four shooters have a better chance at success than one.

There are probably a thousand terrorist acts that could have
been carried out by one perp but were done by many.

These are horrible arguments, David:-)

>
> 8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey
> Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a
> "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him
> (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think
> Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all
> boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the
> President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never
> committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?
>

Ratting out Carlos Marcello was not a healthy choice. His
chances were better with the courts.

Nonetheless, David Ferrie was terrified that Oswald might
have told his wife about the conspiracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zzEIKPvgTY&t=64s





Robert Harris

[bigdog]

All excellent questions David. There is a simple answer to all of them.
Oswald did it. Rather than accept that simply explanation the conspiracy
hobbyists will reach for the bizarre. Not only that but those bizarre
explanations generate move questions with ever more bizarre answers. It's
amazing they think the SBT is a fantastic explanation but they will do all
sorts of mental gymnastics to try to come up with an alternative. The
sensible conspiracy hobbyists are the ones who accept Oswald's guilt and I
would bet that would include most of the 60% of Americans who still
believe there was a conspiracy. The problem for those people is they then
must come up with evidence of accomplices and there just isn't any. Most
of the conspiracy hobbyists on this forum and others fall into
anybody-but-Oswald camp. Those people reject any and all evidence of
Oswald's guilt and will make any excuse they need to do that. Since they
can't produce evidence of the guilt of others, they try to make their case
for conspiracy by proclaiming Oswald's innocence which would by default
establish a conspiracy. Their problem is the evidence of his guilt is so
overwhelming that anyone who disputes that comes off seeming downright
silly.

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 10:00:26 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

> JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about
> fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F.
> Kennedy's 1963 assassination. But conspiracists aren't so good at coming
> up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that
> lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:
>
> 1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who
> hid those bullets? When did they hide them?
>

The FBI made some of them disappear. At Bethesda, Humes and Boswell
probably made 1 or 2 of them disappear.

> 2.) What other weapons were used?
>

An impossible question until the shooters are caught.

> 3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the
> murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano
> bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to
> eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that
> fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky
> plotters?
>

The Oswald MC rifle was indeed one of the guns that fired into Dealey
Plaza that day. The other bullets and fragments were removed by Humes and
Boswell at Bethesda. As well the FBI removed some of them.

> 4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces
> it? And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail
> to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's
> back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets? And where did
> those two bullets go? If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy
> should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he
> was autopsied. Where are those two bullets?
>

That's a lot more than one question. The SBT is indeed false, and
that's proven because of what was found inside JFK when the organs were
removed at the autopsy. The sight they saw was that the back wound bullet
had only penetrated an inch or so and never went past JFK. Next, the
throat shot was deemed to be from the front by some of the doctors at
Parkland. Whether it het something in the body we will never know since
the prosectors were not allowed to dissect that wound and see what was
inside. Which 2 bullets are you speaking of? The throat bullet may have
hit the spine or other bone and stopped. The bullet that struck the
forehead/temple area went through the brain and blew out the large hole in
the BOH. It left particles of itself in a path through the brain.

The back wound bullet was said to have fallen out of the back by the
X-ray Technician and was picked up by the FBI. There is a receipt for it:

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md69/pages/md69_0001a.gif

The throat bullet was probably removed by Humes and Boswell when they
did their clandestine work on the body at 6:35pm. The X-ray technicians
made a point of mentioning that Humes was doing the work out of sequence
by X-raying the body first and looking for bullets and fragments. The
back wound bullet was noted to have fallen out of the back and seen by
Custer the X-ray Technician.

> 5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large
> exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that
> almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear
> head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs
> and X-rays)?
>

First the 'leaked' autopsy photos have provably been doctored to avoid
showing the 'large hole;' in the BOH of JFK. That hole was seen by a list
of 39+ witnesses and it can be found here in the topic list. Because
there is a viewable bullet wound in the right forehead/temple area of JFK,
as an entry it matches the 'large' hole at the BOH which was a blowout
from the entry, and was the exit wound. To see the bullet wound in the
forehead, use the 'stare-of-death' photo and ENLARGE it and then look at
the right forehead area under the hair hanging down. The bullet hole
there matches an example from the book "gunshot Wounds" by Vincent DiMaio
and is figure 4.16.

> 6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald, including every scrap
> of the physical evidence in the whole case, if LHO was really innocent? A
> patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his
> co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of
> saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his
> totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment
> that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA,
> etc.?
>

All the items of so-called evidence that you think "lead" to Oswald
are mainly his rifle, which was indeed his. But none of those items put
Oswald with rifle in hand in the 6th floor window, when there were already
2 men with a gun there at about 12:15pm. The only evidence that might
have been of any value is the statement of Howard Brennan, who discredited
himself in his autobiography. So there isn't any evidence putting Oswald
in the 5th floor window with a rifle at the time of the shooting. Oswald
didn't give away anything while he was in police custody because he was
playing his espionage games and ratting to the FBI and possibly the CIA.
He was hoping to keep all his little games secret and was waiting for a
lawyer that would know the circumstances and get him off. He even made a
comment worrying about the police giving away his games.

> 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63
> (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and
> many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators
> try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas'
> Dealey Plaza? Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they
> merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes
> of shooting the President from so many different angles?
>

You've answered your own question, in that they used multiple shooters
because it was critical to be sure to kill the target. If JFK lived
through the attempted coup, he would be in a position to hound down the
plotters and have them in prison for the rest of their lives. It was a
big gamble, and increasing the odds that the target would be killed was
only prudent. And your point calling them idiots was jumping the gun
without thinking, since the plotters had planned how to avoid the problem
of bullets from too many directions. They made sure the body was stolen
from Dallas along with the limousine, which was evidence, then they mad
sure the body arrived at Bethesda BEFORE the SS and FBI agents and the
family, so that Humes an Boswell had time to remove any bullets and to
modify the body to make it look more like it was hit from above and
behind. That way they removed the problem of multiple directions. To
this day many people still think that bullets only came from the TSBD,
when they came from many places.

> 8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey
> Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a
> "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him
> (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think
> Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all
> boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the
> President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never
> committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)?
>

See the explanation in the question above that this relates to.
Oswald wasn't ready to take the rap for any crimes. He was doing his
little espionage games and thought he could be gotten off without damaging
the rep he had built up. He was waiting for an attorney that he wanted to
get him off.

Chris

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES, WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE DECENCY TO BLUSH, SAID ALL THIS:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/dpZWj57RgR0/LkzZadCsAwAJ


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is what happens, folks, when a desperate conspiracy theorist tries to
explain away ALL of the evidence that points to Lee Harvey Oswald (which,
of course, is ALL the evidence). The CTer ends up looking very silly when
attempting to square away everything into a nice little "Conspiracy"
package (with Oswald being featured as the make-believe "Patsy" in the
conspiracy theorist's imaginary plot).

My favorite gut-buster delivered by desperate Mr. Holmes in his post
linked above is this little gem below, in which Holmes was answering my
question "Where did those two bullets go [that entered JFK's body but
never exited]?"....

"My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket." -- Ben Holmes

Via the above humorous response, Holmes is pretending that he's got enough
evidence to make Dr. James J. Humes one of the prime "plotters" in the
imaginary conspiracy and cover-up. Needless to say, Holmes actually has NO
evidence whatsoever to back up such an outrageous accusation against Dr.
Humes.

But having no evidence at all never stopped a determined JFK conspiracy
theorist.

Just ask Ben Holmes.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

David Von Pein claimed that critics couldn't answer these questions:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/05/questions-conspiracists-never-answer.html

All of them were answered IN DETAIL - and David absolutely refused to
answer the questions I raised in response.

Why are believers such cowards?

Why do they CONSISTENTLY lie, and claim critics won't answer questions,
when quite clearly we do - and it's *THEM* who run?

Why'd you run away, David?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben,

Your answers in your post linked below are just exactly the type of
speculation, guesswork, and NON-evidence that I have come to expect from
conspiracy theorists.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/dpZWj57RgR0/LkzZadCsAwAJ

You, Ben, have offered absolutely *no credible evidence* whatsoever in
your feeble attempt to reasonably and sensibly answer my eight inquiries.
(The key words there, of course, being "reasonably" and "sensibly".)

Anybody can easily pull a pile of half-baked speculation and
forever-unprovable theories out of their rear end (as Ben Holmes has done)
to try and explain away all the evidence which inexorably leads to the
guilt of Lee Oswald. But when it comes to reasonably answering those
questions, conspiracists always end up looking silly (and desperate)---as
Ben Holmes does in the post linked above, which is a post that contains
about as much TRUTH and REASONABLE CONCLUSIONS in it as a Donald Trump
campaign speech.

Let's have a gander at just a few of Ben Holmes' laughable answers to my
questions concerning JFK's murder (and some of these half-baked theories
gushed forth by Holmes contain outright falsehoods):

[Holmes' Quotes On:]

"Any bullets found that were *NOT* Mannlicher Carcano bullets were simply
held not to be part of this case."

"Any bullets or fragments that didn't fit the lone-nut scenario simply
disappeared."

"My guess would be [that the two bullets that CTers think entered JFK's
upper body but never exited went] into Dr. Humes' pocket."

"The large rear head wound certainly *DID* exist - and is so specified in
the very Autopsy that David references."

"Because they only needed a single patsy."

"The 6.5mm virtually round object is physical evidence, and shows a
conspiracy to alter & forge the evidence."

"CE-543...shows alteration in the evidence in this case. David knows quite
well that the EARLIEST evidence was for only *TWO* shots fired. David
cannot explain the fact that only *TWO* empty shells were originally in
evidence, and even photographed."

"He [Lee Oswald] was fully expecting his superiors to pull strings, and get
him out. He was, after all, an intelligence agent."

"The goal was the killing of JFK - only secondary was the goal of framing
someone so the investigation wouldn't go too far. When you control the
investigation - you don't have to make things match up perfectly."

"Speculation simply won't get you anywhere, David." [Irony Alert!! LOL.]

[End Laughable Quotes.]

And just think --- Ben thinks his above answers and explanations, which
have absolutely NO evidence or foundation in fact to back them up, are
MORE reasonable than to just simply believe the evidence in the JFK and
Tippit murder cases is REALLY pointing toward the guilty assassin named
Oswald.

Such is the (strange) mindset of JFK conspiracy theorists.

And Ben's non-answer to my #4 question about the SBT is a typical lame
non-response from a CTer who simply HAS NO REASONABLE SHOT-BY-SHOT
ALTERNATIVE to the perfectly logical Single-Bullet Theory. And that's
because even most CTers probably realize there simply is no reasonable
alternative to the single-bullet conclusion, but they refuse to admit it.

For the record, my #4 question was this....

"If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it?"

To which Ben Holmes replied....

"Multiple shooters... and more than three shots. Simple. So simple, that
I've given this answer a dozen times, and yet David will still pretend
that his question's never been answered. David's a liar."

Boy, that was a great detailed rebuttal to the SBT, wasn't it? "Multiple
shooters" and "More than three shots".

That's it, Ben? A second-grader leafing through a Harold Weisberg book
could do better than that.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! While it's true that you reached for the simple answer, one
needs to go for the RIGHT answer. It's easy to be simple. If you check
you'll see that not one but two have answered all the questions.
Probably with 2 sets of answers...:) As an LN conspiracy hobbyist, you're
failing.

> Not only that but those bizarre
> explanations generate move questions with ever more bizarre answers.

WRONG! You've tried all those bizarre questions, and got them all
answered.

> It's
> amazing they think the SBT is a fantastic explanation but they will do all
> sorts of mental gymnastics to try to come up with an alternative.

WRONG! The SBT already IS a "fantastic explanation" and needs more
simple explanation.

> The
> sensible conspiracy hobbyists are the ones who accept Oswald's guilt and I
> would bet that would include most of the 60% of Americans who still
> believe there was a conspiracy. The problem for those people is they then
> must come up with evidence of accomplices and there just isn't any. Most
> of the conspiracy hobbyists on this forum and others fall into
> anybody-but-Oswald camp. Those people reject any and all evidence of
> Oswald's guilt and will make any excuse they need to do that. Since they
> can't produce evidence of the guilt of others, they try to make their case
> for conspiracy by proclaiming Oswald's innocence which would by default
> establish a conspiracy. Their problem is the evidence of his guilt is so
> overwhelming that anyone who disputes that comes off seeming downright
> silly.

How can one person be so wrong so often? It's almost amazing that an LN
conspiracy hobbyist could come up with the things he did. Oops! No, he
didn't! They came from the WCR!

Chris

[OHLeeRedux]

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 6:51:16 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/5/2017 10:00 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> > JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about
> > fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F.
> > Kennedy's 1963 assassination. But conspiracists aren't so good at coming
> > up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that
> > lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:
> >
>
> The WC defenders are pretty good at proposing silly theories, but they
> can't come up with answers when we ask them questions:

It was Oswald, in the depository, with the Carcano. That's it. The
silliness comes in when you suckers of the conspiracy teat start inventing
your fairy tales and then fighting amongst yourselves. Then the fun
starts!

[Anthony Marsh]

Wow, what a brave man you are blowing down that straw man all by yourself!
But then you are afraid to answer questions here.

[Robert Harris]

David Von Pein wrote:
> BEN HOLMES, WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE DECENCY TO BLUSH, SAID ALL THIS:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/dpZWj57RgR0/LkzZadCsAwAJ
>

Why are you posting a link to a thread in which you deleted
ALL of Holmes' arguments, and then posted unsupported ridicule?

Snip 'n run is what cowards do David - kinda like attacking
someone in a forum where you know they don't post or
attacking them in a blog in which you permit no dissent.

I disagree with Holmes on numerous things but in ACJ, I
attacked his arguments with evidence and reason.

The fact that you are apparently incapable of doing that is
not something to brag about, David. It says far more about
you than it does you adversaries.



Robert Harris

[David Von Pein]

Okay. Ask me a question, Tony. Any question. Let's see how "afraid" ol'
DVP is.

[Anthony Marsh]

Where is this 6.5 mm round object? I think you mean 6.5 mm diameter.
That can not be an Oswald bullet. An Oswald bullet is 6.8mm diameter.
So your 6.5 mm bullet indicates a second shooter.

I don't want to get picky, but the HSCA said 4 shots and still needed a
SBT.

[bigdog]

Given a choice between a simple, straight forward explanation of the
evidence and a bizarre, twisted, convoluted, incredible one I'll go with
simple everytime. This was a simple case of murder. Conspiracy hobbyists
make the mistake of thinking it needs to be complex.

>
>
> > Not only that but those bizarre
> > explanations generate move questions with ever more bizarre answers.
>
>
>
> WRONG! You've tried all those bizarre questions, and got them all
> answered.
>

The answers were even more bizarre than the questions.

>
>
> > It's
> > amazing they think the SBT is a fantastic explanation but they will do all
> > sorts of mental gymnastics to try to come up with an alternative.
>
>
> WRONG! The SBT already IS a "fantastic explanation" and needs more
> simple explanation.
>

The SBT remains the only one ever offered that fits the real evidence.

>
>
> > The
> > sensible conspiracy hobbyists are the ones who accept Oswald's guilt and I
> > would bet that would include most of the 60% of Americans who still
> > believe there was a conspiracy. The problem for those people is they then
> > must come up with evidence of accomplices and there just isn't any. Most
> > of the conspiracy hobbyists on this forum and others fall into
> > anybody-but-Oswald camp. Those people reject any and all evidence of
> > Oswald's guilt and will make any excuse they need to do that. Since they
> > can't produce evidence of the guilt of others, they try to make their case
> > for conspiracy by proclaiming Oswald's innocence which would by default
> > establish a conspiracy. Their problem is the evidence of his guilt is so
> > overwhelming that anyone who disputes that comes off seeming downright
> > silly.
>
> How can one person be so wrong so often?

I guess you just have a lot of determination.

> It's almost amazing that an LN
> conspiracy hobbyist could come up with the things he did. Oops! No, he
> didn't! They came from the WCR!
>

Yup. The truth is in the WCR. Too bad you are afraid of it.

[David Emerling]

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 8:51:16 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> The WC defenders are pretty good at proposing silly theories, but they
> can't come up with answers when we ask them questions:

At least we have ONE "silly theory" whereas the conspiracy community has
MANY, most of which are mutually exclusive and have one thing in common -
improbable (dare I say irrational?) convolution.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[mainframetech]

On Sunday, March 5, 2017 at 10:00:26 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

> JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions about
> fairly meaningless and trivial details surrounding President John F.
> Kennedy's 1963 assassination. But conspiracists aren't so good at coming
> up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that
> lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries:
>

DVP has made yet another mistake. A number of CTs have answered all
the questions, so his theory about CTs is as wrong as his theories about
the killing of JFK.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/8/2017 10:14 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
>> BEN HOLMES, WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE DECENCY TO BLUSH, SAID ALL THIS:
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/dpZWj57RgR0/LkzZadCsAwAJ
>>
>>
>
> Why are you posting a link to a thread in which you deleted ALL of
> Holmes' arguments, and then posted unsupported ridicule?
>

Because he runs his own forum he can do whatever he likes.

> Snip 'n run is what cowards do David - kinda like attacking someone in a
> forum where you know they don't post or attacking them in a blog in
> which you permit no dissent.
>

A Coward is someone who refuses to answer ANY questions.
Because no matter how he answers it makes him look guilty.
Have you stopped beating your dog yet?

> I disagree with Holmes on numerous things but in ACJ, I attacked his
> arguments with evidence and reason.
>

Not fair.

> The fact that you are apparently incapable of doing that is not
> something to brag about, David. It says far more about you than it does
> you adversaries.
>
>

Let's play Spot the Coward.

>
> Robert Harris
>

[Ace Kefford]

Game, set, and match Von Pein. It's like the Cleveland Cavaliers playing
a bunch of 7th graders. And just like those barely teens after they've
been waxed they whine that they really won. That exchange or at least one
side of it could share a title with an excellent movie "Without A Clue."
Where's Watson when you need him?

[Ace Kefford]

On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 5:24:53 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

Sean Spicer was more coherent trying to explain why der President does not
present his evidence establishing that Obama put a "tapp" on his wires.

[David Von Pein]

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 10:14:39 AM UTC-5, Robert Harris wrote:
> David Von Pein wrote:
> > BEN HOLMES, WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE DECENCY TO BLUSH, SAID ALL THIS:
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/dpZWj57RgR0/LkzZadCsAwAJ
> >
>
> Why are you posting a link to a thread in which you deleted
> ALL of Holmes' arguments, and then posted unsupported ridicule?
>

Because that's the way I wanted to post it, Bob. Sorry if it bothers you.

I posted (via a link) ALL of Ben's arguments should anyone want to read
them. I then posted my reply to Ben's post IN TOTAL.

It's difficult to argue with a CTer who ONLY places unsupportable
guesswork and crackpot theories on the table, like Ben Holmes does every
time he posts something about the JFK case, with a prime example of the
kind of guesswork I'm talking about being shown below:

"My guess would be into Dr. Humes' pocket." -- Ben Holmes

How the heck is a reasonable person *supposed* to respond to such
unsupportable crap like the quote of Ben's above? About the only thing I
can say to such a goofy allegation is to say to the CTer exactly what I
did say to him, which was this:

"Via the above humorous response, Holmes is pretending that he's got
enough evidence to make Dr. James J. Humes one of the prime "plotters" in
the imaginary conspiracy and cover-up. Needless to say, Holmes actually
has NO evidence whatsoever to back up such an outrageous accusation
against Dr. Humes. But having no evidence at all never stopped a

determined JFK conspiracy theorist." -- DVP

Bob, how would YOU have responded to Ben Holmes after he had just told you
that he thinks Dr. Humes shoved two bullets in his pocket after having
removed them from the body of the dead President?

Also....

Come to think of it, Robert Harris is exactly the same as Ben Holmes in
the "unsupportable guesswork" department. Which makes it nearly impossible
to have a reasonable discussion with Bob either. (Although I *have*
tried--several times.)

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, I'm sorry if you felt slighted. Maybe I ran out of time to mention
ALL the crazy things that WC defenders believe. Or maybe I forgot all the
names of all the kooks who each have their pet SBTs.

Do you remember Free Frank Warner? Do you remember Posner's Magic Twig
theory? Do you remember Peter Cummings putting a head wound near the EOP?
Aren't you impressed by Max Holland's theory about the bullet hitting the
traffic light?

Don't you have any loyalty for your fellow WC defenders?

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

1. Do you believe in the Single Bullet Theory and if so, which one at at
what frame, and why?

2. Do you agree with my proof that the Zapruder film is authentic, and if
not, why?

3. Do you agree with my analysis of the acoustical evidence, and if not,
why?

4. Do you know that Richard Helms lied to President Kennedy about an
intelligence matter?

5. what are the words which were scratched out on this document?

www.the-puzzle-palace.com/ FBI_3452.tif

[mainframetech]

A shame a president or an ex-president cannot order a wiretap on
anyone, especially the president. It has to go through an investigative
organization. And if 'bugs' were used by civilians they become proof and
can be shown to investigators as proof that bugging had occurred. In the
real world, there is no evidence and there is nothing there except an
attempt to change the topic of the day, which is and was the Russian
connection to the Trump Campaign, which they tried to hide. That hiding
shows that they knew what they were talking about was NOT pleasantries
about the weather.

And if it had been true that Trump was 'tapped' then he would have
done what any intelligent person would have done, and called the FBI and
turned over all evidence of the 'tapping' and asked who was doing it, and
not announced it to the world which now thinks he's crazy and can't do his
job.

The evidence coming out now as the games unravel shows already crimes
committed by the Trump enterprise, in that Trump was involved in building
a hotel for a very corrupt wealthy politician in Azerbaijan, which is
against US law. The last guy that did that was put in prison. This may
be one of the things that Trump is afraid of and why he treats Putin like
his brother as opposed to Everyone else. The hotel he built is siting in
an abandoned area with no decent access to it, and is itself abandoned.
It was a scheme to launder some money.

On top of that problem, Trump now has the problem of the infamous
'dossier' which was thought to be unconfirmed stuff about Trump that Putin
had on him. As they go along in the case, it is turning out that one by
one the items in that 'dossier' are turning out to be true! wait'll we
get to the really embarrassing stuff!

Chris

[mainframetech]

Apparently you have been unable or unwilling to follow the proofs that
I've shown you from the official record of sworn testimony. Ah well.




> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

[mainframetech]

A murder is whatever it is. Trying to make it different because it's
more complex is just word play, or maybe lack of understanding.

> > > Not only that but those bizarre
> > > explanations generate move questions with ever more bizarre answers.
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You've tried all those bizarre questions, and got them all
> > answered.
> >
>
> The answers were even more bizarre than the questions.
>

WRONG! Only to someone who can't understand simple things.

> > > It's
> > > amazing they think the SBT is a fantastic explanation but they will do all
> > > sorts of mental gymnastics to try to come up with an alternative.
> >
> >
> > WRONG! The SBT already IS a "fantastic explanation" and needs more
> > simple explanation.
> >
>
> The SBT remains the only one ever offered that fits the real evidence.
>

WRONG! How soon you forget that you've been shown incontrovertible
proof that the back wound bullet never left the body of JFK, and therefore
never came out of the throat wound and never hit Connally.

> > > The
> > > sensible conspiracy hobbyists are the ones who accept Oswald's guilt and I
> > > would bet that would include most of the 60% of Americans who still
> > > believe there was a conspiracy. The problem for those people is they then
> > > must come up with evidence of accomplices and there just isn't any. Most
> > > of the conspiracy hobbyists on this forum and others fall into
> > > anybody-but-Oswald camp. Those people reject any and all evidence of
> > > Oswald's guilt and will make any excuse they need to do that. Since they
> > > can't produce evidence of the guilt of others, they try to make their case
> > > for conspiracy by proclaiming Oswald's innocence which would by default
> > > establish a conspiracy. Their problem is the evidence of his guilt is so
> > > overwhelming that anyone who disputes that comes off seeming downright
> > > silly.
> >
> > How can one person be so wrong so often?
>
> I guess you just have a lot of determination.
>
> > It's almost amazing that an LN
> > conspiracy hobbyist could come up with the things he did. Oops! No, he
> > didn't! They came from the WCR!
> >
>
> Yup. The truth is in the WCR. Too bad you are afraid of it.

Remember, you're the one who admitted to at least 1% of error in the
WCR. As a weak old, tired thing, it can't harm a flea. It was replaced
with the truth long ago.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do you take it upon yourself to say that you are the only one
allowed to attack Ben Holmes? WHy don't you get someone else a chance?

> Also....
>
> Come to think of it, Robert Harris is exactly the same as Ben Holmes in
> the "unsupportable guesswork" department. Which makes it nearly impossible
> to have a reasonable discussion with Bob either. (Although I *have*
> tried--several times.)
>

Are you saying that I have not attacked Harris enough? 100 messages
every day for 30 years is not strong enough?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 3/8/2017 10:28 PM, David Von Pein wrote:

Cowards also refuse to answer questions.
Because any answer will prove that they don't know WTF they are talking
about.

[Anthony Marsh]

As I said before, Obama does not have the technical chops to bug Trumps
phone. Anyway it's the smartphone which the Russians hacked, not his
landline. He hardly ever uses the landline. He's still using Android
4.2.2.

[Anthony Marsh]

5. Do you think one shot missed? When was it fired? What exact frame?
Where did it go? What did it hit? Why did it miss? Show me this bullet.
What caliber was it? What weapon fired it? From where?

6. What caused the mark on the curb near Tague? Was it a direct hit by a
bullet or was it hit by a fragment? What type of bullet, what type of
fragment? How much did the fragment weigh? Assuming it was a lead fragment
(lack of copper in the smear) How many parts per million of antimony did
it have?

7. How many grains of bullet lead were deposited in JFK's head by a bullet
and how many remain today?

8. How many grains of bullet lead were deposited in Connally's body and
how many are still in his body today? What are the antimony levels?

9. What blood group type is the stain on the windshield? Does the DNA
match JFK or Connally?

10. The two large fragments recovered in the limo add up to about 41% of
the normal weight of an Oswald bullet. What happened to the rest of the
bullet?

[David Von Pein]

> what frame, and why?
>

Yes.
Z224 is the frame.
Here's why:

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

> 2. Do you agree with my proof that the Zapruder film is authentic, and if
> not, why?
>

I've never read your so-called "proof", Tony. Sorry.

But, yes, of course I think the Z-Film is authentic. IMO, it's impossible
for it NOT to be authentic (unless Abraham Zapruder himself was a major
co-conspirator and a huge liar --- and I know of NO ONE who thinks that he
was, not even staunch alterationists).

> 3. Do you agree with my analysis of the acoustical evidence, and if not,
> why?
>

I've never seen your "analysis" of the acoustical evidence, Tony. Sorry.

But I *have* seen many of your aaj posts on the subject, in which you seem
to still place a lot of faith in the HSCA's now-wholly-debunked acoustical
information. I don't know how anybody could place any faith in it after
the results of the 1982 NAS study were made public (and also after Dale
Myers destroyed the acoustical crap with his own work).

But, oh yes, you like to pretend Dale K. Myers is nothing but a big fat
liar, don't you Tony? So, naturally, anything Dale has ever said is not
worth listening to, right?

But even without looking at any of Dale Myers' work, it's pretty easy to
debunk the acoustics evidence of the "4th shot"....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html

> 4. Do you know that Richard Helms lied to President Kennedy about an
> intelligence matter?

Even if he did, so what? Is that supposed to provide some clue as to who
murdered the President in Dallas?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOeWhtNlYzTkRNd1E/view

> 5. what are the words which were scratched out on this document?
>
> www.the-puzzle-palace.com/ FBI_3452.tif

Probably "the Governor's arm".

[Anthony Marsh]

Did they at least get the date and place right?

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

And the guy has come out of hiding. The Democrats have said that they
will even go to England to talk to him if he is afraid to come here.
So I guess the next thing Trump wants is an England ban.

> Chris
>

[David Von Pein]

When did I ever say anything of the kind?

[David Von Pein]

Yes, one shot missed. It was, IMO, the first shot fired by Oswald. It
occurred at approximately Zapruder Film frame #160, IMO. It struck the oak
tree in front of the TSBD, IMO. The bullet then splintered and separated,
IMO, with the lead portion being deflected toward the Triple Underpass,
striking the curb of Main Street, causing a piece of the bullet or a
fragment of the concrete curb to fly up and strike James T. Tague. The
copper jacket portion of this bullet, IMO, struck the Elm Street pavement
(just behind President Kennedy's limousine), causing sparks to be seen by
multiple eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza). No part of this bullet was
recovered. It was 6.5-mm. WCC/MC bullet fired from Mannlicher-Carcano
Rifle #C2766. It was fired from the southeast corner of the 6th floor of
the Texas School Book Depository Building on the corner of Elm and Houston
Streets, Dallas, Texas, USA. It was fired at approximately 12:30:09 PM CST
on Friday, 11/22/63 AD. Weather conditions: sunny, mild, and windy.
Temperature: 66°F. Barometric pressure: Approx. 30.09 inches of
mercury at the instant of the shot. (For the exact barometer reading,
consult the National Weather Service, Bureau of Statistics, Kansas City,
Missouri, USA.) Amount of money in Lee Harvey Oswald's pockets at the
moment the first shot was fired: $15.20 (see if you can figure out how I
arrived at this precise cash figure).

> 6. What caused the mark on the curb near Tague? Was it a direct hit by a
> bullet or was it hit by a fragment? What type of bullet, what type of
> fragment? How much did the fragment weigh? Assuming it was a lead fragment
> (lack of copper in the smear) How many parts per million of antimony did
> it have?
>

See my last answer above.

As far as the PPM of antimony --- It is my opinion that the "Tague
fragment" contained exactly 791 PPM of antimony. (But I might be off by 4
or 5 PPM.) :-)

> 7. How many grains of bullet lead were deposited in JFK's head by a bullet
> and how many remain today?
>

Nobody knows the exact number. (And neither does Anthony Marsh, no matter
what he says.)

> 8. How many grains of bullet lead were deposited in Connally's body and
> how many are still in his body today? What are the antimony levels?
>

The total amount of bullet lead deposited in John Connally's body was very
small, possibly as little as 1.0 or 1.5 grains. The number of individual
metal fragments left inside his body when he was buried in 1993 could very
well have been as low as two (as I discuss in the article linked below).

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html

> 9. What blood group type is the stain on the windshield? Does the DNA
> match JFK or Connally?
>

I haven't the slightest idea. Do you know, Tony?

> 10. The two large fragments recovered in the limo add up to about 41% of
> the normal weight of an Oswald bullet. What happened to the rest of the
> bullet?

A small amount of that bullet (which was the Head Shot bullet) ended up
under Nellie's jump seat. And a small amount ended up in John Kennedy's
head. And there were the two large front-seat fragments (CE567 and CE569).
The remainder of the bullet obviously exited the limousine and ended up in
Dealey Plaza somewhere, where it was never recovered. The fact that over
50% of that bullet was not recovered is something that I don't think is
unusual or strange in any way. Given the circumstances of that bullet
striking the President's head, then fragmenting into pieces of various
size, with the majority of the bullet then exiting his head, I don't think
we could expect the entire bullet to be found after the shooting.

[bigdog]

That's if it is done legally. Who said it was done legally?

> And if 'bugs' were used by civilians they become proof and
> can be shown to investigators as proof that bugging had occurred. In the
> real world, there is no evidence and there is nothing there except an
> attempt to change the topic of the day, which is and was the Russian
> connection to the Trump Campaign, which they tried to hide. That hiding
> shows that they knew what they were talking about was NOT pleasantries
> about the weather.
>

Here's what is amazing. For months the media was touting transcripts of
phone conversations between the Trump team and the Russians. How could
there be transcripts of such conversations unless the phones had been
wiretapped. The New York Times even had a headline store on inauguration
day of such transcripts. Now all of a sudden the left wing news
organizations have dropped all discussion of the Trump people being
involved with the Russians because they realized the conundrum they had
created. How could they blast Trump for suggesting Obama had tapped his
phones while at the same pointing to transcripts of phone calls as
evidence of collusion with the Russians. The NYT even went into their
archives and scrubbed the word "transcript" from the headline and
substituted the word "intercepts". Why do you suppose they did that.

> And if it had been true that Trump was 'tapped' then he would have
> done what any intelligent person would have done, and called the FBI and
> turned over all evidence of the 'tapping' and asked who was doing it, and
> not announced it to the world which now thinks he's crazy and can't do his
> job.
>

There is more to this story than what the liberal news organizations are
reporting but eventually it will see the light of day. The FBI and Justice
Department has gone on record as saying they didn't tap the phones in
Trump Tower. We can believe that for now. Who said it was the FBI? Who
said it was done legally? The CIA also has wiretap capability. It wouldn't
even need to have been done by someone in the government.

> The evidence coming out now as the games unravel shows already crimes
> committed by the Trump enterprise, in that Trump was involved in building
> a hotel for a very corrupt wealthy politician in Azerbaijan, which is
> against US law. The last guy that did that was put in prison. This may
> be one of the things that Trump is afraid of and why he treats Putin like
> his brother as opposed to Everyone else. The hotel he built is siting in
> an abandoned area with no decent access to it, and is itself abandoned.
> It was a scheme to launder some money.
>

Amazing how the talking points have suddenly dropped the Russian hacking
story.

> On top of that problem, Trump now has the problem of the infamous
> 'dossier' which was thought to be unconfirmed stuff about Trump that Putin
> had on him. As they go along in the case, it is turning out that one by
> one the items in that 'dossier' are turning out to be true! wait'll we
> get to the really embarrassing stuff!
>

The real question is who is it going to be most embarrassing to.

[bigdog]

The "proof" isn't incontrovertible. It isn't even compelling. It isn't
even credible. It isn't even plausible. In short, it isn't even proof.

>
>
> > > > The
> > > > sensible conspiracy hobbyists are the ones who accept Oswald's guilt and I
> > > > would bet that would include most of the 60% of Americans who still
> > > > believe there was a conspiracy. The problem for those people is they then
> > > > must come up with evidence of accomplices and there just isn't any. Most
> > > > of the conspiracy hobbyists on this forum and others fall into
> > > > anybody-but-Oswald camp. Those people reject any and all evidence of
> > > > Oswald's guilt and will make any excuse they need to do that. Since they
> > > > can't produce evidence of the guilt of others, they try to make their case
> > > > for conspiracy by proclaiming Oswald's innocence which would by default
> > > > establish a conspiracy. Their problem is the evidence of his guilt is so
> > > > overwhelming that anyone who disputes that comes off seeming downright
> > > > silly.
> > >
> > > How can one person be so wrong so often?
> >
> > I guess you just have a lot of determination.
> >
> > > It's almost amazing that an LN
> > > conspiracy hobbyist could come up with the things he did. Oops! No, he
> > > didn't! They came from the WCR!
> > >
> >
> > Yup. The truth is in the WCR. Too bad you are afraid of it.
>
>
>
> Remember, you're the one who admitted to at least 1% of error in the
> WCR. As a weak old, tired thing, it can't harm a flea. It was replaced
> with the truth long ago.
>

I didn't use the term "at least". That was your spin. But we know how fond
you are of enhancing what other people have said to fit your narrative.

[OHLeeRedux]

5. Irrelevant.
6. Irrelevant.
7. Irrelevant.
8. Irrelevant.
9. Irrelevant.
10. Irrelevant.

You. Irrelevant.

It was Oswald, in the depository, with the Carcano. All of your crap is
nothing but misdirection. Stop obsessing about trivia.

[Anthony Marsh]

Silly. Connally can not be reacting to being hit in frame 224 and JFK
was already reacting BEFORE frame 224.
Connally said he was not hit by the same bullet and did not react until
just after frame 230.

> http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
>
>
>> 2. Do you agree with my proof that the Zapruder film is authentic, and if
>> not, why?
>>
>
> I've never read your so-called "proof", Tony. Sorry.

So, you admit that you are not a researcher, just a partisan.

>
> But, yes, of course I think the Z-Film is authentic. IMO, it's impossible

Not the question. Don't make up a question I didn't ask and then answer
your own question. That is evasion. You could also answer that you
believe in gravity, but I didn't ask you that question. Yet.

> for it NOT to be authentic (unless Abraham Zapruder himself was a major
> co-conspirator and a huge liar --- and I know of NO ONE who thinks that he
> was, not even staunch alterationists).
>

Cute straw man. But the main allegations are about altering the film he
took without his knowledge. He would be completely innocent. And as I
said before some kook thinks there was no film in the camera because
Zapruder had a gun in it to fire the head shot. Lots of the
alterationists think that Zapruder was a liar and conspirator.

>
>
>> 3. Do you agree with my analysis of the acoustical evidence, and if not,
>> why?
>>
>
> I've never seen your "analysis" of the acoustical evidence, Tony. Sorry.

Because you don't read the messages here and are not a researcher.
Roland Zavada did and agrees with it. So you must think that Zavada is a
liar.

>
> But I *have* seen many of your aaj posts on the subject, in which you seem
> to still place a lot of faith in the HSCA's now-wholly-debunked acoustical
> information. I don't know how anybody could place any faith in it after

I am not impressed by your declaration that is is wholy debunked.
The HSCA sticks by it and so do the scientists who did the work.

> the results of the 1982 NAS study were made public (and also after Dale
> Myers destroyed the acoustical crap with his own work).
>

Dale Myers is a professional liar, not a scientist. So you would rather
believe a professional liar than a scientist.

> But, oh yes, you like to pretend Dale K. Myers is nothing but a big fat
> liar, don't you Tony? So, naturally, anything Dale has ever said is not
> worth listening to, right?
>

Again, you prove that you do not read the messages here. You just drop
in once a month to make personal attacks. I have praised some of Dale
Myers' work. Specifically debunking Badge Man.

> But even without looking at any of Dale Myers' work, it's pretty easy to
> debunk the acoustics evidence of the "4th shot"....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html
>

Junk. Non-science. Like Trump debunking global warming.

>> 4. Do you know that Richard Helms lied to President Kennedy about an
>> intelligence matter?
>
> Even if he did, so what? Is that supposed to provide some clue as to who
> murdered the President in Dallas?
>

So, your answer is NO, you do not know that.
And you think it is OK for the CIA to lie to the President.
You think that is good for National Security. In other words you do not
care what happens to our country.

> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOeWhtNlYzTkRNd1E/view
>
>
>
>> 5. what are the words which were scratched out on this document?
>>
>> www.the-puzzle-palace.com/ FBI_3452.tif
>
> Probably "the Governor's arm".
>

Maybe. But that leaves a lot of blank spaces at the end.
Are you happy with the FBI scratching out those words?
Why would they do that if the information was innocuous?
Do you think "arm" means exactly the same as "wrist" so there was no
need to scratch it out?
You approve of altering historical documents.

[Anthony Marsh]

Stop being silly. Someone could have listened in on the Russians and
caught US citizens talking to them.

The idea that Obama could wiretap Trump is impossible. He didn't have the
authority to do that and it didn't know how to do it all by himself.

> there be transcripts of such conversations unless the phones had been
> wiretapped. The New York Times even had a headline store on inauguration
> day of such transcripts. Now all of a sudden the left wing news
> organizations have dropped all discussion of the Trump people being
> involved with the Russians because they realized the conundrum they had

Wrong. MSNBC is bringin it up every day.

> created. How could they blast Trump for suggesting Obama had tapped his
> phones while at the same pointing to transcripts of phone calls as
> evidence of collusion with the Russians. The NYT even went into their

WHat is your point?
Phone calls are not evidence of collusion. It is what is said and then
covering it up which makes people look guilty.

> archives and scrubbed the word "transcript" from the headline and
> substituted the word "intercepts". Why do you suppose they did that.
>

Lawyer? Term of art? Correction? Not all intercepts were transcribed?

>> And if it had been true that Trump was 'tapped' then he would have
>> done what any intelligent person would have done, and called the FBI and
>> turned over all evidence of the 'tapping' and asked who was doing it, and
>> not announced it to the world which now thinks he's crazy and can't do his
>> job.
>>
>
> There is more to this story than what the liberal news organizations are
> reporting but eventually it will see the light of day. The FBI and Justice

Oh, so now YOU have a conspiracy theory.
As always you Trump supporters are hypocrites.
When the Dow Jones hits 20,000 under Obama you call it a lie.
When the Dow Jones hits 20,000 under Trump you call it proof.
When unemployment goes down to 4.7% under Obama you call it a lie.
When unemployment goes down to 4.7% under Trump you call it proof.

> Department has gone on record as saying they didn't tap the phones in
> Trump Tower. We can believe that for now. Who said it was the FBI? Who

So what? It's not landlines, it's cell phones.

> said it was done legally? The CIA also has wiretap capability. It wouldn't
> even need to have been done by someone in the government.
>

Correct. So why not change the allegation to the CIA doing it on its
own? OH, no, that would be like admitting that the CIA does rogue
operations.

>
>> The evidence coming out now as the games unravel shows already crimes
>> committed by the Trump enterprise, in that Trump was involved in building
>> a hotel for a very corrupt wealthy politician in Azerbaijan, which is
>> against US law. The last guy that did that was put in prison. This may
>> be one of the things that Trump is afraid of and why he treats Putin like
>> his brother as opposed to Everyone else. The hotel he built is siting in
>> an abandoned area with no decent access to it, and is itself abandoned.
>> It was a scheme to launder some money.
>>
>
> Amazing how the talking points have suddenly dropped the Russian hacking
> story.

It's all the same story. FLynn admitted that he was a Foreign Agent.
LOCK HIM UP.

>
>> On top of that problem, Trump now has the problem of the infamous
>> 'dossier' which was thought to be unconfirmed stuff about Trump that Putin
>> had on him. As they go along in the case, it is turning out that one by
>> one the items in that 'dossier' are turning out to be true! wait'll we
>> get to the really embarrassing stuff!
>>
>
> The real question is who is it going to be most embarrassing to.
>

The Prostitutes.

[Anthony Marsh]

Fun to guess, isn't it? You you have no facts.

> IMO, with the lead portion being deflected toward the Triple Underpass,

Physically impossible.

> striking the curb of Main Street, causing a piece of the bullet or a
> fragment of the concrete curb to fly up and strike James T. Tague. The

Do you understand that the mark on the curb did not have any copper in it?

> copper jacket portion of this bullet, IMO, struck the Elm Street pavement
> (just behind President Kennedy's limousine), causing sparks to be seen by
> multiple eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza). No part of this bullet was

No proof. Never rely on witnesses.

> recovered. It was 6.5-mm. WCC/MC bullet fired from Mannlicher-Carcano
> Rifle #C2766. It was fired from the southeast corner of the 6th floor of
> the Texas School Book Depository Building on the corner of Elm and Houston

You have no proof for that.

> Streets, Dallas, Texas, USA. It was fired at approximately 12:30:09 PM CST

Wrong.
No shots were recorded before 12:31.

> on Friday, 11/22/63 AD. Weather conditions: sunny, mild, and windy.

> Temperature: 66??F. Barometric pressure: Approx. 30.09 inches of

> mercury at the instant of the shot. (For the exact barometer reading,
> consult the National Weather Service, Bureau of Statistics, Kansas City,
> Missouri, USA.) Amount of money in Lee Harvey Oswald's pockets at the
> moment the first shot was fired: $15.20 (see if you can figure out how I
> arrived at this precise cash figure).
>

As usual for a chronic evader you make up irrelevant questions which I
did not ask, because you are afraid to anwer mine.

>
>
>> 6. What caused the mark on the curb near Tague? Was it a direct hit by a
>> bullet or was it hit by a fragment? What type of bullet, what type of
>> fragment? How much did the fragment weigh? Assuming it was a lead fragment
>> (lack of copper in the smear) How many parts per million of antimony did
>> it have?
>>
>
> See my last answer above.
>
> As far as the PPM of antimony --- It is my opinion that the "Tague
> fragment" contained exactly 791 PPM of antimony. (But I might be off by 4
> or 5 PPM.) :-)
>

Close enough for a WC defender. Ignore all the sciency thing about plus
or minus. Real He Men don't need no pansy plus or minus.

>
>
>
>> 7. How many grains of bullet lead were deposited in JFK's head by a bullet
>> and how many remain today?
>>
>
> Nobody knows the exact number. (And neither does Anthony Marsh, no matter
> what he says.)
>

And you don't WANT to know, because it might blow your lone nut shooter
case.

>
>
>
>
>> 8. How many grains of bullet lead were deposited in Connally's body and
>> how many are still in his body today? What are the antimony levels?
>>
>
> The total amount of bullet lead deposited in John Connally's body was very
> small, possibly as little as 1.0 or 1.5 grains. The number of individual
> metal fragments left inside his body when he was buried in 1993 could very
> well have been as low as two (as I discuss in the article linked below).
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html
>
>

As far as you know. But you don't WANT to know.

>
>
>
>> 9. What blood group type is the stain on the windshield? Does the DNA
>> match JFK or Connally?
>>
>
> I haven't the slightest idea. Do you know, Tony?

That's what I WANT to know. You don't want to know anything.

>
>
>
>
>
>> 10. The two large fragments recovered in the limo add up to about 41% of
>> the normal weight of an Oswald bullet. What happened to the rest of the
>> bullet?
>
> A small amount of that bullet (which was the Head Shot bullet) ended up
> under Nellie's jump seat. And a small amount ended up in John Kennedy's

Sure, but those could not have been deposited at the time that the two
large fragments landeed in the limo, because they had to lift up the
seat to find them.

> head. And there were the two large front-seat fragments (CE567 and CE569).
> The remainder of the bullet obviously exited the limousine and ended up in
> Dealey Plaza somewhere, where it was never recovered. The fact that over
> 50% of that bullet was not recovered is something that I don't think is
> unusual or strange in any way. Given the circumstances of that bullet

Neither did I. What I find strange is your willful ignorance and refuse
to demand the evidence.

> striking the President's head, then fragmenting into pieces of various
> size, with the majority of the bullet then exiting his head, I don't think
> we could expect the entire bullet to be found after the shooting.

Then why do some Nazis demand that I produce the bullet that I think hit
JFK from the right front? Hypocrisy? Ignorance? Bluffing?

>

[mainframetech]

WRONG! Apparently you're unfamiliar with the procedures of most phone
companies. They record EVERY call that is ever made as to the dialing
number and the receiving number. Also the time of day and other info.
The intelligence services get that info and look it over and can identify
the phones and where there were located, both origin and destination.
That does not require a transcript. There was a big deal about that sort
of thing during Obama's time.


You may have also forgotten about the abilities of the NSA, who I
believe did not stop their work when it became known what they were doing
with conversations around the world, including Americans. Many phone
calls are transmitted through the air these days, to satellites and
towers. The NSA is able to 'hear' all of these, and with high speed
computers, wade through all that info and pick out conversations when
certain words are mentioned, like 'bomb' and such. The point being that
the intelligence services could easily know who was calling whom.

The New York Times even had a headline store on inauguration
> day of such transcripts. Now all of a sudden the left wing news
> organizations have dropped all discussion of the Trump people being
> involved with the Russians because they realized the conundrum they had
> created.

Sorry, I still am hearing the story of the Russian connection as of
today, and without stop since it began. But of course, it's now flavored
with the story of Flynn and his being a lobbyist for Turkey while also
working for Trump's administration.

> How could they blast Trump for suggesting Obama had tapped his
> phones while at the same pointing to transcripts of phone calls as
> evidence of collusion with the Russians. The NYT even went into their
> archives and scrubbed the word "transcript" from the headline and
> substituted the word "intercepts". Why do you suppose they did that.
>

It may be the phone identifying method I spoke of above. They got to
the phone companies and get the list of origins that called destinations,
then interpret where those numbers were. They surely are doing that for
Russian phone numbers, and when an American calls a Russian phone, it's
recorded and they get the lookup from the phone company. It won't give
the content of the call, only the origin and destination, and some other
info.

I've used that phone company data to write programs to catch people
making long distance calls on the company's bill, when they're not talking
to clients.

> > And if it had been true that Trump was 'tapped' then he would have
> > done what any intelligent person would have done, and called the FBI and
> > turned over all evidence of the 'tapping' and asked who was doing it, and
> > not announced it to the world which now thinks he's crazy and can't do his
> > job.
> >
>
> There is more to this story than what the liberal news organizations are
> reporting but eventually it will see the light of day.

WRONG! I listen to FOX News as well as PBS and the 'liberal' news too.
They all agree on many things, including the story and who said what to
try and escape the truth.

The FBI and Justice
> Department has gone on record as saying they didn't tap the phones in
> Trump Tower. We can believe that for now. Who said it was the FBI? Who
> said it was done legally? The CIA also has wiretap capability. It wouldn't
> even need to have been done by someone in the government.
>

The DNI is above all the intelligence services. He has stated
publicly that there was NO wiretapping. So forget all your 'official'
methods. And if it was private bugging, the bugs can be found and used as
evidence, but no such evidence has appeared. Trump is wasting the
taxpayers money to cover his own ass and change the subject being spread
around about him and Russia.

>
> > The evidence coming out now as the games unravel shows already crimes
> > committed by the Trump enterprise, in that Trump was involved in building
> > a hotel for a very corrupt wealthy politician in Azerbaijan, which is
> > against US law. The last guy that did that was put in prison. This may
> > be one of the things that Trump is afraid of and why he treats Putin like

> > his brother as opposed to Everyone else. The hotel he built is sitting in

> > an abandoned area with no decent access to it, and is itself abandoned.
> > It was a scheme to launder some money.
> >
>
> Amazing how the talking points have suddenly dropped the Russian hacking
> story.
>

I still hear it mentioned almost every day, but I listen to the
'liberal' media...:) Congress is trying to cover up for Trump because
they need him to sign bills they want to pass.

> > On top of that problem, Trump now has the problem of the infamous
> > 'dossier' which was thought to be unconfirmed stuff about Trump that Putin
> > had on him. As they go along in the case, it is turning out that one by
> > one the items in that 'dossier' are turning out to be true! wait'll we
> > get to the really embarrassing stuff!
> >
>
> The real question is who is it going to be most embarrassing to.

The 'dossier' is all about Trump and what the Russians know about him
that would be useful for blackmailing. It's interesting reading:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/pieces-of-trump-dossier-check-out-despite-investigative-dearth-892646467509

Chris

[mainframetech]

Talk about convoluted explanations to explain away the many bullets
that struck in Dealey Plaza that day! If a bullet hits an oak tree, it's
not going to "splinter and separate", it's going to embed itself in the
tree and not come out. And the angle to go to the Tague location is not
going to work, not high enough. Somewhere in there you have also
forgotten to account for the bullet that struck over the windshield and
fell down in 2 fragments to the front seat of the limo. So now there's 4
bullets. You would say that a bullet hit JFK and then hit Connally, but
the truth is that it was at least 2 bullets, and then there was the back
bullet, and the throat wound from the front as the Parkland doctors
believed. Of course, we've left out the bullet that struck the curb to
the right o the limo seen by DPD officer "Steve" Ellis. And then there
was the bullet hole through the windshield of the limo, seen by at least 6
witnesses. Oh, and then there was the 2 bullet gouges see by Wayne and
Edna Hartman and when they asked a cop what they were, he told them they
were bullet tracks.

Now that's a lot of bullets. Got answers for all of them?

WRONG! The bullet that fragmented and fell down into the front seat
struck over the windshield. The blasted spot which is a clear circle and
was depressed very far shows the power the bullet struck with:

http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/Chrome_trim_Trask.jpg

> The fact that over
> 50% of that bullet was not recovered is something that I don't think is
> unusual or strange in any way. Given the circumstances of that bullet
> striking the President's head, then fragmenting into pieces of various
> size, with the majority of the bullet then exiting his head, I don't think
> we could expect the entire bullet to be found after the shooting.

Given the tiny fragments left in the skull of JFK, it's doubtful there
was anything left of the bullet that struck the head of JFK. It was
certainly not a copper FMJ bullet, which would not break into tiny pieces
when striking something.

Chris

[mainframetech]

I think I'll take a whack at them too:

> >
> > 1. Do you believe in the Single Bullet Theory and if so, which one at
> > what frame, and why?
> >
>
> Yes.
> Z224 is the frame.
> Here's why:
>
> http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
>

The SBT has been proven to be dead based on findings during the
autopsy. The bullet never left the body of JFK.

>
> > 2. Do you agree with my proof that the Zapruder film is authentic, and if
> > not, why?
> >
>
> I've never read your so-called "proof", Tony. Sorry.
>
> But, yes, of course I think the Z-Film is authentic. IMO, it's impossible
> for it NOT to be authentic (unless Abraham Zapruder himself was a major
> co-conspirator and a huge liar --- and I know of NO ONE who thinks that he
> was, not even staunch alterationists).
>

As a proud alterationist, I KNOW that the Z-film was altered. Not only
have many people posted videos of many of the faults in the Z-film, but
Douglas Horne spent hundreds of pages in his 4th volume of 5 in "Inside
the Assassination Records Review Board" where he shows the many proofs and
also shows the technical information for accomplishing it which was
available in 1963.

> > 3. Do you agree with my analysis of the acoustical evidence, and if not,
> > why?
> >
>
> I've never seen your "analysis" of the acoustical evidence, Tony. Sorry.
>
> But I *have* seen many of your aaj posts on the subject, in which you seem
> to still place a lot of faith in the HSCA's now-wholly-debunked acoustical
> information. I don't know how anybody could place any faith in it after
> the results of the 1982 NAS study were made public (and also after Dale
> Myers destroyed the acoustical crap with his own work).
>
> But, oh yes, you like to pretend Dale K. Myers is nothing but a big fat
> liar, don't you Tony? So, naturally, anything Dale has ever said is not
> worth listening to, right?
>
> But even without looking at any of Dale Myers' work, it's pretty easy to
> debunk the acoustics evidence of the "4th shot"....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html
>

I avoid bothering with the acoustical evidence, since it has been put
in doubt. It's not needed to prove multiple shooters.

> > 4. Do you know that Richard Helms lied to President Kennedy about an
> > intelligence matter?
>
> Even if he did, so what? Is that supposed to provide some clue as to who
> murdered the President in Dallas?
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOeWhtNlYzTkRNd1E/view
>
>

I agree with that.

>
> > 5. what are the words which were scratched out on this document?
> >
> > www.the-puzzle-palace.com/ FBI_3452.tif
>
> Probably "the Governor's arm".

It doesn't matter to determining if it was a conspiracy and who did
it.

Chris

[bigdog]

The claims made by the New York Times specifically stated there were
transcripts of these phone calls. You can't get a transcript of a phone
conversation unless you are listening in and that requires a wiretap. You
do know what a transcript is, don't you?

>
> You may have also forgotten about the abilities of the NSA, who I
> believe did not stop their work when it became known what they were doing
> with conversations around the world, including Americans. Many phone
> calls are transmitted through the air these days, to satellites and
> towers. The NSA is able to 'hear' all of these, and with high speed
> computers, wade through all that info and pick out conversations when
> certain words are mentioned, like 'bomb' and such. The point being that
> the intelligence services could easily know who was calling whom.
>

To differentiate that from a wiretap is a matter of semantics. They have
to listen in to a conversation in order to record a transcript. They is
not allowed without a court order.

>
> The New York Times even had a headline store on inauguration
> > day of such transcripts. Now all of a sudden the left wing news
> > organizations have dropped all discussion of the Trump people being
> > involved with the Russians because they realized the conundrum they had
> > created.
>
>
> Sorry, I still am hearing the story of the Russian connection as of
> today, and without stop since it began. But of course, it's now flavored
> with the story of Flynn and his being a lobbyist for Turkey while also
> working for Trump's administration.
>

The current claims about Flynn have nothing to do with the Russian hacking
of out election.

>
> > How could they blast Trump for suggesting Obama had tapped his
> > phones while at the same pointing to transcripts of phone calls as
> > evidence of collusion with the Russians. The NYT even went into their
> > archives and scrubbed the word "transcript" from the headline and
> > substituted the word "intercepts". Why do you suppose they did that.
> >
>
>
>
> It may be the phone identifying method I spoke of above. They got to
> the phone companies and get the list of origins that called destinations,
> then interpret where those numbers were. They surely are doing that for
> Russian phone numbers, and when an American calls a Russian phone, it's
> recorded and they get the lookup from the phone company. It won't give
> the content of the call, only the origin and destination, and some other
> info.
>

The word transcript was specifically used. You have to listen in to get a
transcript.

> I've used that phone company data to write programs to catch people
> making long distance calls on the company's bill, when they're not talking
> to clients.
>

Bet you couldn't get a transcript.

>
> > > And if it had been true that Trump was 'tapped' then he would have
> > > done what any intelligent person would have done, and called the FBI and
> > > turned over all evidence of the 'tapping' and asked who was doing it, and
> > > not announced it to the world which now thinks he's crazy and can't do his
> > > job.
> > >
> >
> > There is more to this story than what the liberal news organizations are
> > reporting but eventually it will see the light of day.
>
>
>
> WRONG! I listen to FOX News as well as PBS and the 'liberal' news too.

PBS is liberal news.

> They all agree on many things, including the story and who said what to
> try and escape the truth.
>

Fox doesn't like Trump either. They are with the Republican establishment
and Jeb Bush was their man. They don't like that a maverick has taken over
the GOP. They would like to get it back. Fox does have divergent
commentators and some of them are pro-Trump. Others are openly liberal
like Shep Smith. Geraldo Rivera is said to be a Republican but he is of
the northeast liberal Rockefeller strain of Republicans. This is in
contrast to MSNBC who hires turncoat Republicans like Joe Scarborough and
Michael Steele to bash their own party, particularly Donald Trump.

>
>
> The FBI and Justice
> > Department has gone on record as saying they didn't tap the phones in
> > Trump Tower. We can believe that for now. Who said it was the FBI? Who
> > said it was done legally? The CIA also has wiretap capability. It wouldn't
> > even need to have been done by someone in the government.
> >
>
>
>
> The DNI is above all the intelligence services. He has stated
> publicly that there was NO wiretapping. So forget all your 'official'
> methods. And if it was private bugging, the bugs can be found and used as
> evidence, but no such evidence has appeared.

Do you think they have looked real hard.

> Trump is wasting the
> taxpayers money to cover his own ass and change the subject being spread
> around about him and Russia.
>

You're not following the script. Your side is supposed to stop talking
about the Russians. You need to get on their email list.

>
>
> >
> > > The evidence coming out now as the games unravel shows already crimes
> > > committed by the Trump enterprise, in that Trump was involved in building
> > > a hotel for a very corrupt wealthy politician in Azerbaijan, which is
> > > against US law. The last guy that did that was put in prison. This may
> > > be one of the things that Trump is afraid of and why he treats Putin like
> > > his brother as opposed to Everyone else. The hotel he built is sitting in
> > > an abandoned area with no decent access to it, and is itself abandoned.
> > > It was a scheme to launder some money.
> > >
> >
> > Amazing how the talking points have suddenly dropped the Russian hacking
> > story.
> >
>
>
>
> I still hear it mentioned almost every day, but I listen to the
> 'liberal' media...:) Congress is trying to cover up for Trump because
> they need him to sign bills they want to pass.
>

I don't know where you are hearing that. I haven't heard it mentioned for
the past week in the mainstream media. Here is a recent story from Salon:

http://www.salon.com/2017/03/12/wikileaks-cia-dump-makes-the-russian-hacking-story-even-murkier-if-thats-possible/

>
>
> > > On top of that problem, Trump now has the problem of the infamous
> > > 'dossier' which was thought to be unconfirmed stuff about Trump that Putin
> > > had on him. As they go along in the case, it is turning out that one by
> > > one the items in that 'dossier' are turning out to be true! wait'll we
> > > get to the really embarrassing stuff!
> > >
> >
> > The real question is who is it going to be most embarrassing to.
>
>
>
> The 'dossier' is all about Trump and what the Russians know about him
> that would be useful for blackmailing. It's interesting reading:
>
> http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/pieces-of-trump-dossier-check-out-despite-investigative-dearth-892646467509
>

This story is typical of the innuendos and half truths Rachel Maddow
resorts to in order to make her points. One such example gets us back to
the JFK assassination. Back when the universal background check debate was
going on, she did a story about how as a Senator, JFK introduced
legislation that would have banned imported foreign made rifles like the
Carcano that would later kill him. That part is true. The part she leaves
out is that JFK was the Senator from Massachusetts which at the time was
to gun making what Detroit was to car making. Most of the major American
gun makers had their factories in western Massachusetts. JFK's bill was
protectionist legislation aimed to help a major industry in his home state
by eliminating competition from foreign made products. It had nothing to
do with public safety. In fact the Carcano is just the type of rifle
liberals say that gun owners should be limited to. It is a slow firing low
capacity weapon. But that didn't fit the narrative she was pushing so she
left that part out too.

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you even know WHAT Helms lied about? NO.
So how can you agree with something that you don't know about?

>
>
>
>>
>>> 5. what are the words which were scratched out on this document?
>>>
>>> www.the-puzzle-palace.com/ FBI_3452.tif
>>
>> Probably "the Governor's arm".
>
>
> It doesn't matter to determining if it was a conspiracy and who did
> it.
>

It could if it helps disprove the SBT or adds another shot.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

False. A Carcano bullet can go through 40 inches of Ponderosa Pine.
Maybe only 25 inches of Southern Oak. But some dainty little branch is
not going to stop it.

> going to work, not high enough. Somewhere in there you have also
> forgotten to account for the bullet that struck over the windshield and
> fell down in 2 fragments to the front seat of the limo. So now there's 4
> bullets. You would say that a bullet hit JFK and then hit Connally, but
> the truth is that it was at least 2 bullets, and then there was the back
> bullet, and the throat wound from the front as the Parkland doctors
> believed. Of course, we've left out the bullet that struck the curb to
> the right o the limo seen by DPD officer "Steve" Ellis. And then there
> was the bullet hole through the windshield of the limo, seen by at least 6
> witnesses. Oh, and then there was the 2 bullet gouges see by Wayne and
> Edna Hartman and when they asked a cop what they were, he told them they
> were bullet tracks.
>
> Now that's a lot of bullets. Got answers for all of them?
>

You are not considered worthy enough to ask the expert any questions.

>
>
>> It was 6.5-mm. WCC/MC bullet fired from Mannlicher-Carcano
>> Rifle #C2766. It was fired from the southeast corner of the 6th floor of
>> the Texas School Book Depository Building on the corner of Elm and Houston
>> Streets, Dallas, Texas, USA. It was fired at approximately 12:30:09 PM CST
>> on Friday, 11/22/63 AD. Weather conditions: sunny, mild, and windy.

>> Temperature: 66??F. Barometric pressure: Approx. 30.09 inches of

All those tiny lead fragments we can see and the dozens of dustlike
fragments we can't see add up to less than 40 grains. I don't remember a
Carcano bullet for sale which was only 40 grains. Maybe a custom made
bullet of 100 grains is possible, but that still leaves 60 grains
unaccounted for.

> certainly not a copper FMJ bullet, which would not break into tiny pieces
> when striking something.
>

The WC defenders can't figure that out.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Almost. The NSA, and now the CIA, routinely record everything on this
planet. But analyzing it is something else.
Do you remember 9/11? The NSA had recorded the "GO"
message, but they did not translate it until 5 years after the attack.

>
> The New York Times even had a headline store on inauguration
>> day of such transcripts. Now all of a sudden the left wing news
>> organizations have dropped all discussion of the Trump people being
>> involved with the Russians because they realized the conundrum they had
>> created.
>
>
> Sorry, I still am hearing the story of the Russian connection as of
> today, and without stop since it began. But of course, it's now flavored
> with the story of Flynn and his being a lobbyist for Turkey while also
> working for Trump's administration.
>

And most people do not care if it was Turkey or Russia.
But there are subtle differences.

>
>> How could they blast Trump for suggesting Obama had tapped his
>> phones while at the same pointing to transcripts of phone calls as
>> evidence of collusion with the Russians. The NYT even went into their
>> archives and scrubbed the word "transcript" from the headline and
>> substituted the word "intercepts". Why do you suppose they did that.
>>
>
>
>
> It may be the phone identifying method I spoke of above. They got to
> the phone companies and get the list of origins that called destinations,
> then interpret where those numbers were. They surely are doing that for
> Russian phone numbers, and when an American calls a Russian phone, it's
> recorded and they get the lookup from the phone company. It won't give
> the content of the call, only the origin and destination, and some other
> info.
>

Contact logs are not transcripts of conversations.

> I've used that phone company data to write programs to catch people
> making long distance calls on the company's bill, when they're not talking
> to clients.
>

OMG, are you accusing accusing Trump of fleecing the phone company?
Outrageous. Is that an impeachable offense?

>
>>> And if it had been true that Trump was 'tapped' then he would have
>>> done what any intelligent person would have done, and called the FBI and
>>> turned over all evidence of the 'tapping' and asked who was doing it, and
>>> not announced it to the world which now thinks he's crazy and can't do his
>>> job.
>>>
>>
>> There is more to this story than what the liberal news organizations are
>> reporting but eventually it will see the light of day.
>
>
>
> WRONG! I listen to FOX News as well as PBS and the 'liberal' news too.
> They all agree on many things, including the story and who said what to
> try and escape the truth.
>
>
>
> The FBI and Justice
>> Department has gone on record as saying they didn't tap the phones in
>> Trump Tower. We can believe that for now. Who said it was the FBI? Who
>> said it was done legally? The CIA also has wiretap capability. It wouldn't
>> even need to have been done by someone in the government.
>>
>
>
>
> The DNI is above all the intelligence services. He has stated
> publicly that there was NO wiretapping. So forget all your 'official'

CLapper is a perfect liar. He know exactly how to answer the wrong
question the right way to not tell the truth. It's quite an art.

[judos...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, March 8, 2017 at 7:10:39 PM UTC-8, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> On 3/8/2017 10:14 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > David Von Pein wrote:

> >> BEN HOLMES, WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE DECENCY TO BLUSH, SAID ALL THIS:
> >>
> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/dpZWj57RgR0/LkzZadCsAwAJ
> >>
> >>
> >

> > Why are you posting a link to a thread in which you deleted ALL of
> > Holmes' arguments, and then posted unsupported ridicule?
> >
>

> Because he runs his own forum he can do whatever he likes.

It is indeed true that I run my own forum: http://conspiracyjfkforum.com

And it's also true that, like John McAdams here, I have total control over
the forum - and are thus limited only by my character in what I can do.

But the forum referred to above was not my forum.

Alt.conspiracy.jfk is a totally public, and totally uncensored forum.

I'm surprised that Tony confused the two forums...

[Anthony Marsh]

Not sure what you mean. You do not have to physically listen to a phone
call nowadays to get a transcript. A computer can generate on
automatically and then you can go back and listen to the call. I get my
voicemails sent as e-mail text.

>>
>> You may have also forgotten about the abilities of the NSA, who I
>> believe did not stop their work when it became known what they were doing
>> with conversations around the world, including Americans. Many phone
>> calls are transmitted through the air these days, to satellites and
>> towers. The NSA is able to 'hear' all of these, and with high speed
>> computers, wade through all that info and pick out conversations when
>> certain words are mentioned, like 'bomb' and such. The point being that
>> the intelligence services could easily know who was calling whom.
>>
>
> To differentiate that from a wiretap is a matter of semantics. They have
> to listen in to a conversation in order to record a transcript. They is
> not allowed without a court order.
>

Very rare does anyone nowadays physically add a transmitting tapping
device to the wires. The last time I say an old-fashion bug was back in
1975.

Not really. You can choose to just read the transcript and not bother
listening to the call.

>> I've used that phone company data to write programs to catch people
>> making long distance calls on the company's bill, when they're not talking
>> to clients.
>>
> Bet you couldn't get a transcript.

Not back then unless you farmed it out to some transcription company.
Most people did not have something inhouse.

>>
>>>> And if it had been true that Trump was 'tapped' then he would have
>>>> done what any intelligent person would have done, and called the FBI and
>>>> turned over all evidence of the 'tapping' and asked who was doing it, and
>>>> not announced it to the world which now thinks he's crazy and can't do his
>>>> job.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is more to this story than what the liberal news organizations are
>>> reporting but eventually it will see the light of day.
>>
>>
>>
>> WRONG! I listen to FOX News as well as PBS and the 'liberal' news too.
>
> PBS is liberal news.
>
>
>> They all agree on many things, including the story and who said what to
>> try and escape the truth.
>>
>
> Fox doesn't like Trump either. They are with the Republican establishment
> and Jeb Bush was their man. They don't like that a maverick has taken over
> the GOP. They would like to get it back. Fox does have divergent

Correct. So you admit that Trump is not a conservative and that the
Nazis took over the Republican Party.

> commentators and some of them are pro-Trump. Others are openly liberal
> like Shep Smith. Geraldo Rivera is said to be a Republican but he is of
> the northeast liberal Rockefeller strain of Republicans. This is in
> contrast to MSNBC who hires turncoat Republicans like Joe Scarborough and
> Michael Steele to bash their own party, particularly Donald Trump.

I thought you said Trump took over the Republican Party? Steele
represents the OLD Republican Party.

>
>>
>>
>> The FBI and Justice
>>> Department has gone on record as saying they didn't tap the phones in
>>> Trump Tower. We can believe that for now. Who said it was the FBI? Who
>>> said it was done legally? The CIA also has wiretap capability. It wouldn't
>>> even need to have been done by someone in the government.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The DNI is above all the intelligence services. He has stated
>> publicly that there was NO wiretapping. So forget all your 'official'
>> methods. And if it was private bugging, the bugs can be found and used as
>> evidence, but no such evidence has appeared.
>
> Do you think they have looked real hard.

Yes, at the official Agency approved bugging. Trump seems to be
suggesting some type of Nixonian private bugging done by Obama personally.

Are you nuts? Rachel didn't make up the dossier. It was made up by a
former MI-6 agent for some wealthy Republican trying to knock Trump out
of the primaries. It was deigned to be an attack piece.

> resorts to in order to make her points. One such example gets us back to
> the JFK assassination. Back when the universal background check debate was
> going on, she did a story about how as a Senator, JFK introduced
> legislation that would have banned imported foreign made rifles like the
> Carcano that would later kill him. That part is true. The part she leaves
> out is that JFK was the Senator from Massachusetts which at the time was
> to gun making what Detroit was to car making. Most of the major American
> gun makers had their factories in western Massachusetts. JFK's bill was
> protectionist legislation aimed to help a major industry in his home state
> by eliminating competition from foreign made products. It had nothing to
> do with public safety. In fact the Carcano is just the type of rifle
> liberals say that gun owners should be limited to. It is a slow firing low
> capacity weapon. But that didn't fit the narrative she was pushing so she
> left that part out too.
>

Did Western Mass. Specialize in machine guns only? You think JFK wanted
to limit sales to only machine guns?
I think your argument is cute, but it's too cute and leaves out as many
details as Rachel did. She was just going for the irony.
Only big argument is that gun control wants to preven lunatics from
getting their hands on guns that can rapidly fired several shots without
having to stop to reload.
Sometimes that can backfire. Oswald's rifle only had 4 rounds in it. One
shot only wounded Kennedy and you think one shot missed entirely. So up
until the last second there was a chance that JFK would get out of
Dealey Plaza alive. Maybe if Oswald's piece of junk were the only weapon
being ued JFK might have lived. But the TSBD shooter missed and also the
rifle jammed for 5 seconds so the second shooter had to take the
insurance shot and JFK had no chance.
So restricting the magazine capacity is overcome by having more shooters.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! The old style 'wiretapping' was where they actually attached
wires to the wires of a telephone line. That's no longer necessary for
general purposes. The NSA for instance, listens in to calls through the
atmosphere since today many calls are 'wireless' and go to cell towers or
to a satellite. Those are listened to and recorded, and then computers go
through them and pick out conversations of interest based on certain words
used in the chat. So a conversation can often be recorded when there are
no actual wires being 'tapped'.

However, in the case of Trump and his silly claim, he has now asked
for more time to produce the 'evidence' the congressional committee has
asked for. Just more proof that there never was any, and he was just
trying to change the conversation away from Russia, on which topic he will
be in seriously hot water not long from now. More and more in formation
is being dug up on his dealings with Russia and their connections. And
now the Deutche Bank is involved, and they carry many millions of debt of
Trump's. As it turns out, that bank was going to be hit with an extreme
federal fine which was being handled by Preet Bharara, one of the US
attorneys that were suddenly fired. That should hold off the fine for a
while until they hire more people to replace the ones that were let go.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/deutsche-bank-s-reworking-a-big-trump-loan-as-inauguration-nears

> >
> > You may have also forgotten about the abilities of the NSA, who I
> > believe did not stop their work when it became known what they were doing
> > with conversations around the world, including Americans. Many phone
> > calls are transmitted through the air these days, to satellites and
> > towers. The NSA is able to 'hear' all of these, and with high speed
> > computers, wade through all that info and pick out conversations when
> > certain words are mentioned, like 'bomb' and such. The point being that
> > the intelligence services could easily know who was calling whom.
> >
>
> To differentiate that from a wiretap is a matter of semantics. They have
> to listen in to a conversation in order to record a transcript. They is
> not allowed without a court order.
>

WRONG! You foolishly think that a court order is needed for the NSA to
listen in on conversations? They didn't ask for it before, when WikiLeaks
came out with the proof that they were recording conversations without the
court order. One of the problems with government is that when you give
power to certain people some of them will misuse it. It is true for the
IRS, and it is true for police and FBI in the case of terrorism using the
PATRIOT Act, and the NSA among others.

> >
> > The New York Times even had a headline store on inauguration
> > > day of such transcripts. Now all of a sudden the left wing news
> > > organizations have dropped all discussion of the Trump people being
> > > involved with the Russians because they realized the conundrum they had
> > > created.
> >
> >
> > Sorry, I still am hearing the story of the Russian connection as of
> > today, and without stop since it began. But of course, it's now flavored
> > with the story of Flynn and his being a lobbyist for Turkey while also
> > working for Trump's administration.
> >
>
> The current claims about Flynn have nothing to do with the Russian hacking
> of out election.
>

WRONG! You don't know that. He may have been working with the
Russians that he admitted he was talking to, about hacking Hillary's
servers or employees.

> >
> > > How could they blast Trump for suggesting Obama had tapped his
> > > phones while at the same pointing to transcripts of phone calls as
> > > evidence of collusion with the Russians. The NYT even went into their
> > > archives and scrubbed the word "transcript" from the headline and
> > > substituted the word "intercepts". Why do you suppose they did that.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > It may be the phone identifying method I spoke of above. They got to
> > the phone companies and get the list of origins that called destinations,
> > then interpret where those numbers were. They surely are doing that for
> > Russian phone numbers, and when an American calls a Russian phone, it's
> > recorded and they get the lookup from the phone company. It won't give
> > the content of the call, only the origin and destination, and some other
> > info.
> >
>
> The word transcript was specifically used. You have to listen in to get a
> transcript.
>

See above for listening in.

> > I've used that phone company data to write programs to catch people
> > making long distance calls on the company's bill, when they're not talking
> > to clients.
> >
> Bet you couldn't get a transcript.

I didn't try. I didn't need one.

You can bet Trump was looking hard because they put him in trouble
with his claim of wiretapping. If he doesn't come up with some evidence
now, he will be the laughing stock of the world. I expect he will try to
have some one fake evidence to get him off the hook he put himself on.

> > Trump is wasting the
> > taxpayers money to cover his own ass and change the subject being spread
> > around about him and Russia.
> >
>
> You're not following the script. Your side is supposed to stop talking
> about the Russians. You need to get on their email list.
>

I guess in your religious fervor with the Trump crew, you haven't
listened to Rachel Maddow. She has been digging an d finding all kinds of
goodies where Trump was doing illegal things with the Russians or their
friends (the oligarchs) and other international well moneyed people.

> > > > The evidence coming out now as the games unravel shows already crimes
> > > > committed by the Trump enterprise, in that Trump was involved in building
> > > > a hotel for a very corrupt wealthy politician in Azerbaijan, which is
> > > > against US law. The last guy that did that was put in prison. This may
> > > > be one of the things that Trump is afraid of and why he treats Putin like
> > > > his brother as opposed to Everyone else. The hotel he built is sitting in
> > > > an abandoned area with no decent access to it, and is itself abandoned.
> > > > It was a scheme to launder some money.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Amazing how the talking points have suddenly dropped the Russian hacking
> > > story.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > I still hear it mentioned almost every day, but I listen to the
> > 'liberal' media...:) Congress is trying to cover up for Trump because
> > they need him to sign bills they want to pass.
> >
>
> I don't know where you are hearing that. I haven't heard it mentioned for
> the past week in the mainstream media. Here is a recent story from Salon:
>
> http://www.salon.com/2017/03/12/wikileaks-cia-dump-makes-the-russian-hacking-story-even-murkier-if-thats-possible/
>

Try Rachel Maddow on MSNBC at 9:00pm and 12 midnight and 4:00am.

> > > > On top of that problem, Trump now has the problem of the infamous
> > > > 'dossier' which was thought to be unconfirmed stuff about Trump that Putin
> > > > had on him. As they go along in the case, it is turning out that one by
> > > > one the items in that 'dossier' are turning out to be true! wait'll we
> > > > get to the really embarrassing stuff!
> > > >
> > >
> > > The real question is who is it going to be most embarrassing to.
> >
> >
> >
> > The 'dossier' is all about Trump and what the Russians know about him
> > that would be useful for blackmailing. It's interesting reading:
> >
> > http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/pieces-of-trump-dossier-check-out-despite-investigative-dearth-892646467509
> >
>
> This story is typical of the innuendos and half truths Rachel Maddow
> resorts to in order to make her points.

LOL! You haven't heard her reports yet. You've been brainwashed by
Trump not to listen to the 'vile liberal media'....:) That's why the
dictator handbook recommends that any free reporting network has to be
silenced or people kept away from it, so they don't hear the truth and
will believe only the garbage handed out by the new dictator.

> One such example gets us back to
> the JFK assassination. Back when the universal background check debate was
> going on, she did a story about how as a Senator, JFK introduced
> legislation that would have banned imported foreign made rifles like the
> Carcano that would later kill him. That part is true. The part she leaves
> out is that JFK was the Senator from Massachusetts which at the time was
> to gun making what Detroit was to car making. Most of the major American
> gun makers had their factories in western Massachusetts. JFK's bill was
> protectionist legislation aimed to help a major industry in his home state
> by eliminating competition from foreign made products. It had nothing to
> do with public safety. In fact the Carcano is just the type of rifle
> liberals say that gun owners should be limited to. It is a slow firing low
> capacity weapon. But that didn't fit the narrative she was pushing so she
> left that part out too.

I have no idea what set you off on that path. And my thought hearing
it was "so what"?

Chris

[bigdog]

You are arguing about semantics. If someone was listening in on Trump's
phone calls or that of his staff his claims of wiretapping are legitimate
whether it is actually done by wire or not.

> However, in the case of Trump and his silly claim, he has now asked
> for more time to produce the 'evidence' the congressional committee has
> asked for. Just more proof that there never was any, and he was just
> trying to change the conversation away from Russia, on which topic he will
> be in seriously hot water not long from now. More and more in formation
> is being dug up on his dealings with Russia and their connections. And
> now the Deutche Bank is involved, and they carry many millions of debt of
> Trump's. As it turns out, that bank was going to be hit with an extreme
> federal fine which was being handled by Preet Bharara, one of the US
> attorneys that were suddenly fired. That should hold off the fine for a
> while until they hire more people to replace the ones that were let go.
>
> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/deutsche-bank-s-reworking-a-big-trump-loan-as-inauguration-nears

The mainstream news organizations have been on a non-stop vendetta to dig
up dirt on Trump since the night he was elected. Lot's of noise and no
substance.

>
>
>
> > >
> > > You may have also forgotten about the abilities of the NSA, who I
> > > believe did not stop their work when it became known what they were doing
> > > with conversations around the world, including Americans. Many phone
> > > calls are transmitted through the air these days, to satellites and
> > > towers. The NSA is able to 'hear' all of these, and with high speed
> > > computers, wade through all that info and pick out conversations when
> > > certain words are mentioned, like 'bomb' and such. The point being that
> > > the intelligence services could easily know who was calling whom.
> > >
> >
> > To differentiate that from a wiretap is a matter of semantics. They have
> > to listen in to a conversation in order to record a transcript. They is
> > not allowed without a court order.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! You foolishly think that a court order is needed for the NSA to
> listen in on conversations?

It isn't needed but it is required. I don't doubt that the NSA does lots
of things illegally.

> They didn't ask for it before, when WikiLeaks
> came out with the proof that they were recording conversations without the
> court order. One of the problems with government is that when you give
> power to certain people some of them will misuse it. It is true for the
> IRS, and it is true for police and FBI in the case of terrorism using the
> PATRIOT Act, and the NSA among others.
>

More examples of government abuse of power. One more reason the federal
government needs to be reined in.

>
>
> > >
> > > The New York Times even had a headline store on inauguration
> > > > day of such transcripts. Now all of a sudden the left wing news
> > > > organizations have dropped all discussion of the Trump people being
> > > > involved with the Russians because they realized the conundrum they had
> > > > created.
> > >
> > >
> > > Sorry, I still am hearing the story of the Russian connection as of
> > > today, and without stop since it began. But of course, it's now flavored
> > > with the story of Flynn and his being a lobbyist for Turkey while also
> > > working for Trump's administration.
> > >
> >
> > The current claims about Flynn have nothing to do with the Russian hacking
> > of out election.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! You don't know that. He may have been working with the
> Russians that he admitted he was talking to, about hacking Hillary's
> servers or employees.
>

When you find evidence of that let us no. No one cares about maybes.

Trump isn't in any trouble despite all the screeching from the mainstream
news organizations. The people who elected him are still behind him
despite the lame efforts of the liberal news organization.

>
>
>
> > > Trump is wasting the
> > > taxpayers money to cover his own ass and change the subject being spread
> > > around about him and Russia.
> > >
> >
> > You're not following the script. Your side is supposed to stop talking
> > about the Russians. You need to get on their email list.
> >
>
>
> I guess in your religious fervor with the Trump crew, you haven't
> listened to Rachel Maddow. She has been digging an d finding all kinds of
> goodies where Trump was doing illegal things with the Russians or their
> friends (the oligarchs) and other international well moneyed people.
>

I'll just bet she has. <chuckle>

She is the poster child for fake news.

Here is a fine example of the astute commentary by Maddow and another
airhead named Steve Kornacki:

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+rachel+maddow+smirk&view=detail&mid=ED04D5EE2B9936F3AB9EED04D5EE2B9936F3AB9E&FORM=VIRE

>
>
>
> > > > > The evidence coming out now as the games unravel shows already crimes
> > > > > committed by the Trump enterprise, in that Trump was involved in building
> > > > > a hotel for a very corrupt wealthy politician in Azerbaijan, which is
> > > > > against US law. The last guy that did that was put in prison. This may
> > > > > be one of the things that Trump is afraid of and why he treats Putin like
> > > > > his brother as opposed to Everyone else. The hotel he built is sitting in
> > > > > an abandoned area with no decent access to it, and is itself abandoned.
> > > > > It was a scheme to launder some money.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Amazing how the talking points have suddenly dropped the Russian hacking
> > > > story.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I still hear it mentioned almost every day, but I listen to the
> > > 'liberal' media...:) Congress is trying to cover up for Trump because
> > > they need him to sign bills they want to pass.
> > >
> >
> > I don't know where you are hearing that. I haven't heard it mentioned for
> > the past week in the mainstream media. Here is a recent story from Salon:
> >
> > http://www.salon.com/2017/03/12/wikileaks-cia-dump-makes-the-russian-hacking-story-even-murkier-if-thats-possible/
> >
>
>
>
> Try Rachel Maddow on MSNBC at 9:00pm and 12 midnight and 4:00am.
>

The Queen of Fake News.

>
>
> > > > > On top of that problem, Trump now has the problem of the infamous
> > > > > 'dossier' which was thought to be unconfirmed stuff about Trump that Putin
> > > > > had on him. As they go along in the case, it is turning out that one by
> > > > > one the items in that 'dossier' are turning out to be true! wait'll we
> > > > > get to the really embarrassing stuff!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The real question is who is it going to be most embarrassing to.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The 'dossier' is all about Trump and what the Russians know about him
> > > that would be useful for blackmailing. It's interesting reading:
> > >
> > > http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/pieces-of-trump-dossier-check-out-despite-investigative-dearth-892646467509
> > >
> >
> > This story is typical of the innuendos and half truths Rachel Maddow
> > resorts to in order to make her points.
>
>
>
> LOL! You haven't heard her reports yet. You've been brainwashed by
> Trump not to listen to the 'vile liberal media'....:) That's why the
> dictator handbook recommends that any free reporting network has to be
> silenced or people kept away from it, so they don't hear the truth and
> will believe only the garbage handed out by the new dictator.
>

Nobody is silencing MSNBC or preventing anyone who wants to from watching
it. They are free to report whatever nonsense they choose. The rest of us
are free to point out that they report nonsense. Freedom of the press does
not mean freedom from criticism of the press.

>
>
>
> > One such example gets us back to
> > the JFK assassination. Back when the universal background check debate was
> > going on, she did a story about how as a Senator, JFK introduced
> > legislation that would have banned imported foreign made rifles like the
> > Carcano that would later kill him. That part is true. The part she leaves
> > out is that JFK was the Senator from Massachusetts which at the time was
> > to gun making what Detroit was to car making. Most of the major American
> > gun makers had their factories in western Massachusetts. JFK's bill was
> > protectionist legislation aimed to help a major industry in his home state
> > by eliminating competition from foreign made products. It had nothing to
> > do with public safety. In fact the Carcano is just the type of rifle
> > liberals say that gun owners should be limited to. It is a slow firing low
> > capacity weapon. But that didn't fit the narrative she was pushing so she
> > left that part out too.
>
>
>
> I have no idea what set you off on that path. And my thought hearing
> it was "so what"?
>

You were touting Rachel Maddow as some sort of astute commentator and I
presented this as an example of just how deceitful she is.

[Jason Burke]

Or, as my Sri Lankan roommate at MIT said:

All fart. No shit.

[Anthony Marsh]

Someone great once said, "The Government should fear its people."

Funny how it's always the Trump supporters who say that and it's always
Trump who creates the Fake News.

So, does that make Trump the KIng of the Fake News?

You just don't like the Truth.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! There was no argument, there was explanation about what
'wiretapping' has become.

> > However, in the case of Trump and his silly claim, he has now asked
> > for more time to produce the 'evidence' the congressional committee has
> > asked for. Just more proof that there never was any, and he was just
> > trying to change the conversation away from Russia, on which topic he will
> > be in seriously hot water not long from now. More and more in formation
> > is being dug up on his dealings with Russia and their connections. And
> > now the Deutche Bank is involved, and they carry many millions of debt of
> > Trump's. As it turns out, that bank was going to be hit with an extreme
> > federal fine which was being handled by Preet Bharara, one of the US
> > attorneys that were suddenly fired. That should hold off the fine for a
> > while until they hire more people to replace the ones that were let go.
> >
> > https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-22/deutsche-bank-s-reworking-a-big-trump-loan-as-inauguration-nears
>
> The mainstream news organizations have been on a non-stop vendetta to dig
> up dirt on Trump since the night he was elected. Lot's of noise and no
> substance.
>

Seriously doubtful, but since Trump decided to attack the media when he
was caught lying so often, they might not be pleasant toward him.

> > > > You may have also forgotten about the abilities of the NSA, who I
> > > > believe did not stop their work when it became known what they were doing
> > > > with conversations around the world, including Americans. Many phone
> > > > calls are transmitted through the air these days, to satellites and
> > > > towers. The NSA is able to 'hear' all of these, and with high speed
> > > > computers, wade through all that info and pick out conversations when
> > > > certain words are mentioned, like 'bomb' and such. The point being that
> > > > the intelligence services could easily know who was calling whom.
> > > >
> > >
> > > To differentiate that from a wiretap is a matter of semantics. They have
> > > to listen in to a conversation in order to record a transcript. They is
> > > not allowed without a court order.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You foolishly think that a court order is needed for the NSA to
> > listen in on conversations?
>
> It isn't needed but it is required. I don't doubt that the NSA does lots
> of things illegally.
>

Thank you. That answers the question. In Obama's term the NSA was
caught recording things they shouldn't have. Tracking Americans without
probable cause.

> > They didn't ask for it before, when WikiLeaks
> > came out with the proof that they were recording conversations without the
> > court order. One of the problems with government is that when you give
> > power to certain people some of them will misuse it. It is true for the
> > IRS, and it is true for police and FBI in the case of terrorism using the
> > PATRIOT Act, and the NSA among others.
> >
>
> More examples of government abuse of power. One more reason the federal
> government needs to be reined in.
>

Yes, it needs reining in, but that won't happen unless the public
keeps involved and does the watchdogging needed.

> > > > The New York Times even had a headline store on inauguration
> > > > > day of such transcripts. Now all of a sudden the left wing news
> > > > > organizations have dropped all discussion of the Trump people being
> > > > > involved with the Russians because they realized the conundrum they had
> > > > > created.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I still am hearing the story of the Russian connection as of
> > > > today, and without stop since it began. But of course, it's now flavored
> > > > with the story of Flynn and his being a lobbyist for Turkey while also
> > > > working for Trump's administration.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The current claims about Flynn have nothing to do with the Russian hacking
> > > of out election.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You don't know that. He may have been working with the
> > Russians that he admitted he was talking to, about hacking Hillary's
> > servers or employees.
> >
>
> When you find evidence of that let us no. No one cares about maybes.
>

WRONG! Calling it 'maybes' and saying YOU don't care doesn't answer
the comment that caused the response. Think it through.

> > have someone fake evidence to get him off the hook he put himself on.

> >
>
> Trump isn't in any trouble despite all the screeching from the mainstream
> news organizations. The people who elected him are still behind him
> despite the lame efforts of the liberal news organization.
>

I'm sure that's the case. However, The Trump supporters are not the
majority, as we all know. And since he took over and has caused chaos in
the W.H. I'm sure some of his supporters have left him.

> > > > Trump is wasting the
> > > > taxpayers money to cover his own ass and change the subject being spread
> > > > around about him and Russia.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You're not following the script. Your side is supposed to stop talking
> > > about the Russians. You need to get on their email list.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I guess in your religious fervor with the Trump crew, you haven't

> > listened to Rachel Maddow. She has been digging and finding all kinds of

> > goodies where Trump was doing illegal things with the Russians or their
> > friends (the oligarchs) and other international well moneyed people.
> >
>
> I'll just bet she has. <chuckle>
>
> She is the poster child for fake news.
>

WRONG! She has shown her backup, and stated it clearly and it can be
checked. You don't think these days someone could just say something
stupid and get away with it without proving it, do you? After all, look
at when Trump tried it. Now they're looking for his proof, which he can't
come up with. He's the biggest purveyor of 'fake news' of all.

> Here is a fine example of the astute commentary by Maddow and another
> airhead named Steve Kornacki:
>
> https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+rachel+maddow+smirk&view=detail&mid=ED04D5EE2B9936F3AB9EED04D5EE2B9936F3AB9E&FORM=VIRE
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > The evidence coming out now as the games unravel shows already crimes
> > > > > > committed by the Trump enterprise, in that Trump was involved in building
> > > > > > a hotel for a very corrupt wealthy politician in Azerbaijan, which is
> > > > > > against US law. The last guy that did that was put in prison. This may
> > > > > > be one of the things that Trump is afraid of and why he treats Putin like
> > > > > > his brother as opposed to Everyone else. The hotel he built is sitting in
> > > > > > an abandoned area with no decent access to it, and is itself abandoned.
> > > > > > It was a scheme to launder some money.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Amazing how the talking points have suddenly dropped the Russian hacking
> > > > > story.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I still hear it mentioned almost every day, but I listen to the
> > > > 'liberal' media...:) Congress is trying to cover up for Trump because
> > > > they need him to sign bills they want to pass.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't know where you are hearing that. I haven't heard it mentioned for
> > > the past week in the mainstream media. Here is a recent story from Salon:
> > >
> > > http://www.salon.com/2017/03/12/wikileaks-cia-dump-makes-the-russian-hacking-story-even-murkier-if-thats-possible/
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Try Rachel Maddow on MSNBC at 9:00pm and 12 midnight and 4:00am.
> >
>
> The Queen of Fake News.
>

WRONG! Always with backup that can be checked. Look into Trump, the
biggest seller of fake news going.

> > > > > > On top of that problem, Trump now has the problem of the infamous
> > > > > > 'dossier' which was thought to be unconfirmed stuff about Trump that Putin
> > > > > > had on him. As they go along in the case, it is turning out that one by
> > > > > > one the items in that 'dossier' are turning out to be true! wait'll we
> > > > > > get to the really embarrassing stuff!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The real question is who is it going to be most embarrassing to.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The 'dossier' is all about Trump and what the Russians know about him
> > > > that would be useful for blackmailing. It's interesting reading:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/pieces-of-trump-dossier-check-out-despite-investigative-dearth-892646467509
> > > >
> > >
> > > This story is typical of the innuendos and half truths Rachel Maddow
> > > resorts to in order to make her points.
> >
> >
> >
> > LOL! You haven't heard her reports yet. You've been brainwashed by
> > Trump not to listen to the 'vile liberal media'....:) That's why the
> > dictator handbook recommends that any free reporting network has to be
> > silenced or people kept away from it, so they don't hear the truth and
> > will believe only the garbage handed out by the new dictator.
> >
>
> Nobody is silencing MSNBC or preventing anyone who wants to from watching
> it. They are free to report whatever nonsense they choose. The rest of us
> are free to point out that they report nonsense. Freedom of the press does
> not mean freedom from criticism of the press.
>

Oh, stop all the phony uprightness! Trump is trying to keep people
from listening to the liberal media and failing that, to discredit it, and
listening to you shows it's working on some people.

> >
> >
> >
> > > One such example gets us back to
> > > the JFK assassination. Back when the universal background check debate was
> > > going on, she did a story about how as a Senator, JFK introduced
> > > legislation that would have banned imported foreign made rifles like the
> > > Carcano that would later kill him. That part is true. The part she leaves
> > > out is that JFK was the Senator from Massachusetts which at the time was
> > > to gun making what Detroit was to car making. Most of the major American
> > > gun makers had their factories in western Massachusetts. JFK's bill was
> > > protectionist legislation aimed to help a major industry in his home state
> > > by eliminating competition from foreign made products. It had nothing to
> > > do with public safety. In fact the Carcano is just the type of rifle
> > > liberals say that gun owners should be limited to. It is a slow firing low
> > > capacity weapon. But that didn't fit the narrative she was pushing so she
> > > left that part out too.
> >
> >
> >
> > I have no idea what set you off on that path. And my thought hearing
> > it was "so what"?
> >
>
> You were touting Rachel Maddow as some sort of astute commentator and I
> presented this as an example of just how deceitful she is.

So she deceived you? Not too hard if you ask me.

Chris

[bigdog]

<chuckle>

That's one I hadn't heard before. I'll have to recycle it. Thank you
former roommate for me.

[bigdog]

Well it has taken us a few years but we may have finally found something
we agree on.

>
>
> > > They didn't ask for it before, when WikiLeaks
> > > came out with the proof that they were recording conversations without the
> > > court order. One of the problems with government is that when you give
> > > power to certain people some of them will misuse it. It is true for the
> > > IRS, and it is true for police and FBI in the case of terrorism using the
> > > PATRIOT Act, and the NSA among others.
> > >
> >
> > More examples of government abuse of power. One more reason the federal
> > government needs to be reined in.
> >
>
>
>
> Yes, it needs reining in, but that won't happen unless the public
> keeps involved and does the watchdogging needed.
>

More agreement.

>
>
> > > > > The New York Times even had a headline store on inauguration
> > > > > > day of such transcripts. Now all of a sudden the left wing news
> > > > > > organizations have dropped all discussion of the Trump people being
> > > > > > involved with the Russians because they realized the conundrum they had
> > > > > > created.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I still am hearing the story of the Russian connection as of
> > > > > today, and without stop since it began. But of course, it's now flavored
> > > > > with the story of Flynn and his being a lobbyist for Turkey while also
> > > > > working for Trump's administration.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The current claims about Flynn have nothing to do with the Russian hacking
> > > > of out election.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! You don't know that. He may have been working with the
> > > Russians that he admitted he was talking to, about hacking Hillary's
> > > servers or employees.
> > >
> >
> > When you find evidence of that let us no. No one cares about maybes.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! Calling it 'maybes' and saying YOU don't care doesn't answer
> the comment that caused the response. Think it through.
>

When I see evidence I'll stop calling it maybes and I'll start caring.

Maybe two or three. So far he has tried to do the things he said he would
do during the campaing. That in itself is rare for a president. Trump's
supporters care much less about what he says and much more about what he
does and what he is doing is the reason they voted for him.

>
>
> > > > > Trump is wasting the
> > > > > taxpayers money to cover his own ass and change the subject being spread
> > > > > around about him and Russia.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > You're not following the script. Your side is supposed to stop talking
> > > > about the Russians. You need to get on their email list.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I guess in your religious fervor with the Trump crew, you haven't
> > > listened to Rachel Maddow. She has been digging and finding all kinds of
> > > goodies where Trump was doing illegal things with the Russians or their
> > > friends (the oligarchs) and other international well moneyed people.
> > >
> >
> > I'll just bet she has. <chuckle>
> >
> > She is the poster child for fake news.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG! She has shown her backup, and stated it clearly and it can be
> checked. You don't think these days someone could just say something
> stupid and get away with it without proving it, do you? After all, look
> at when Trump tried it. Now they're looking for his proof, which he can't
> come up with. He's the biggest purveyor of 'fake news' of all.
>

Did you see her latest blockbuster. She got a copy of one of Trump's 2005
tax returns and tried to hype it. Turns out Trump paid $38 million in
taxes that year, a rate of 25%. That's higher than MSNBC's parent company
Comcast. Higher than Obama paid that year (19%) or Bernie Sanders (13%).
It pretty much destroyed the allegations that Trump hasn't been paying his
fair share of taxes. This "scoop" has been compared to Geraldo Rivera's
fiasco of opening Al Capone's vault on live TV. All that was in it was a
bottle of wine and an old stop sign. This wasn't fake news. It was
non-news. Even some in the liberal media mocked her for it.

>
>
> > Here is a fine example of the astute commentary by Maddow and another
> > airhead named Steve Kornacki:
> >
> > https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=you+tube+rachel+maddow+smirk&view=detail&mid=ED04D5EE2B9936F3AB9EED04D5EE2B9936F3AB9E&FORM=VIRE
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > The evidence coming out now as the games unravel shows already crimes
> > > > > > > committed by the Trump enterprise, in that Trump was involved in building
> > > > > > > a hotel for a very corrupt wealthy politician in Azerbaijan, which is
> > > > > > > against US law. The last guy that did that was put in prison. This may
> > > > > > > be one of the things that Trump is afraid of and why he treats Putin like
> > > > > > > his brother as opposed to Everyone else. The hotel he built is sitting in
> > > > > > > an abandoned area with no decent access to it, and is itself abandoned.
> > > > > > > It was a scheme to launder some money.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Amazing how the talking points have suddenly dropped the Russian hacking
> > > > > > story.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I still hear it mentioned almost every day, but I listen to the
> > > > > 'liberal' media...:) Congress is trying to cover up for Trump because
> > > > > they need him to sign bills they want to pass.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I don't know where you are hearing that. I haven't heard it mentioned for
> > > > the past week in the mainstream media. Here is a recent story from Salon:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.salon.com/2017/03/12/wikileaks-cia-dump-makes-the-russian-hacking-story-even-murkier-if-thats-possible/
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Try Rachel Maddow on MSNBC at 9:00pm and 12 midnight and 4:00am.
> > >
> >
> > The Queen of Fake News.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! Always with backup that can be checked. Look into Trump, the
> biggest seller of fake news going.
>

She sure nailed him on his tax return.

>
>
> > > > > > > On top of that problem, Trump now has the problem of the infamous
> > > > > > > 'dossier' which was thought to be unconfirmed stuff about Trump that Putin
> > > > > > > had on him. As they go along in the case, it is turning out that one by
> > > > > > > one the items in that 'dossier' are turning out to be true! wait'll we
> > > > > > > get to the really embarrassing stuff!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The real question is who is it going to be most embarrassing to.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The 'dossier' is all about Trump and what the Russians know about him
> > > > > that would be useful for blackmailing. It's interesting reading:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/pieces-of-trump-dossier-check-out-despite-investigative-dearth-892646467509
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This story is typical of the innuendos and half truths Rachel Maddow
> > > > resorts to in order to make her points.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL! You haven't heard her reports yet. You've been brainwashed by
> > > Trump not to listen to the 'vile liberal media'....:) That's why the
> > > dictator handbook recommends that any free reporting network has to be
> > > silenced or people kept away from it, so they don't hear the truth and
> > > will believe only the garbage handed out by the new dictator.
> > >
> >
> > Nobody is silencing MSNBC or preventing anyone who wants to from watching
> > it. They are free to report whatever nonsense they choose. The rest of us
> > are free to point out that they report nonsense. Freedom of the press does
> > not mean freedom from criticism of the press.
> >
>
>
>
> Oh, stop all the phony uprightness! Trump is trying to keep people
> from listening to the liberal media and failing that, to discredit it, and
> listening to you shows it's working on some people.
>

There's nothing wrong with him persuading people not to watch them or pay
attention to them. That's his right. The people are free to choose what
they are going to watch. That is what is important.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > One such example gets us back to
> > > > the JFK assassination. Back when the universal background check debate was
> > > > going on, she did a story about how as a Senator, JFK introduced
> > > > legislation that would have banned imported foreign made rifles like the
> > > > Carcano that would later kill him. That part is true. The part she leaves
> > > > out is that JFK was the Senator from Massachusetts which at the time was
> > > > to gun making what Detroit was to car making. Most of the major American
> > > > gun makers had their factories in western Massachusetts. JFK's bill was
> > > > protectionist legislation aimed to help a major industry in his home state
> > > > by eliminating competition from foreign made products. It had nothing to
> > > > do with public safety. In fact the Carcano is just the type of rifle
> > > > liberals say that gun owners should be limited to. It is a slow firing low
> > > > capacity weapon. But that didn't fit the narrative she was pushing so she
> > > > left that part out too.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I have no idea what set you off on that path. And my thought hearing
> > > it was "so what"?
> > >
> >
> > You were touting Rachel Maddow as some sort of astute commentator and I
> > presented this as an example of just how deceitful she is.
>
>
>
> So she deceived you? Not too hard if you ask me.
>

No she didn't because I know the full story. I'm sure she fooled a lot of
liberals thought. They probably believe that if only they would have
passed JFK's bill banning imported rifles JFK wouldn't have been
assassinated. All it would have meant was Oswald might have had to choose
a different rifle. Then you wouldn't be able to argue that he couldn't
have killed JFK with a crappy rifle like the Carcano.

[Anthony Marsh]

Only a few kooks suggested that.