Once again, the "fog of war" syndrome

[bigdog]

As if we didn't already know this, the horrific tragedy yesterday in
Newton, CT gives us one more example of how unreliable early reports and
information are in the wake of these events. Electronic media were
crawling over each other in an effort to get any scrap of information they
could and as a result, normal journalistic dilligence went out the window.
The result was the reporting of numerous "facts" that now seem to be in
serious question. The worst was the reporting that the shooting was done
by the real shooter's brother who was at his job in New Jersey at the time
of the shooting. It was initially reported that the mother of the shooter,
who apparently was his first victim, was a teacher at the school. Now that
seems to be in doubt. Early reports indicated a Bushmaster .223 assault
rifle was used in the attack but not it appears that weapon was left in
the shooter's car. There are still conflicting reports of how many
handguns were used in the attack. Initially it was believed that there
were two but now it seems there may have been as many as four.

What all this illustrates is how unreliable early information can be. We
saw the same thing happen in the JFK assassination and the Reagan
assassination attempt, even though 24 hour news channels weren't even on
the horizon back then. The media that did exist were just as anxious to
get information out as quickly as possible and as would be expected, much
of what was reported early on we later found out was just plain wrong. For
some curious reason, in the case of the JFK assassination, many choose to
continue to cling to what those early reports said rather than accept what
we later learned to be true. Those who want to know the truth will turn to
the most reliable information available to them while those that want the
beliefs to be true will turn to whatever they can to support those
beliefs.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/15/2012 4:30 PM, bigdog wrote:
> As if we didn't already know this, the horrific tragedy yesterday in
> Newton, CT gives us one more example of how unreliable early reports and
> information are in the wake of these events. Electronic media were
> crawling over each other in an effort to get any scrap of information they
> could and as a result, normal journalistic dilligence went out the window.
> The result was the reporting of numerous "facts" that now seem to be in
> serious question. The worst was the reporting that the shooting was done
> by the real shooter's brother who was at his job in New Jersey at the time
> of the shooting. It was initially reported that the mother of the shooter,
> who apparently was his first victim, was a teacher at the school. Now that
> seems to be in doubt. Early reports indicated a Bushmaster .223 assault
> rifle was used in the attack but not it appears that weapon was left in
> the shooter's car. There are still conflicting reports of how many
> handguns were used in the attack. Initially it was believed that there
> were two but now it seems there may have been as many as four.
>

This is nothing new and one of the reasons why law enforcement tries to be
very slow and careful about what information to release. But nothing will
come from learning any facts about this tragedy. No changes, no sympathy,
nothing. No new legislation. It wasn't big enough to budge the NRA or its
proxies (political whores). Osama bin Laden learned that lesson well.
First he killed only dozens of Americans and then hundreds of Americans
and still the US refused to declare war and send troops into Aghanistan.
So he had to kill thousands in order to prod the US into sending in
troops. Bin Laden did not have planes, ships, tanks or transports to ferry
his fighters to America. So he had to lure them into war with a massive
terrorist attack in order to be able to kill as many US troops and waste
as much American money as possible to bring down the US as he did the
Russians.

The NRA and the Republicans are so powerful that nothing will be done
until there are 2,500 victims in one incident.

Remember as the NRA says, "Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill
people."

Coincidentally, at the same time there was a madman using a knife to
attack 22 children at a school in China. No children died. Nuff said.

> What all this illustrates is how unreliable early information can be. We
> saw the same thing happen in the JFK assassination and the Reagan
> assassination attempt, even though 24 hour news channels weren't even on
> the horizon back then. The media that did exist were just as anxious to

Well, not so sure about that. Some networks could quickly shift to all
day coverage. CNN was launched on June 1, 1980.

> get information out as quickly as possible and as would be expected, much
> of what was reported early on we later found out was just plain wrong. For
> some curious reason, in the case of the JFK assassination, many choose to

And yet one important difference is that because of the JFK assassination
networks assigned news crews to the President on a death watch to be able
to film and document live any future assassinations. And the video from
the attack was quite helpful early on. Within minutes I was calling Bob
Cutler to tell him that I noticed that Reagan was hit by a ricochet off
the limo's frame.

[slats]

bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:bcdcb591-5c73-424d...@googlegroups.com: Early reports

> indicated a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle was used in the attack but
> not it appears that weapon was left in the shooter's car.

Not so fast. All the kids were killed with the Bushmaster, according to
the medical examiner.

http://www.wkbw.com/news/Adam-Lanza-Shot-Victims-at-Close-Range-with-Semi-
Automatic-Rifle-183652051.html

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good points, John/BigDog.

It was also reported that the mass murderer of the 20 little children
in Connecticut on December 14, 2012, had killed his father in Hoboken
too, which turned out to be the worst mistake of that terrible day
yesterday, bringing back memories of James Brady in 1981.

To state as fact that a person has died when they haven't is a
horrendous journalistic blunder. And it also reminds us of 11/22/63
too, when the press was reporting that a Secret Service agent had
positively been killed, even though no such agent was even wounded in
Dealey Plaza. (Although in the 1963 instance with the SS agent, it
wasn't quite as bad, since the press didn't have a name to go with the
report that a SS man had died. But I can imagine the worry and anguish
that that early report caused for the relatives of JFK's Secret
Service agents who were watching the live coverage unfold on radio or
television.

In fact, in kind of an ironic twist, Eddie Barker of KRLD-TV, whose
reporting was remarkably factual and accurate for the most part (even
during the very early hours after the assassination on November 22), was
reporting in the first hour that the one thing he COULD definitely say for
certain was a confirmed fact was the report that a Secret Service agent
had definitely been killed. But, of course, that was one of the few things
Barker got wrong that day.

[John McAdams]

On 15 Dec 2012 23:31:07 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

NBC, at least, reported that Reagan had not been *hit.*

>To state as fact that a person has died when they haven't is a
>horrendous journalistic blunder. And it also reminds us of 11/22/63
>too, when the press was reporting that a Secret Service agent had
>positively been killed, even though no such agent was even wounded in
>Dealey Plaza. (Although in the 1963 instance with the SS agent, it
>wasn't quite as bad, since the press didn't have a name to go with the
>report that a SS man had died. But I can imagine the worry and anguish
>that that early report caused for the relatives of JFK's Secret
>Service agents who were watching the live coverage unfold on radio or
>television.
>
>In fact, in kind of an ironic twist, Eddie Barker of KRLD-TV, whose
>reporting was remarkably factual and accurate for the most part (even
>during the very early hours after the assassination on November 22), was
>reporting in the first hour that the one thing he COULD definitely say for
>certain was a confirmed fact was the report that a Secret Service agent
>had definitely been killed. But, of course, that was one of the few things
>Barker got wrong that day.

I think it was Barker (but I know it was CBS) that reported that
Kennedy was taken to the hospital in a *bus.* (That's in one of the
videos on your site.)

Barker also "scooped" the fact that JFK was dead.

.John
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[mainframetech]

Fortunately, in this case the facts were helped to come out after some
time had passed. The early reports were indeed wrong, saying that a lone
nut assassinated the president. Over time, we have slowly and laboriously
gleaned information showing the real facts and leading us closer and
closer to the truth. Look into Doublas Horne and his effort to organize
the information at the ARRB.

Chris

[Bill Clarke]

In article <bcdcb591-5c73-424d...@googlegroups.com>, bigdog
says...

So true. It was a sad day for us when the news stopped being the news and
became entertainment. Not much credibility anymore.

Bill Clarke

[gwmcc...@gmail.com]

A good example of what John and .John are talking about is the story that a Mauser was supposedly found on the sixth floor of the TSDB.

The Skeptical Inquirer had a piece a while back about how stories that are quickly invalidated, or debunked, are revived years later. It focused on UFO tales but the phenomenology is analogous to JFK factoids.
Oh, hey, here it is online.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_roswellian_syndrome_how_some_ufo_myths_develop
<quote on>
Near the very beginning of the modern UFO craze, in the summer of 1947, a crashed “flying disc” was reported to have been recovered near Roswell, New Mexico. However, it was soon identified as simply a weather balloon, whereupon the sensational story seemed to fade away. Actually, it went underground; after subsequent decades, it resurfaced as an incredible tale of extraterrestrial invasion and the government’s attempt to cover up the awful truth. The media capitalized on “the Roswell incident,” and conspiracy theorists, persons with confabulated memories, outright hoaxers, and others climbed aboard the bandwagon. [Joe Nickell and James McGaha]
</quote off>

It is, of course, easier to be confused (and to confuse others) about essential details of chronology and the respective credibility of sources many years after the facts.

/sm

[Canuck]

On Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:30:49 PM UTC-8, bigdog wrote:
> As if we didn't already know this, the horrific tragedy yesterday in Newton, CT gives us one more example of how unreliable early reports and information are in the wake of these events. Electronic media were crawling over each other in an effort to get any scrap of information they could and as a result, normal journalistic dilligence went out the window. The result was the reporting of numerous "facts" that now seem to be in serious question. The worst was the reporting that the shooting was done by the real shooter's brother who was at his job in New Jersey at the time of the shooting. It was initially reported that the mother of the shooter, who apparently was his first victim, was a teacher at the school. Now that seems to be in doubt. Early reports indicated a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle was used in the attack but not it appears that weapon was left in the shooter's car. There are still conflicting reports of how many handguns were used in the attack. Initially it was believed that there were two but now it seems there may have been as many as four. What all this illustrates is how unreliable early information can be. We saw the same thing happen in the JFK assassination and the Reagan assassination attempt, even though 24 hour news channels weren't even on the horizon back then. The media that did exist were just as anxious to get information out as quickly as possible and as would be expected, much of what was reported early on we later found out was just plain wrong. For some curious reason, in the case of the JFK assassination, many choose to continue to cling to what those early reports said rather than accept what we later learned to be true. Those who want to know the truth will turn to the most reliable information available to them while those that want the beliefs to be true will turn to whatever they can to support those beliefs.

See my article "Deception and Deceit: Media Coverage of JFK's Assassination at:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Deception_and_Deceit.htm. - Peter R. Whitmey

[Bud]

"make pretend" progress. Goes nowhere, does nothing, all part of the
hobby.

[Bud]

You advocate overreaction. You want legislation and military action to
prevent all bad things from happening. You expect government to be able to
provide a cocoon where you can feel cozy and safe, and not have your world
disturbed by bad events.

Lets say a nutjob drives through a schoolyard with an SUV mowing down
children, do we enact legislation against cars, surround all schoolyards
with concrete barriers, make it so cars won`t start unless the driver pass
a psychological test given by the car`s onboard computer ("Are you
currently hearing voices?"). These nutjobs are always going to be with us,
sometimes they kill popular Presidents or entertainers, sometimes they
throw acid in someones face, sometimes they make bombs to kill people
because they have a problem with technology or government and sometimes
they shoot up schools. That whackjob with the orange hair that shot up the
movie theater had his apartment all booby trapped, you think he lacks the
creativity to be a threat to society if he sets his twisted mind to it?

> The NRA and the Republicans are so powerful that nothing will be done
> until there are 2,500 victims in one incident.

The founding fathers wanted an armed populace to safeguard against
government oppression of the people. Since the Democrats are the ones most
gun-grabby they must be the ones the founding fathers were worried about.

> Remember as the NRA says, "Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill
> people."

That much is true. Pretty harmless until someone decides to use
them. Like when Iran gets one.

> Coincidentally, at the same time there was a madman using a knife to
> attack 22 children at a school in China. No children died. Nuff said.

No, not "nuff said". That person`s sickness might not have required
a body count.

[Anthony Marsh]

You overreact. I never said anything about military action and certainly
no laws can prevent all bad things to happen. You sound like a Tea
Partier who says that the Assault Weapons Ban was a plot by the UN to
disarm the US to prepare to take it over.

> prevent all bad things from happening. You expect government to be able to
> provide a cocoon where you can feel cozy and safe, and not have your world
> disturbed by bad events.
>

I know it may be old-fashioned, but I happen to believe that WE create
governments to protect and serve us.

> Lets say a nutjob drives through a schoolyard with an SUV mowing down
> children, do we enact legislation against cars, surround all schoolyards

What is the name of that trick? Reductio ad Absurdum. If you could stop
your reliance on illogic we might get somewhere.

> with concrete barriers, make it so cars won`t start unless the driver pass
> a psychological test given by the car`s onboard computer ("Are you
> currently hearing voices?"). These nutjobs are always going to be with us,
> sometimes they kill popular Presidents or entertainers, sometimes they
> throw acid in someones face, sometimes they make bombs to kill people

Of course they will always be with us. But we don't have to arm them
with nuclear weapons so that they can kill more people. On the same day
as the attack in Sandy Hook there was an attack by a madman in China. He
attacked 22 schoolchild. How many was he able to kill? None. Because he
was only armed with a knife, not a machine gun. And people were able to
stop him and subdue him. Get it? Of course not. No assault rifle.

> because they have a problem with technology or government and sometimes
> they shoot up schools. That whackjob with the orange hair that shot up the
> movie theater had his apartment all booby trapped, you think he lacks the
> creativity to be a threat to society if he sets his twisted mind to it?
>

How much creativity does it take to steal your mother's assault rifle
and go kill children?

>> The NRA and the Republicans are so powerful that nothing will be done
>> until there are 2,500 victims in one incident.
>
> The founding fathers wanted an armed populace to safeguard against
> government oppression of the people. Since the Democrats are the ones most
> gun-grabby they must be the ones the founding fathers were worried about.

Wrong. The model was the Minutemen. The enemy was the British Empire.
Oppression from above.

>
>> Remember as the NRA says, "Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill
>> people."
>
> That much is true. Pretty harmless until someone decides to use
> them. Like when Iran gets one.
>

But didn't you guys claim that Iraq already had one? And you don't seem
to mind that Pakistan has them and even Israel. The moment we discover
the trillions of barrels of oil under the ice in Iceland we will claim
that they have a nuclear bomb and invade them.

>> Coincidentally, at the same time there was a madman using a knife to
>> attack 22 children at a school in China. No children died. Nuff said.
>
> No, not "nuff said". That person`s sickness might not have required
> a body count.
>

You still don't get it. He attacked the same number of kids. 22 versus
22. What was the only difference in the outcome? The type of weapon used.

[Anthony Marsh]

So you think the WC was just a hobby and the HSCA was just a hobby?
So any time there is a national tragedy there should never be an
investigation because all investigations are just hobbies? Just ignore
the event and move on, allowing it to happen again and again and never
learn anything? So you want a Sandy Hook every week.

[mainframetech]

Tell it to those that have progressed in each decade in the information
available to the public. Much more now than in the beginning. Many
documents have been made public and many more are due to come out in
future. Your long fight to deny the facts must continue into the next
decades. You will be required to be here for many years. There is no
hope of reprieve for you...:)

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

When you don't have any facts on your side, compare the JFK
assassination research to UFO research. Never debate, always demonize.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Gee, I guess you really didn't get the point.

You don't believe, either, that a Mauser was found on the sixth floor,
no more than you believe Oswald was standing in the doorway, and yet you
still don't see the analogy between the revival of those canards and the
"Roswell syndrome" described by Nickell and McGaha.

Big surprise there.

/sm

[Bud]

No, they were the response to a hobby.

> So any time there is a national tragedy there should never be an
> investigation because all investigations are just hobbies?

Investigations are investigations and hobbies are hobbies. Clear?

> Just ignore
> the event and move on, allowing it to happen again and again and never
> learn anything?

What is the purpose of CTer "investigating" that goes nowhere?

> So you want a Sandy Hook every week.

Bad things happen whether I want them to or not.

[Bud]

I`d be glad to.

> Much more now than in the beginning.  Many
> documents have been made public and many more are due to come out in
> future.

Ah, you expect to make progress in the future.

> Your long fight to deny the facts must continue into the next
> decades.

That was my point, I don`t have to lift a finger. The state of this
case would be exactly the same without my input or yours. There is
nothing happening, I just realize this and you don`t.

> You will be required to be here for many years.  There is no
> hope of reprieve for you...:)

Who else is going to inform you of the uncomfortable truth that you
are spinning your wheels and going nowhere?

> Chris

[Bud]

You think the Taliban would have disbanded the terrorists camps in
Afghanistan if we asked them nicely?

> and certainly
> no laws can prevent all bad things to happen.

Or from bad people doing bad things.

>You sound like a Tea
> Partier who says that the Assault Weapons Ban was a plot by the UN to
> disarm the US to prepare to take it over.

Not the UN, liberals.

> > prevent all bad things from happening. You expect government to be able to
> > provide a cocoon where you can feel cozy and safe, and not have your world
> > disturbed by bad events.
>
> I know it may be old-fashioned, but I happen to believe that WE create
> governments to protect and serve us.

And the founding fathers felt the people should be armed in case
those expectations weren`t realized.

> >    Lets say a nutjob drives through a schoolyard with an SUV mowing down
> > children, do we enact legislation against cars, surround all schoolyards
>
> What is the name of that trick? Reductio ad Absurdum. If you could stop
> your reliance on illogic we might get somewhere.

What is absurd is thinking those guns themselves caused this havoc.
You want to focus on inanimate objects, and I`m focusing on the true
cause, nutjobs.

> > with concrete barriers, make it so cars won`t start unless the driver pass
> > a psychological test given by the car`s onboard computer ("Are you
> > currently hearing voices?"). These nutjobs are always going to be with us,
> > sometimes they kill popular Presidents or entertainers, sometimes they
> > throw acid in someones face, sometimes they make bombs to kill people
>
> Of course they will always be with us. But we don't have to arm them
> with nuclear weapons so that they can kill more people.

Reductio ad absurdum.

>On the same day
> as the attack in Sandy Hook there was an attack by a madman in China. He
> attacked 22 schoolchild. How many was he able to kill? None.

What prevented him from inflicting fatal wounds?

Likely he was able to kill many of them, with the proper knife and
technique. This school shooter shot his victims multiple times, he was
obviously trying to kill.

> Because he
> was only armed with a knife, not a machine gun.

It`s possible to shoot 22 people with a machine gun and have them all
survive. It`s possible to stab 22 people with a knife and have them
all die.

>And people were able to
> stop him and subdue him.

After stabbing 22. A lot of these shooters are subdued eventually.

>Get it? Of course not. No assault rifle.

Like China would allow it`s people the freedom to own firearms.

> > because they have a problem with technology or government and sometimes
> > they shoot up schools. That whackjob with the orange hair that shot up the
> > movie theater had his apartment all booby trapped, you think he lacks the
> > creativity to be a threat to society if he sets his twisted mind to it?
>
> How much creativity does it take to steal your mother's assault rifle
> and go kill children?

Not much. Or to burn a whole dorm down with everybody inside instead
of booby trapping one room. Or steal his mothers car and plow it
through a schoolyard.

> >> The NRA and the Republicans are so powerful that nothing will be done
> >> until there are 2,500 victims in one incident.
>
> >    The founding fathers wanted an armed populace to safeguard against
> > government oppression of the people. Since the Democrats are the ones most
> > gun-grabby they must be the ones the founding fathers were worried about.
>
> Wrong. The model was the Minutemen. The enemy was the British Empire.
> Oppression from above.

Nonsense, you haven`t read their writings. It was to protect from
within as much as without.

> >> Remember as the NRA says, "Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill
> >> people."
>
> >    That much is true. Pretty harmless until someone decides to use
> > them. Like when Iran gets one.
>
> But didn't you guys claim that Iraq already had one?

Who claimed Iraq had nukes?

> And you don't seem
> to mind that Pakistan has them and even Israel.

I do.

> The moment we discover
> the trillions of barrels of oil under the ice in Iceland we will claim
> that they have a nuclear bomb and invade them.

They`d be easy to take too, I think their defense consists of
flinging sheep with catapults.

> >> Coincidentally, at the same time there was a madman using a knife to
> >> attack 22 children at a school in China. No children died. Nuff said.
>
> >    No, not "nuff said". That person`s sickness might not have required
> > a body count.
>
> You still don't get it. He attacked the same number of kids.

No, they both wounded the same number of victims. Likely they were
both attacking all the kids they could.

> 22 versus
> 22. What was the only difference in the outcome? The type of weapon used.

You only want to focus on the choice of weapons, you assume they had
identical intent. What prevented the China nutjob from inflicting
fatal wounds with his knife? What if he use a meat cleaver or machete,
could he have killed as many? Maybe more since he would be harder to
subdue.

[bigdog]

Another example of the unreliability of the reports. First the Bushmaster
was the murder weapon. Then it wasn't. Then it was. What has been reported
has been all over the place. It is not surprising that some of it might be
right. But a lot of it was wrong, which was the point I made in the OP.

[bigdog]

ABC had also made that same report. I still remember Frank Reynolds
reaction when he read on air the later report that Reagan had been shot.
He put his hand to his forehead and exclaimed, "My God, he was hit!".

>
>
>
>
> >To state as fact that a person has died when they haven't is a
>
> >horrendous journalistic blunder. And it also reminds us of 11/22/63
>
> >too, when the press was reporting that a Secret Service agent had
>
> >positively been killed, even though no such agent was even wounded in
>
> >Dealey Plaza. (Although in the 1963 instance with the SS agent, it
>
> >wasn't quite as bad, since the press didn't have a name to go with the
>
> >report that a SS man had died. But I can imagine the worry and anguish
>
> >that that early report caused for the relatives of JFK's Secret
>
> >Service agents who were watching the live coverage unfold on radio or
>
> >television.
>
> >
>
> >In fact, in kind of an ironic twist, Eddie Barker of KRLD-TV, whose
>
> >reporting was remarkably factual and accurate for the most part (even
>
> >during the very early hours after the assassination on November 22), was
>
> >reporting in the first hour that the one thing he COULD definitely say for
>
> >certain was a confirmed fact was the report that a Secret Service agent
>
> >had definitely been killed. But, of course, that was one of the few things
>
> >Barker got wrong that day.
>
>
>
> I think it was Barker (but I know it was CBS) that reported that
>
> Kennedy was taken to the hospital in a *bus.* (That's in one of the
>
> videos on your site.)
>
>
>
> Barker also "scooped" the fact that JFK was dead.
>

I have videos of the ABC and CBS early coverage. What struck me most was
that after breaking into their regular programming with the bulletin about
the shooting, CBS returned to their soap opera. They did that several
times before finally staying with the story. Cronkite initially reported
it was a .30 caliber rifle (don't ask me where he got that). Later reports
had it as a British Einfeld and a Japanese rifle (can't remember if that
came from Cronkite or someone else).

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, so now you claim that the JFK assassination was just a hobby?

>> So any time there is a national tragedy there should never be an
>> investigation because all investigations are just hobbies?
>
> Investigations are investigations and hobbies are hobbies. Clear?

It's clear that you don't want any investigations. How did the FBI
investigation go? Three shots, three hits.

[Anthony Marsh]

I see the organized program by the CIA to dismiss any conspiracy
research by comparing it to UFO research.

> Big surprise there.
>
> /sm
>

[mainframetech]

Silly boy! You still don't realize that your running around and
saying denialist stuff just helps the argument go on forever. Thanks
for the help...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Dec 17, 2:26 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 11:10:17 PM UTC-5, slats wrote:

> > bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in

>
> >news:bcdcb591-5c73-424d...@googlegroups.com:Early reports
>
> > > indicated a Bushmaster .223 assault rifle was used in the attack but
>
> > > not it appears that weapon was left in the shooter's car.
>
> > Not so fast. All the kids were killed with the Bushmaster, according to
>
> > the medical examiner.
>

> >http://www.wkbw.com/news/Adam-Lanza-Shot-Victims-at-Close-Range-with-...

>
> > Automatic-Rifle-183652051.html
>
> Another example of the unreliability of the reports. First the Bushmaster
> was the murder weapon. Then it wasn't. Then it was. What has been reported
> has been all over the place. It is not surprising that some of it might be
> right. But a lot of it was wrong, which was the point I made in the OP.

As we learn with the Newtown case, so we learn with the JFK case. As
time goes on, we get closer and closer to the truth. More recently we
have Douglas Horne to bring us that much closer to the meaning of much of
the evidence that wasn't as clear until he put it together. Yep, we learn
as we go along and Newtown is proof of it.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Dec 17, 2:28 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 15, 2012 11:34:33 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:

> > On 15 Dec 2012 23:31:07 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>

Yep, and in Dallas some thought it was a mannlicher-Carcano.

Chris

[hmalt...@gmail.com]

I have an 11/22/63 newspaper front page saying that Connelly had been
killed.

[Anthony Marsh]

They were surprised that he could have been directly hit from Hinckley's
location because Jerry Parr had reacted to quickly to cover him. What they
didn't realize was that Hinckley missed with the direct shot and it was a
richochet off the car which hit him in the front when shot at from behind.
I knew that instantly and called Bob Cutler and told him about it. He
did't believe me at first and thought there must be a second gunman, but
careful examination of the evidence (that limo was not destroyed like
Dallas) found the impact on the support column.

[Anthony Marsh]

Did it really say "Connelly"? Upload it for us.

[Anthony Marsh]

Who in the world could tell just from the sound or by seeing it at a
distance that it was a Mannlicher-Carcano?

>

[Anthony Marsh]

Those who are not allowed to learn history are doomed to repeat it.

[Anthony Marsh]

There might not have been any terrorist camps in Afghanistan if we had
not built them. My attitude is Don't start nuthin won't be nothin.
The best way to stop terrorism is to stop funding it.

>> and certainly
>> no laws can prevent all bad things to happen.
>
> Or from bad people doing bad things.
>

What about when good people do bad things?

>> You sound like a Tea
>> Partier who says that the Assault Weapons Ban was a plot by the UN to
>> disarm the US to prepare to take it over.
>
> Not the UN, liberals.

Same difference to the Tea Party. New World Order.

>
>>> prevent all bad things from happening. You expect government to be able to
>>> provide a cocoon where you can feel cozy and safe, and not have your world
>>> disturbed by bad events.
>>
>> I know it may be old-fashioned, but I happen to believe that WE create
>> governments to protect and serve us.
>
> And the founding fathers felt the people should be armed in case
> those expectations weren`t realized.

Something like that. But don't actually study it.
You must like the movie Red Dawn. You really think that a few yahoos
with AR-15 are going to keep the Russians from nuking us into dust. Is
that called wishful think or just delusions of grandeur?

>
>>> Lets say a nutjob drives through a schoolyard with an SUV mowing down
>>> children, do we enact legislation against cars, surround all schoolyards
>>
>> What is the name of that trick? Reductio ad Absurdum. If you could stop
>> your reliance on illogic we might get somewhere.
>
> What is absurd is thinking those guns themselves caused this havoc.
> You want to focus on inanimate objects, and I`m focusing on the true
> cause, nutjobs.
>

That is the NRA playbook. Protect guns and blame it on mental illness.
That is what mentally ill people do, blame their problems on others and
never take any responsibility for their own actions.

>>> with concrete barriers, make it so cars won`t start unless the driver pass
>>> a psychological test given by the car`s onboard computer ("Are you
>>> currently hearing voices?"). These nutjobs are always going to be with us,
>>> sometimes they kill popular Presidents or entertainers, sometimes they
>>> throw acid in someones face, sometimes they make bombs to kill people
>>
>> Of course they will always be with us. But we don't have to arm them
>> with nuclear weapons so that they can kill more people.
>
> Reductio ad absurdum.

Intended to be. But in addition, Satire and Ridicule.

>
>> On the same day
>> as the attack in Sandy Hook there was an attack by a madman in China. He
>> attacked 22 schoolchild. How many was he able to kill? None.
>
> What prevented him from inflicting fatal wounds?
>
> Likely he was able to kill many of them, with the proper knife and
> technique. This school shooter shot his victims multiple times, he was
> obviously trying to kill.
>

Duh! Maybe you don't remember any other famous shootings. Study the
shooting of Gabby Giffords. The same type of nut was able to kill
several people, but he was not able to kill dozens? Why? Because he had
to stop to reload and people had a chance to stop him. Someone came to
the shooting late and he was armed with a gun, but did not fire. He
could have missed and hit innocent people. Cops often miss and hit
innocent people.
So you really think that a deranged man with a knife can kill as many
people as a deranged man with an AR-15 using a large capacity magazine?
Has Diane Feinstein introduced a bill to ban kitchen knives?

>> Because he
>> was only armed with a knife, not a machine gun.
>
> It`s possible to shoot 22 people with a machine gun and have them all
> survive. It`s possible to stab 22 people with a knife and have them
> all die.
>

Oh yeah, show me. Prove it.

>> And people were able to
>> stop him and subdue him.
>
> After stabbing 22. A lot of these shooters are subdued eventually.
>

If they had to stop and reload because they were not using high capacity
magazines. No one had a chance to stop the rightwing nut in Norway.

>> Get it? Of course not. No assault rifle.
>
> Like China would allow it`s people the freedom to own firearms.
>

One of the first freedoms we have is Life. Not to murder.

>>> because they have a problem with technology or government and sometimes
>>> they shoot up schools. That whackjob with the orange hair that shot up the
>>> movie theater had his apartment all booby trapped, you think he lacks the
>>> creativity to be a threat to society if he sets his twisted mind to it?
>>
>> How much creativity does it take to steal your mother's assault rifle
>> and go kill children?
>
> Not much. Or to burn a whole dorm down with everybody inside instead
> of booby trapping one room. Or steal his mothers car and plow it
> through a schoolyard.
>
>>>> The NRA and the Republicans are so powerful that nothing will be done
>>>> until there are 2,500 victims in one incident.
>>
>>> The founding fathers wanted an armed populace to safeguard against
>>> government oppression of the people. Since the Democrats are the ones most
>>> gun-grabby they must be the ones the founding fathers were worried about.
>>
>> Wrong. The model was the Minutemen. The enemy was the British Empire.
>> Oppression from above.
>
> Nonsense, you haven`t read their writings. It was to protect from
> within as much as without.
>

Within was the situation during the revolution. We were a British colony
and the people revolted and wanted their freedom. We did not sail over
to England and try to burn down the palace.

>>>> Remember as the NRA says, "Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill
>>>> people."
>>
>>> That much is true. Pretty harmless until someone decides to use
>>> them. Like when Iran gets one.
>>
>> But didn't you guys claim that Iraq already had one?
>
> Who claimed Iraq had nukes?
>

YOU GUYS. The rightwing. Bush and Cheney.

>> And you don't seem
>> to mind that Pakistan has them and even Israel.
>
> I do.
>
>> The moment we discover
>> the trillions of barrels of oil under the ice in Iceland we will claim
>> that they have a nuclear bomb and invade them.
>
> They`d be easy to take too, I think their defense consists of
> flinging sheep with catapults.
>
>>>> Coincidentally, at the same time there was a madman using a knife to
>>>> attack 22 children at a school in China. No children died. Nuff said.
>>
>>> No, not "nuff said". That person`s sickness might not have required
>>> a body count.
>>
>> You still don't get it. He attacked the same number of kids.
>
> No, they both wounded the same number of victims. Likely they were
> both attacking all the kids they could.
>

No kids were only wounded in Sandy Hook. They were killed.
In China no kids were killed. The only difference - the type of weapon
used. And you still don't get it. You still continue to defend the NRA.

>> 22 versus
>> 22. What was the only difference in the outcome? The type of weapon used.
>
> You only want to focus on the choice of weapons, you assume they had
> identical intent. What prevented the China nutjob from inflicting
> fatal wounds with his knife? What if he use a meat cleaver or machete,
> could he have killed as many? Maybe more since he would be harder to
> subdue.
>

Meat cleavers are not banned in China. You think his success rate would
have been 100% if he had used a meat cleaver? I don't even know what the
technical term is for that kind of thinking.

[Bud]

Events are events and hobbies are hobbies. Clear?

> >> So any time there is a national tragedy there should never be an
> >> investigation because all investigations are just hobbies?
>
> >    Investigations are investigations and hobbies are hobbies. Clear?
>
> It's clear that you don't want any investigations.

It`s clear you can`t tell an investigation from a hobby.

[Bud]

Like I have the power to stop a hobby people enjoy participating
in.

>Thanks
> for the help...:)

Your lack of progress is not because of what I do, but because of
the things you can`t do.

> Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

>>>> 1947, a crashed ?flying disc? was reported to have been recovered near

>>>> Roswell, New Mexico. However, it was soon identified as simply a
>>>> weather balloon, whereupon the sensational story seemed to fade away.
>>>> Actually, it went underground; after subsequent decades, it resurfaced
>>>> as an incredible tale of extraterrestrial invasion and the

>>>> government?s attempt to cover up the awful truth. The media
>>>> capitalized on ?the Roswell incident,? and conspiracy theorists,

>>>> persons with confabulated memories, outright hoaxers, and others
>>>> climbed aboard the bandwagon. [Joe Nickell and James McGaha]
>>>> </quote off>
>>>>
>>>> It is, of course, easier to be confused (and to confuse others) about
>>>> essential details of chronology and the respective credibility of
>>>> sources many years after the facts.
>>>>
>>>> /sm
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When you don't have any facts on your side, compare the JFK
>>> assassination research to UFO research. Never debate, always demonize.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Gee, I guess you really didn't get the point.
>>
>> You don't believe, either, that a Mauser was found on the sixth floor,
>> no more than you believe Oswald was standing in the doorway, and yet you
>> still don't see the analogy between the revival of those canards and the
>> "Roswell syndrome" described by Nickell and McGaha.
>>
>
> I see the organized program by the CIA to dismiss any conspiracy
> research by comparing it to UFO research.
>

Ha ha. You would.
But it's not the Central Intelligence Agency behind this conclusion,
just plain intelligence.
/sm

[bigdog]

Right. It wasn't clear until a military expert started examining the
medical evidence for us. <chuckle>

[Bud]

We don`t build camps for terrorists. We build them for freedom
fighters.

> My attitude is Don't start nuthin won't be nothin.
> The best way to stop terrorism is to stop funding it.
>
> >> and certainly
> >> no laws can prevent all bad things to happen.
>
> >    Or from bad people doing bad things.
>
> What about when good people do bad things?

Thats ok.

> >> You sound like a Tea
> >> Partier who says that the Assault Weapons Ban was a plot by the UN to
> >> disarm the US to prepare to take it over.
>
> >    Not the UN, liberals.
>
> Same difference to the Tea Party. New World Order.

Their enemies identify themselves by trying to grab their guns. They
are suspicious of their motives.

> >>> prevent all bad things from happening. You expect government to be able to
> >>> provide a cocoon where you can feel cozy and safe, and not have your world
> >>> disturbed by bad events.
>
> >> I know it may be old-fashioned, but I happen to believe that WE create
> >> governments to protect and serve us.
>
> >    And the founding fathers felt the people should be armed in case
> > those expectations weren`t realized.
>
> Something like that. But don't actually study it.

Obviously I have, which enabled me to encapsulate the idea so
completely in so few words.

> You must like the movie Red Dawn.

No, I hated it. Are you ever right?

>You really think that a few yahoos
> with AR-15 are going to keep the Russians from nuking us into dust.

Did you watch the movie?

> Is
> that called wishful think or just delusions of grandeur?

Like in Egypt, Libya and Syria, that kind of delusion?

> >>>     Lets say a nutjob drives through a schoolyard with an SUV mowing down
> >>> children, do we enact legislation against cars, surround all schoolyards
>
> >> What is the name of that trick? Reductio ad Absurdum. If you could stop
> >> your reliance on illogic we might get somewhere.
>
> >    What is absurd is thinking those guns themselves caused this havoc.
> > You want to focus on inanimate objects, and I`m focusing on the true
> > cause, nutjobs.
>
> That is the NRA playbook. Protect guns and blame it on mental illness.

Because the guns are inanimate objects. Do you blame cars for car
accidents?

> That is what mentally ill people do, blame their problems on others and
> never take any responsibility for their own actions.

Many don`t. Oswald didn`t.

> >>> with concrete barriers, make it so cars won`t start unless the driver pass
> >>> a psychological test given by the car`s onboard computer ("Are you
> >>> currently hearing voices?"). These nutjobs are always going to be with us,
> >>> sometimes they kill popular Presidents or entertainers, sometimes they
> >>> throw acid in someones face, sometimes they make bombs to kill people
>
> >> Of course they will always be with us. But we don't have to arm them
> >> with nuclear weapons so that they can kill more people.
>
> >     Reductio ad absurdum.
>
> Intended to be.

Then you succeeded.

>But in addition, Satire and Ridicule.

There you failed.

> >> On the same day
> >> as the attack in Sandy Hook there was an attack by a madman in China. He
> >> attacked 22 schoolchild. How many was he able to kill? None.
>
> >    What prevented him from inflicting fatal wounds?
>
> >    Likely he was able to kill many of them, with the proper knife and
> > technique. This school shooter shot his victims multiple times, he was
> > obviously trying to kill.
>
> Duh! Maybe you don't remember any other famous shootings. Study the
> shooting of Gabby Giffords. The same type of nut was able to kill
> several people, but he was not able to kill dozens? Why? Because he had
> to stop to reload and people had a chance to stop him. Someone came to
> the shooting late and he was armed with a gun, but did not fire. He
> could have missed and hit innocent people. Cops often miss and hit
> innocent people.
> So you really think that a deranged man with a knife can kill as many
> people as a deranged man with an AR-15 using a large capacity magazine?

More, you don`t have to reload a knife.

> Has Diane Feinstein introduced a bill to ban kitchen knives?
>
> >> Because he
> >> was only armed with a knife, not a machine gun.
>
> >   It`s possible to shoot 22 people with a machine gun and have them all
> > survive. It`s possible to stab 22 people with a knife and have them
> > all die.
>
> Oh yeah, show me. Prove it.

Why would you think there is an upper limit to the number of people
you can stab to death? Look into the Rape of Nanking.

> >> And people were able to
> >> stop him and subdue him.
>
> >    After stabbing 22. A lot of these shooters are subdued eventually.
>
> If they had to stop and reload because they were not using high capacity
> magazines. No one had a chance to stop the rightwing nut in Norway.

Your argument is that you want guns that stop firing every so often
so you can tackle and disarm the shooters? Ever hear of sidearms?

> >> Get it? Of course not. No assault rifle.
>
> >    Like China would allow it`s people the freedom to own firearms.
>
> One of the first freedoms we have is Life.

How do you protect this freedom?

> Not to murder.

People are free to murder and you will never pass any legislation
that will take away that freedom.

> >>> because they have a problem with technology or government and sometimes
> >>> they shoot up schools. That whackjob with the orange hair that shot up the
> >>> movie theater had his apartment all booby trapped, you think he lacks the
> >>> creativity to be a threat to society if he sets his twisted mind to it?
>
> >> How much creativity does it take to steal your mother's assault rifle
> >> and go kill children?
>
> >    Not much. Or to burn a whole dorm down with everybody inside instead
> > of booby trapping one room. Or steal his mothers car and plow it
> > through a schoolyard.
>
> >>>> The NRA and the Republicans are so powerful that nothing will be done
> >>>> until there are 2,500 victims in one incident.
>
> >>>     The founding fathers wanted an armed populace to safeguard against
> >>> government oppression of the people. Since the Democrats are the ones most
> >>> gun-grabby they must be the ones the founding fathers were worried about.
>
> >> Wrong. The model was the Minutemen. The enemy was the British Empire.
> >> Oppression from above.
>
> >    Nonsense, you haven`t read their writings. It was to protect from
> > within as much as without.
>
> Within was the situation during the revolution. We were a British colony
> and the people revolted and wanted their freedom. We did not sail over
> to England and try to burn down the palace.

But their army did sail here.And the right to bear arms was as much
about keeping our own government in line as it was a defense from
outsiders.

> >>>> Remember as the NRA says, "Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill
> >>>> people."
>
> >>>     That much is true. Pretty harmless until someone decides to use
> >>> them. Like when Iran gets one.
>
> >> But didn't you guys claim that Iraq already had one?
>
> >    Who claimed Iraq had nukes?
>
> YOU GUYS. The rightwing. Bush and Cheney.

Quote either one saying Iraq had nukes.

> >> And you don't seem
> >> to mind that Pakistan has them and even Israel.
>
> >    I do.
>
> >> The moment we discover
> >> the trillions of barrels of oil under the ice in Iceland we will claim
> >> that they have a nuclear bomb and invade them.
>
> >    They`d be easy to take too, I think their defense consists of
> > flinging sheep with catapults.
>
> >>>> Coincidentally, at the same time there was a madman using a knife to
> >>>> attack 22 children at a school in China. No children died. Nuff said.
>
> >>>     No, not "nuff said". That person`s sickness might not have required
> >>> a body count.
>
> >> You still don't get it. He attacked the same number of kids.
>
> >    No, they both wounded the same number of victims. Likely they were
> > both attacking all the kids they could.
>
> No kids were only wounded in Sandy Hook. They were killed.
> In China no kids were killed. The only difference - the type of weapon
> used.

You haven`t a clue as to whether that was the only difference.

> And you still don't get it. You still continue to defend the NRA.

I haven`t said a word about the NRA.

> >> 22 versus
> >> 22. What was the only difference in the outcome? The type of weapon used.
>
> >    You only want to focus on the choice of weapons, you assume they had
> > identical intent. What prevented the China nutjob from inflicting
> > fatal wounds with his knife? What if he use a meat cleaver or machete,
> > could he have killed as many? Maybe more since he would be harder to
> > subdue.
>
> Meat cleavers are not banned in China. You think his success rate would
> have been 100% if he had used a meat cleaver?

You assume he was trying to kill the kids, that might not have been
what he was about. But it`s hard to imagine hitting 22 kids with a
meat cleaver or machete and not have fatalities.

> I don't even know what the
> technical term is for that kind of thinking.

Superior?

[tray...@gmail.com]

Evidently a lot of people are not only finding the news coverage of this
sickening massacre 'unreliable' but just just aren't buying the story at
all. Run a web search for "Sandy Hook conspiracy theories" & you'll be
quite shocked at what's being posted all over the Internet. Lot of
similarity between this horrific tragedy and the one that occured in
Dallas almost 50 years ago. FWIW I question how a kid with no military or
law enforcement occupation can obtain body armor. Big red flag that was
missed.

[Alex Foyle]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 5:30:13 AM UTC+1, tray...@gmail.com wrote:

http://gawker.com/5969532/the-insane-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theories-that-are-already-flooding-facebook-and-twitter

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp

[mainframetech]

If there are stories out there that the massacre didn't happen, I'm
betting the NRA had them put out.

As to body armor, near me there is a store that advertises that they
sell 'uniforms', but inside you find not only uniforms, but all kinds of
police accessories, like handcuffs, nightsticks and everything you could
need except weapons. Body armor companies like to make money and body
armor woud be in demand locally for SWAT teams. As long as they're
around, there will be a market for them somewhere, if only survivalists.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe you didn't get the cable from Helms. Most CIA posts did and we
have posted it here several times. An organized program to attack the WC
critics.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I've heard about that, Marsh. Helsm... you know, that was many, many years
ago. I don't take orders from the CIA (believe it or not), and that
ancient memo had nothing to do with my making that post. If you read the
SKEPTICAL INQUIRER article, I think you would have to agree that the ways
the Roswell story and, say, the Mauser story were resurrected are
strikingly similar and that the authors' analysis has a more general
application.

/sm

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:28:43 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Dec 18, 11:30 pm, trayn...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Evidently a lot of people are not only finding the news coverage of this
>
> > sickening massacre 'unreliable' but just just aren't buying the story at
>
> > all. Run a web search for "Sandy Hook conspiracy theories" & you'll be
>
> > quite shocked at what's being posted all over the Internet. Lot of
>
> > similarity between this horrific tragedy and the one that occured in
>
> > Dallas almost 50 years ago. FWIW I question how a kid with no military or
>
> > law enforcement occupation can obtain body armor. Big red flag that was
>
> > missed.
>
>
>
> If there are stories out there that the massacre didn't happen, I'm
>
> betting the NRA had them put out.
>

The NRA hasn't put out any such thing. Why would we? The NRA will have a
statement to make this Friday. They chose to observe a respectful mourning
period before commenting on this horrific tragedy and for this they get
villified for being cowardly. I suppose they should have run to the
nearest microphones before the bodies were even cold and tried to score
political points from a tragedy the way the gun grabbers did.

>
>
> As to body armor, near me there is a store that advertises that they
>
> sell 'uniforms', but inside you find not only uniforms, but all kinds of
>
> police accessories, like handcuffs, nightsticks and everything you could
>
> need except weapons. Body armor companies like to make money and body
>
> armor woud be in demand locally for SWAT teams. As long as they're
>
> around, there will be a market for them somewhere, if only survivalists.
>

If somebody feels safer in with body armor, there is no reason they
shouldn't have it. The don't infringe upon anyone's rights by owning it.
As for the other accessories, many private security agents, bounty
hunters, and other occupations have a need for police gear. I'd bet that's
who buy most of that stuff.

[Anthony Marsh]

And you can buy almost anything on the Internet.

[Bud]

On Dec 19, 5:43 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/18/2012 7:22 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12/17/12 7:53 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 12/17/2012 9:48 AM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> >>> On 12/16/12 9:10 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> >>>>>http://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_roswellian_syndrome_how_some_ufo_my...

Counter-attack.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yeah, that's what Reagan said.

>> My attitude is Don't start nuthin won't be nothin.
>> The best way to stop terrorism is to stop funding it.
>>
>>>> and certainly
>>>> no laws can prevent all bad things to happen.
>>
>>> Or from bad people doing bad things.
>>
>> What about when good people do bad things?
>
> Thats ok.
>

Ask the victims of our atrocities.

>>>> You sound like a Tea
>>>> Partier who says that the Assault Weapons Ban was a plot by the UN to
>>>> disarm the US to prepare to take it over.
>>
>>> Not the UN, liberals.
>>
>> Same difference to the Tea Party. New World Order.
>
> Their enemies identify themselves by trying to grab their guns. They
> are suspicious of their motives.

They identify themselves as kooks by clinging to their guns and their
religion.

>
>>>>> prevent all bad things from happening. You expect government to be able to
>>>>> provide a cocoon where you can feel cozy and safe, and not have your world
>>>>> disturbed by bad events.
>>
>>>> I know it may be old-fashioned, but I happen to believe that WE create
>>>> governments to protect and serve us.
>>
>>> And the founding fathers felt the people should be armed in case
>>> those expectations weren`t realized.
>>
>> Something like that. But don't actually study it.
>
> Obviously I have, which enabled me to encapsulate the idea so
> completely in so few words.
>

I doubt it.

>> You must like the movie Red Dawn.
>
> No, I hated it. Are you ever right?
>
>> You really think that a few yahoos
>> with AR-15 are going to keep the Russians from nuking us into dust.
>
> Did you watch the movie?

Yes, of course. I like science fiction.

>
>> Is
>> that called wishful think or just delusions of grandeur?
>
> Like in Egypt, Libya and Syria, that kind of delusion?
>

Not related to the American revolutionaries.
Al Qaeda are not the Minutemen.

>>>>> Lets say a nutjob drives through a schoolyard with an SUV mowing down
>>>>> children, do we enact legislation against cars, surround all schoolyards
>>
>>>> What is the name of that trick? Reductio ad Absurdum. If you could stop
>>>> your reliance on illogic we might get somewhere.
>>
>>> What is absurd is thinking those guns themselves caused this havoc.
>>> You want to focus on inanimate objects, and I`m focusing on the true
>>> cause, nutjobs.
>>
>> That is the NRA playbook. Protect guns and blame it on mental illness.
>
> Because the guns are inanimate objects. Do you blame cars for car
> accidents?
>

In some cases the cars are responsible for the accident.
Stuck accelerator.

The Chinese madman didn't kill anybody.

>> Has Diane Feinstein introduced a bill to ban kitchen knives?
>>
>>>> Because he
>>>> was only armed with a knife, not a machine gun.
>>
>>> It`s possible to shoot 22 people with a machine gun and have them all
>>> survive. It`s possible to stab 22 people with a knife and have them
>>> all die.
>>
>> Oh yeah, show me. Prove it.
>
> Why would you think there is an upper limit to the number of people
> you can stab to death? Look into the Rape of Nanking.
>

Not comparable. They were soldiers using rifles and swords on prisoners.

>>>> And people were able to
>>>> stop him and subdue him.
>>
>>> After stabbing 22. A lot of these shooters are subdued eventually.
>>
>> If they had to stop and reload because they were not using high capacity
>> magazines. No one had a chance to stop the rightwing nut in Norway.
>
> Your argument is that you want guns that stop firing every so often
> so you can tackle and disarm the shooters? Ever hear of sidearms?
>

Ever hear of 10 round magazines?

>>>> Get it? Of course not. No assault rifle.
>>
>>> Like China would allow it`s people the freedom to own firearms.
>>
>> One of the first freedoms we have is Life.
>
> How do you protect this freedom?
>

Not by massacring children.

>> Not to murder.
>
> People are free to murder and you will never pass any legislation
> that will take away that freedom.
>

So you think that is a Constitutional right? I was talking about
Constitution rights.

>>>>> because they have a problem with technology or government and sometimes
>>>>> they shoot up schools. That whackjob with the orange hair that shot up the
>>>>> movie theater had his apartment all booby trapped, you think he lacks the
>>>>> creativity to be a threat to society if he sets his twisted mind to it?
>>
>>>> How much creativity does it take to steal your mother's assault rifle
>>>> and go kill children?
>>
>>> Not much. Or to burn a whole dorm down with everybody inside instead
>>> of booby trapping one room. Or steal his mothers car and plow it
>>> through a schoolyard.
>>
>>>>>> The NRA and the Republicans are so powerful that nothing will be done
>>>>>> until there are 2,500 victims in one incident.
>>
>>>>> The founding fathers wanted an armed populace to safeguard against
>>>>> government oppression of the people. Since the Democrats are the ones most
>>>>> gun-grabby they must be the ones the founding fathers were worried about.
>>
>>>> Wrong. The model was the Minutemen. The enemy was the British Empire.
>>>> Oppression from above.
>>
>>> Nonsense, you haven`t read their writings. It was to protect from
>>> within as much as without.
>>
>> Within was the situation during the revolution. We were a British colony
>> and the people revolted and wanted their freedom. We did not sail over
>> to England and try to burn down the palace.
>
> But their army did sail here.And the right to bear arms was as much
> about keeping our own government in line as it was a defense from
> outsiders.
>

Not used often. Got some examples?

>>>>>> Remember as the NRA says, "Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill
>>>>>> people."
>>
>>>>> That much is true. Pretty harmless until someone decides to use
>>>>> them. Like when Iran gets one.
>>
>>>> But didn't you guys claim that Iraq already had one?
>>
>>> Who claimed Iraq had nukes?
>>
>> YOU GUYS. The rightwing. Bush and Cheney.
>
> Quote either one saying Iraq had nukes.
>

Are you in denial?

>>>> And you don't seem
>>>> to mind that Pakistan has them and even Israel.
>>
>>> I do.
>>
>>>> The moment we discover
>>>> the trillions of barrels of oil under the ice in Iceland we will claim
>>>> that they have a nuclear bomb and invade them.
>>
>>> They`d be easy to take too, I think their defense consists of
>>> flinging sheep with catapults.
>>
>>>>>> Coincidentally, at the same time there was a madman using a knife to
>>>>>> attack 22 children at a school in China. No children died. Nuff said.
>>
>>>>> No, not "nuff said". That person`s sickness might not have required
>>>>> a body count.
>>
>>>> You still don't get it. He attacked the same number of kids.
>>
>>> No, they both wounded the same number of victims. Likely they were
>>> both attacking all the kids they could.
>>
>> No kids were only wounded in Sandy Hook. They were killed.
>> In China no kids were killed. The only difference - the type of weapon
>> used.
>
> You haven`t a clue as to whether that was the only difference.
>

That was the major difference.

>> And you still don't get it. You still continue to defend the NRA.
>
> I haven`t said a word about the NRA.
>

Your words defend the NRA. You parrot their talking points, reading
straight from the script they sent you.

>>>> 22 versus
>>>> 22. What was the only difference in the outcome? The type of weapon used.
>>
>>> You only want to focus on the choice of weapons, you assume they had
>>> identical intent. What prevented the China nutjob from inflicting
>>> fatal wounds with his knife? What if he use a meat cleaver or machete,
>>> could he have killed as many? Maybe more since he would be harder to
>>> subdue.
>>
>> Meat cleavers are not banned in China. You think his success rate would
>> have been 100% if he had used a meat cleaver?
>
> You assume he was trying to kill the kids, that might not have been
> what he was about. But it`s hard to imagine hitting 22 kids with a
> meat cleaver or machete and not have fatalities.
>

What do you think he was doing, dancing? Talk about denial!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/19/2012 8:38 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 19, 2012 10:28:43 AM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 11:30 pm, trayn...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Evidently a lot of people are not only finding the news coverage of this
>>
>>> sickening massacre 'unreliable' but just just aren't buying the story at
>>
>>> all. Run a web search for "Sandy Hook conspiracy theories" & you'll be
>>
>>> quite shocked at what's being posted all over the Internet. Lot of
>>
>>> similarity between this horrific tragedy and the one that occured in
>>
>>> Dallas almost 50 years ago. FWIW I question how a kid with no military or
>>
>>> law enforcement occupation can obtain body armor. Big red flag that was
>>
>>> missed.
>>
>>
>>
>> If there are stories out there that the massacre didn't happen, I'm
>>
>> betting the NRA had them put out.
>>
>
> The NRA hasn't put out any such thing. Why would we? The NRA will have a
> statement to make this Friday. They chose to observe a respectful mourning
> period before commenting on this horrific tragedy and for this they get
> villified for being cowardly. I suppose they should have run to the
> nearest microphones before the bodies were even cold and tried to score
> political points from a tragedy the way the gun grabbers did.
>

More nonsense. Stop covering up for the murderous NRA. They already
announced their plan on their radio show: Arm all teacher and janitors
so they can shoot it out in the hallway.

>>
>>
>> As to body armor, near me there is a store that advertises that they
>>
>> sell 'uniforms', but inside you find not only uniforms, but all kinds of
>>
>> police accessories, like handcuffs, nightsticks and everything you could
>>
>> need except weapons. Body armor companies like to make money and body
>>
>> armor woud be in demand locally for SWAT teams. As long as they're
>>
>> around, there will be a market for them somewhere, if only survivalists.
>>
>
> If somebody feels safer in with body armor, there is no reason they
> shouldn't have it. The don't infringe upon anyone's rights by owning it.
> As for the other accessories, many private security agents, bounty
> hunters, and other occupations have a need for police gear. I'd bet that's
> who buy most of that stuff.
>

Parents are now buying it for their kids to wear to school. Soon there
will be a fashion war at high schools over whose vest can stop the
toughest bullets.

[Anthony Marsh]

I am well aware that many people in the media have been paid by the CIA
to spread misinformation about the JFK assassination.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Marsh, you're too much. I, for one, haven't been paid by the CIA, and I
don't know anyone who has. But in my post there wasn't even anything
alleged about the JFK assassination that you yourself *disagree* with. You
certainly don't believe that a Mauser was found on the sixth floor of the
TSDB. Nor do you believe that Oswald was standing in the doorway when the
motorcade went by. Surely it is reasonable to speculate about why such
myths continue to live in the minds of some people.

/sandy

[David Von Pein]

>>> "Many people in the media have been paid by the CIA to spread

misinformation about the JFK assassination." <<<

Wouldn't it be nice to see Anthony Marsh provide a stitch of proof to show
that even ONE person in the media (or anywhere else on the planet) has

been "paid by the CIA to spread misinformation about the JFK

assassination"?

Of course, Marsh won't be able to provide an ounce of proof to support
that idea, because the accusation is untrue (and extremely silly, since
Oswald acted alone to begin with).

But that won't stop the Marshes of the Earth from pretending it's true.
Right, Tony?

[John Fiorentino]

David:

You know me, so I think you'll take this as it was intended.

1) the CIA lied to the HSCA.

2) It probably (though it was blamed on Blahut) orchestrated the break-in
re: sensitive (autopsy) related materials during the HSCA investigation.
Blahut admitted that he had lied to the Committee and in a telephone
interview with the Washington Post, the following transpired: Blahut
denied any wrongdoing.

He insisted that there was an innocent explanation. He refused, however,
to say what that was." (The Post got its responses from the CIA and Blahut
when they publicized the break-in.)

Blahut said he worked for the CIA's Office of Security and he stated,
"There's other things that are involved that are detrimental to other
things," and he refused to elaborate when asked what he meant by that.

3. Joannides, as you know was the conduit between CIA and the HSCA.

4. Richard Helms charged with investigating the JFK murder and then in
charge of the Directorate for Plans., was subsequently (as CIA Director)
convicted in 1977 of lying to Congress.

4. CIA continues to withhold evidence in the case (in spite of the JFK
Records act) and now of course almost 50 years after the event. What
LEGITIMATE National security issue can exist from 50 years ago?

5. On a personal note, I have little faith in many of the CIA's statements
re: Oswald's visit to Mexico City and find it almost incomprehensible that
ALL of the surveillance cameras were out of order during the time period
of Oswald's visits and that there IN FACT are no photos of Oswald, or any
of him and any possible associates while he was in Mexico.

6. I have personally been involved in investigations where there was CIA
involvement, so I know how they can operate IF they want to.

John F.




"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:048f7bd4-8d8b-46e0...@v7g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...

[bigdog]

He suspects that is happening. Isn't that good enough?

[David Von Pein]

>>> "He [Marsh] suspects that is happening. Isn't that good enough?" <<<

For Tony, yes, it is.

[David Von Pein]

John F.,

I'll let Vince do the talking (culled from Chapter 24 ["CIA"] of his
book):

"If the [George] Joannides conspiracy theorists ([Jefferson]
Morley and his inevitable band of followers) actually think that the
only reason why the CIA is resisting the release of documents
pertaining to Joannides is because the agency must have something to
hide, they clearly haven't learned from years and years of
experience. ....

"The CIA had nothing to hide in thousands of previous documents
the agency initially refused to release voluntarily but ultimately did
release under court order. The CIA specializes in always acting
guilty, even when it is not, and always being, from a public relations
standpoint, its own worst enemy. ....

"If one reads Morley's article literally, one can only conclude
that Joannides, not the DRE [an anti-Castro group] with whom he dealt,
may have been involved in the assassination. And this, of course,
defeats the whole unstated premise of Morley's writing, because if the
DRE didn't kill Kennedy or have him murdered, then what is Morley's
point? That Joannides got someone else to murder Kennedy?

"But if so, why is he writing about Joannides and the DRE? What
seems to have eluded Morley is that if he exonerates the DRE, which he
does by default in his writing, he thereby also exonerates
Joannides. ....

"Just two weeks before the assassination (when, if Morley's
story makes any sense, DRE should be gearing up to kill Kennedy, under
Joannides's direction), Joannides's superior, [Ted] Shackley, is
assessing the group as unreliable and incompetent, and like children
who should be sent back to where they belong--school. There seems to
be nothing to the Joannides-DRE story, and I'm confused that someone
like Morley feels there is possible merit to it. ....

"In Morley's quest to put the conspiratorial hat on Joannides
and the CIA, there's one very staunch ally he can count on to help him
in any way it can, the CIA. To the point, arguably, of perversity, the
silly spooks at Langley--like the pathological liar who lies even when
it would be to his benefit to tell the truth--will fight Morley and
his lawyer every inch of the way, thereby helping them, every inch of
the way, to convince everyone that it has something to hide--
Joannides's and perhaps its own complicity in the assassination.

"But as I've said before in the book and these endnotes, it's
all just sublime silliness. Joannides and the CIA conspired with
Oswald to kill Kennedy as much as you and I did." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
Pages 678-679, 682, and 684 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

[Anthony Marsh]

Seems you didn't read the memo carefully.

[mainframetech]

On Dec 20, 3:48 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:

> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:048f7bd4-8d8b-46e0...@v7g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> "Many people in the media have been paid by the CIA to spread
> > misinformation about the JFK assassination." <<<
>
> > Wouldn't it be nice to see Anthony Marsh provide a stitch of proof to show
> > that even ONE person in the media (or anywhere else on the planet) has
> > been "paid by the CIA to spread misinformation about the JFK
> > assassination"?
>
> > Of course, Marsh won't be able to provide an ounce of proof to support
> > that idea, because the accusation is untrue (and extremely silly, since
> > Oswald acted alone to begin with).
>
> > But that won't stop the Marshes of the Earth from pretending it's true.
> > Right, Tony?

I had thought I came across information that Hoover told LBJ that the
picture he saw of Oswald in Mexico City didn't look like Oswald so he
didn't want to use the Mexico City information. Is this link of use?

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Oswald_in_Mexico_City

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

And I didn't name you. I am forbidden from doing so.
And of course you know the people, but you may not know exactly that
they did.

> don't know anyone who has. But in my post there wasn't even anything
> alleged about the JFK assassination that you yourself *disagree* with.
> You certainly don't believe that a Mauser was found on the sixth floor
> of the TSDB. Nor do you believe that Oswald was standing in the doorway
> when the motorcade went by. Surely it is reasonable to speculate about
> why such myths continue to live in the minds of some people.
>

Surely it is reasonable to speculate about why so many WC myths continue

[John Fiorentino]

David:

I'm a little surprised at you.

Firstly, you took my entire post and related it to Morley's article.

I never mentioned his name.

But I DID mention Blahut which you didn't address. I mentioned Helms who
was (anyway you wish to slice or dice it) convicted of lying to Congress.

Of course Vince is off the mark here: "The CIA had nothing to hide in

thousands of previous documents the agency initially refused to release

voluntarily but ultimately did."

That's simply doodoo, as they had many things to hide and hid them for
quite sometime.

And you completely ignored my paragraphs 4-7.

As for Bugliosi, whom I admired for many years, my opinion of him changed
dramatically after his book about President Bush.

Not everything can be dealt with by cute vignettes like "sublime
silliness."

John F.





"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:f35220cf-2cde-4783...@f8g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

[John McAdams]

On 20 Dec 2012 15:48:18 -0500, "John Fiorentino"

<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>David:
>
>You know me, so I think you'll take this as it was intended.
>
>1) the CIA lied to the HSCA.
>

Explain.

>2) It probably (though it was blamed on Blahut) orchestrated the break-in
>re: sensitive (autopsy) related materials during the HSCA investigation.
>Blahut admitted that he had lied to the Committee and in a telephone
>interview with the Washington Post, the following transpired: Blahut
>denied any wrongdoing.
>

And how did the Agency orchestrate the break-in?

It wasn't a "break-in," you know. Blahut got curious and wanted to
look at the photos, and got his prints on them.

What do you think the sinister plot of the CIA was here?

> He insisted that there was an innocent explanation. He refused, however,
>to say what that was." (The Post got its responses from the CIA and Blahut
>when they publicized the break-in.)
>

Explain what the "non-innocent" explanation?

You are aware that it was well known what the photos and x-rays
showed, right?

The Ramsey Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission had examined
them, and published their reports.

>Blahut said he worked for the CIA's Office of Security and he stated,
>"There's other things that are involved that are detrimental to other
>things," and he refused to elaborate when asked what he meant by that.
>
>3. Joannides, as you know was the conduit between CIA and the HSCA.
>

Which would be quite sinister, *if* the DRE actually assassinated
Kennedy.

>4. Richard Helms charged with investigating the JFK murder and then in
>charge of the Directorate for Plans., was subsequently (as CIA Director)
>convicted in 1977 of lying to Congress.
>

If memory serves, he copped a plea.

But it had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

>4. CIA continues to withhold evidence in the case (in spite of the JFK
>Records act) and now of course almost 50 years after the event. What
>LEGITIMATE National security issue can exist from 50 years ago?
>

Are you assuming that bureaucracies must always have a *rational*
reason to withhold stuff? Either they have a good reason or they
murdered Kennedy?

You really need to read my book, especially the chapter on
bureaucrats.

>5. On a personal note, I have little faith in many of the CIA's statements
>re: Oswald's visit to Mexico City and find it almost incomprehensible that
>ALL of the surveillance cameras were out of order during the time period
>of Oswald's visits and that there IN FACT are no photos of Oswald, or any
>of him and any possible associates while he was in Mexico.
>

Then why would the CIA withhold them? Unless you can come up with a
plausible reason why they would, you strike out.

You aren't going to claim Oswald was never *in* Mexico City, are you?

If he was, the photos would merely validate the CIA position.

>6. I have personally been involved in investigations where there was CIA
>involvement, so I know how they can operate IF they want to.
>

Answer my questions above.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 20 Dec 2012 20:41:28 -0500, "John Fiorentino"

<jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:

>David:
>
>I'm a little surprised at you.
>
>Firstly, you took my entire post and related it to Morley's article.
>
>I never mentioned his name.
>

Don't insult our intelligence. The Johannides stuff is Morley's.

>But I DID mention Blahut which you didn't address. I mentioned Helms who
>was (anyway you wish to slice or dice it) convicted of lying to Congress.
>
>Of course Vince is off the mark here: "The CIA had nothing to hide in
>thousands of previous documents the agency initially refused to release
>voluntarily but ultimately did."
>
>That's simply doodoo, as they had many things to hide and hid them for
>quite sometime.
>

Like what?

Nothing in the released documents shows that they murdered JFK.

>And you completely ignored my paragraphs 4-7.
>
>As for Bugliosi, whom I admired for many years, my opinion of him changed
>dramatically after his book about President Bush.
>

Yea, he claimed that Bush should be executed for getting into the Iraq
way. Which makes him an anti-Bush yahoo, but doesn't mean he's wrong
about the assassination.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/20/2012 3:48 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> David:
>
> You know me, so I think you'll take this as it was intended.
>
> 1) the CIA lied to the HSCA.
>
> 2) It probably (though it was blamed on Blahut) orchestrated the
> break-in re: sensitive (autopsy) related materials during the HSCA
> investigation. Blahut admitted that he had lied to the Committee and in
> a telephone interview with the Washington Post, the following
> transpired: Blahut denied any wrongdoing.
>
> He insisted that there was an innocent explanation. He refused, however,
> to say what that was." (The Post got its responses from the CIA and
> Blahut when they publicized the break-in.)
>

He claims curiosity. But that does not explain taking the photos out of
the protective sleeves.

> Blahut said he worked for the CIA's Office of Security and he stated,
> "There's other things that are involved that are detrimental to other
> things," and he refused to elaborate when asked what he meant by that.
>

Like the CIA shot from the grassy knoll.

> 3. Joannides, as you know was the conduit between CIA and the HSCA.
>

Liaison is the correct term.

> 4. Richard Helms charged with investigating the JFK murder and then in
> charge of the Directorate for Plans., was subsequently (as CIA Director)
> convicted in 1977 of lying to Congress.
>

Helms was in charge of the CIA assassination department.

> 4. CIA continues to withhold evidence in the case (in spite of the JFK
> Records act) and now of course almost 50 years after the event. What
> LEGITIMATE National security issue can exist from 50 years ago?
>
> 5. On a personal note, I have little faith in many of the CIA's
> statements re: Oswald's visit to Mexico City and find it almost
> incomprehensible that ALL of the surveillance cameras were out of order
> during the time period of Oswald's visits and that there IN FACT are no
> photos of Oswald, or any of him and any possible associates while he was
> in Mexico.
>

Maybe there was a photo of Oswald, but they needed to cover it up.

[David Von Pein]

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

You [John F.] aren't going to claim Oswald was never *in* Mexico City, are

you? If he was, the photos would merely validate the CIA position.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Exactly. And that's a point that's not made often enough, IMO.

Conspiracy theorists like the idea that the CIA concealed a bunch of stuff
re Oswald's Mexico City excursion, with the lack of a photo of LHO in
Mexico being right near the top of the list of stuff that was being swept
under the rug.

But WHY would the CIA want to suppress any photos of Oswald at either the
Russian or Cuban embassies in Mexico? And why would they also want to
suppress any voice recordings of Oswald in Mexico?

If any pictures or recordings really existed verifying that Oswald was in
Mex. City, I can think of no reason whatsoever for anyone in the CIA to
want to destroy such validation. If anything, they'd be anxious to have
such photos published, not suppressed.

And since I am convinced beyond all human doubt that Oswald was in Mexico
City in Sept/Oct '63 (the verification is still a mile deep even without
any pictures or voice recordings), I am also convinced beyond a reasonable
doubt that no pictures of Oswald were taken in Mexico. Because if such
pictures existed, we'd have seen them. And even the CIA would want us to
see them. Why wouldn't they?

[John Fiorentino]

.John:

Says.......
Don't insult our intelligence. The Joannides stuff is Morley's.

I repeat what I said before, (btw it's Joannides) almost the entirety of
David's response to my post revolved around Joannides. I never mentioned
Morley's name, and had 1 line in which I mentioned Joannides, so perhaps
you should not insult MY intelligence?

That's simply doodoo, as they had many things to hide and hid them for
quite sometime.

Like what?

Come now .John..........I'll just post this to save me the mountain of
time it would take me to answer "Like what."

In a foreword to a new edition of the Warren Commission Report, the late
president states that the CIA destroyed or kept from investigators
critical secrets connected to the assassination of President Kennedy.

President Gerald R. Ford
"A Presidential Legacy and The Warren Commission"

.John says,,,,,,,,,

Nothing in the released documents shows that they murdered JFK.

I say............ I never indicated that. What I said was........

I never said the CIA killed JFK.

Then you took offense to my criticism of Bugliosi, (which I explained) and
I never said I disagreed with his "conclusions" about Oswald.

But I do honestly believe he's come slightly unhinged.

Awful touchy lately, aren't we.

John F.




"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:p5g7d89h9ejo1at03...@4ax.com...

[John Fiorentino]

.John says.........

Answer my questions above.

I say, perhaps when you stop treating me like some CT who just fell off
the back of a tomato truck.

You know my history on this forum and you know my position on the
assassination. If you don't then perhaps your memory is failing you.

I've written a book, (still unpublished) with an intro by John Lattimer
and I've researched this thing for YEARS.

I've been answering questions here for years also, maybe I'd like to ASK a
few.


BTW .John it WAS a "break-in" why don't YOU look up the appropriate HSCA
files and see how THEY categorized it.

I don't need to give a "non-innocent reason for Blahut's actions HE should
provide an innocent one, and he didn't,

Here's Blahut: "There's other things that are involved that are

detrimental to other things," and he refused to elaborate when asked what
he meant by that.

Why not run with that John?

I used to listen to people talk like that for years.

"If memory serves, he copped a plea."

He lied to Congress and was given a two-year suspended sentence..........A
truly fine upstanding citizen!

But it had nothing to do with the JFK assassination

I never said it did.

Do I think the CIA needs a "rational reason" to withhold stuff?

Nope, but I've been exposed to their duplicity personally in another case.
So, I really don't need to read about it. I've lived it and wrote about
it.

Then why would the CIA withhold them? Unless you can come up with a
plausible reason why they would, you strike out.

I don't need to come up with anything, perhaps they couldn't be cropped or
doctored sufficiently to eliminate any Oswald associates.

You aren't going to claim Oswald was never *in* Mexico City, are you?

Nope

If he was, the photos would merely validate the CIA position.

Which is what exactly John?

John F.







"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:rkf7d8pmk6iiug683...@4ax.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/20/2012 6:28 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> John F.,
>
> I'll let Vince do the talking (culled from Chapter 24 ["CIA"] of his
> book):
>
> "If the [George] Joannides conspiracy theorists ([Jefferson]
> Morley and his inevitable band of followers) actually think that the
> only reason why the CIA is resisting the release of documents
> pertaining to Joannides is because the agency must have something to
> hide, they clearly haven't learned from years and years of
> experience. ....
>
> "The CIA had nothing to hide in thousands of previous documents
> the agency initially refused to release voluntarily but ultimately did
> release under court order. The CIA specializes in always acting
> guilty, even when it is not, and always being, from a public relations
> standpoint, its own worst enemy. ....
>
> "If one reads Morley's article literally, one can only conclude
> that Joannides, not the DRE [an anti-Castro group] with whom he dealt,
> may have been involved in the assassination. And this, of course,
> defeats the whole unstated premise of Morley's writing, because if the
> DRE didn't kill Kennedy or have him murdered, then what is Morley's
> point? That Joannides got someone else to murder Kennedy?
>

No, that Joannides might have had some contact with Oswald and the CIA
covered that up and planted Joannides at the HSCA to shortcircuit their
investigation of the CIA.

> "But if so, why is he writing about Joannides and the DRE? What
> seems to have eluded Morley is that if he exonerates the DRE, which he
> does by default in his writing, he thereby also exonerates
> Joannides. ....
>

Not so.
Joannides had more responsibilities than just the DRE.

> "Just two weeks before the assassination (when, if Morley's
> story makes any sense, DRE should be gearing up to kill Kennedy, under
> Joannides's direction), Joannides's superior, [Ted] Shackley, is
> assessing the group as unreliable and incompetent, and like children
> who should be sent back to where they belong--school. There seems to
> be nothing to the Joannides-DRE story, and I'm confused that someone
> like Morley feels there is possible merit to it. ....
>
> "In Morley's quest to put the conspiratorial hat on Joannides
> and the CIA, there's one very staunch ally he can count on to help him
> in any way it can, the CIA. To the point, arguably, of perversity, the
> silly spooks at Langley--like the pathological liar who lies even when
> it would be to his benefit to tell the truth--will fight Morley and
> his lawyer every inch of the way, thereby helping them, every inch of
> the way, to convince everyone that it has something to hide--
> Joannides's and perhaps its own complicity in the assassination.
>
> "But as I've said before in the book and these endnotes, it's
> all just sublime silliness. Joannides and the CIA conspired with
> Oswald to kill Kennedy as much as you and I did." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
> Pages 678-679, 682, and 684 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)
>

Ever the cover-up.

[David Von Pein]

JOHN F. SAID:

David's response to my post revolved around Joannides. I never
mentioned Morley's name, and had 1 line in which I mentioned

Joannides.

DAVID V.P. SAID:

The most important point I was trying to make in my earlier post when
I quoted Bugliosi is this:

"The CIA specializes in always acting guilty, even when it is
not, and always being, from a public relations standpoint, its own

worst enemy." -- Vince Bugliosi

John Fiorentino, do you agree or disagree with the above VB quote?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/20/2012 9:25 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> JOHN McADAMS SAID:
>
> You [John F.] aren't going to claim Oswald was never *in* Mexico City, are
> you? If he was, the photos would merely validate the CIA position.
>

The photos might be too dangerous to use.

>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
> Exactly. And that's a point that's not made often enough, IMO.
>
> Conspiracy theorists like the idea that the CIA concealed a bunch of stuff
> re Oswald's Mexico City excursion, with the lack of a photo of LHO in
> Mexico being right near the top of the list of stuff that was being swept
> under the rug.
>
> But WHY would the CIA want to suppress any photos of Oswald at either the
> Russian or Cuban embassies in Mexico? And why would they also want to
> suppress any voice recordings of Oswald in Mexico?
>

Because they were ordered to by HQs and LBJ to prevent WWIII.

> If any pictures or recordings really existed verifying that Oswald was in
> Mex. City, I can think of no reason whatsoever for anyone in the CIA to
> want to destroy such validation. If anything, they'd be anxious to have
> such photos published, not suppressed.
>

The biggest reason is called Sources and Methods. They could not admit
that they had room bugs in all the Soviet and Cuban locations. And that
Mexican police were working for the CIA.

> And since I am convinced beyond all human doubt that Oswald was in Mexico
> City in Sept/Oct '63 (the verification is still a mile deep even without
> any pictures or voice recordings), I am also convinced beyond a reasonable
> doubt that no pictures of Oswald were taken in Mexico. Because if such

Silly. You have no concept of how deceptive the CIA is.

> pictures existed, we'd have seen them. And even the CIA would want us to

Ridiculous. The fact that we are alive now instead of burned to dust in
a nuclear war proves that we would not have seen them.
Do you really think that WE have seen everything the CIA had? Then why
the battle over releasing the files?

> see them. Why wouldn't they?

Why do they still keep the files hidden?

>

[Sandy McCroskey]

Ha ha. Yet you have no trouble managing to accuse me anyway, by clear
implication.
So guess who I think is making himself look ridiculous?
Not to name anyone.

> And of course you know the people, but you may not know exactly that
> they did.
>

Baseless ravings.

>> don't know anyone who has. But in my post there wasn't even anything
>> alleged about the JFK assassination that you yourself *disagree* with.
>> You certainly don't believe that a Mauser was found on the sixth floor
>> of the TSDB. Nor do you believe that Oswald was standing in the doorway
>> when the motorcade went by. Surely it is reasonable to speculate about
>> why such myths continue to live in the minds of some people.
>>
>
> Surely it is reasonable to speculate about why so many WC myths continue
> to live in the minds of some people.
>

I think a comparison of the reasons one person puts forth for agreeing
with the general conclusions of the Warren Commission Report and the
reasons adduced, by someone else, for believing that, say, a Mauser was
found on the sixth floor of the TSDB would be very instructive.

/sandy

[John Fiorentino]

David:

I was going to qualify my answer at first blush, but I will simply say,
that no, I don't agree with that.

John F.



"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:2c0bf07d-ba02-4a8f...@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/20/2012 8:54 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2012 20:41:28 -0500, "John Fiorentino"
> <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>> David:
>>
>> I'm a little surprised at you.
>>
>> Firstly, you took my entire post and related it to Morley's article.
>>
>> I never mentioned his name.
>>
>
> Don't insult our intelligence. The Johannides stuff is Morley's.
>
>> But I DID mention Blahut which you didn't address. I mentioned Helms who
>> was (anyway you wish to slice or dice it) convicted of lying to Congress.
>>
>> Of course Vince is off the mark here: "The CIA had nothing to hide in
>> thousands of previous documents the agency initially refused to release
>> voluntarily but ultimately did."
>>
>> That's simply doodoo, as they had many things to hide and hid them for
>> quite sometime.
>>
>
> Like what?
>
> Nothing in the released documents shows that they murdered JFK.

I think that's his point, that they reason why they are withholding
documents in violation of the law is because they might show that they
murdered JFK. I seem to remember that you guys said that the tapes that
Nixon released did not show that he was involved with Watergate, end of
story. How many cover-ups do you have to see before you wise up?
Do you still believe that Saddam Hussein has nuclear weapons?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/20/2012 8:51 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2012 15:48:18 -0500, "John Fiorentino"
> <jefior...@optimum.net> wrote:
>
>> David:
>>
>> You know me, so I think you'll take this as it was intended.
>>
>> 1) the CIA lied to the HSCA.
>>
>
> Explain.

Read Blakey's explanation.

>
>> 2) It probably (though it was blamed on Blahut) orchestrated the break-in
>> re: sensitive (autopsy) related materials during the HSCA investigation.
>> Blahut admitted that he had lied to the Committee and in a telephone
>> interview with the Washington Post, the following transpired: Blahut
>> denied any wrongdoing.
>>
>
> And how did the Agency orchestrate the break-in?

Sources and methods.

>
> It wasn't a "break-in," you know. Blahut got curious and wanted to
> look at the photos, and got his prints on them.
>

They were LOCKED in a vault.
Why don't you claim that the Watergate burglars were out partying and
accidentally walked into the wrong office looking for the CIA office party.

> What do you think the sinister plot of the CIA was here?
>

To mislead the HSCA and hide its relationship with Oswald.

>> He insisted that there was an innocent explanation. He refused, however,
>> to say what that was." (The Post got its responses from the CIA and Blahut
>> when they publicized the break-in.)
>>
>
> Explain what the "non-innocent" explanation?
>

Substitution, insertion, alteration, theft.

> You are aware that it was well known what the photos and x-rays
> showed, right?
>

We have never seen the original photos so each time I make a claim you
can counter that I have never seen the originals.

> The Ramsey Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission had examined
> them, and published their reports.
>

Which you ignore because they overruled the autopsy doctors.

>> Blahut said he worked for the CIA's Office of Security and he stated,
>> "There's other things that are involved that are detrimental to other
>> things," and he refused to elaborate when asked what he meant by that.
>>
>> 3. Joannides, as you know was the conduit between CIA and the HSCA.
>>
>
> Which would be quite sinister, *if* the DRE actually assassinated
> Kennedy.
>

They don't have to. Maybe just know the conspirators.

>> 4. Richard Helms charged with investigating the JFK murder and then in
>> charge of the Directorate for Plans., was subsequently (as CIA Director)
>> convicted in 1977 of lying to Congress.
>>
>
> If memory serves, he copped a plea.
>
> But it had nothing to do with the JFK assassination.
>

Pattern of deceit.

>
>> 4. CIA continues to withhold evidence in the case (in spite of the JFK
>> Records act) and now of course almost 50 years after the event. What
>> LEGITIMATE National security issue can exist from 50 years ago?
>>
>
> Are you assuming that bureaucracies must always have a *rational*
> reason to withhold stuff? Either they have a good reason or they
> murdered Kennedy?
>
> You really need to read my book, especially the chapter on
> bureaucrats.
>

You need to read the damn documents and file some FOIA requests.

>> 5. On a personal note, I have little faith in many of the CIA's statements
>> re: Oswald's visit to Mexico City and find it almost incomprehensible that
>> ALL of the surveillance cameras were out of order during the time period
>> of Oswald's visits and that there IN FACT are no photos of Oswald, or any
>> of him and any possible associates while he was in Mexico.
>>
>
> Then why would the CIA withhold them? Unless you can come up with a
> plausible reason why they would, you strike out.
>

Wrong. It is not necessary for us to prove a negative.

> You aren't going to claim Oswald was never *in* Mexico City, are you?
>
> If he was, the photos would merely validate the CIA position.
>

Or embarrass them leading to it being eliminated. Knowing that there
would be an assassination and doing nothing to prevent it.
That would be like George Bush getting a memo stating that al Qaeda was
planning to fly planes into US buildings and then doing nothing to
prevent it.

>> 6. I have personally been involved in investigations where there was CIA
>> involvement, so I know how they can operate IF they want to.
>>
>
> Answer my questions above.
>

Why? You never answer ours.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Anthony Marsh]

We know your agenda.

>
>> And of course you know the people, but you may not know exactly that
>> they did.
>>
>
> Baseless ravings.

You don't want to know what your colleagues are really doing.

>
>>> don't know anyone who has. But in my post there wasn't even anything
>>> alleged about the JFK assassination that you yourself *disagree* with.
>>> You certainly don't believe that a Mauser was found on the sixth floor
>>> of the TSDB. Nor do you believe that Oswald was standing in the doorway
>>> when the motorcade went by. Surely it is reasonable to speculate about
>>> why such myths continue to live in the minds of some people.
>>>
>>
>> Surely it is reasonable to speculate about why so many WC myths continue
>> to live in the minds of some people.
>>
>
> I think a comparison of the reasons one person puts forth for agreeing
> with the general conclusions of the Warren Commission Report and the
> reasons adduced, by someone else, for believing that, say, a Mauser was
> found on the sixth floor of the TSDB would be very instructive.
>

Huh? So you really want people to think that the only possible reason for
defending the WC is that the person is being paid to do so by the CIA? We
know that the kooks mistakenly believe every rumor that comes along.

> /sandy

[David Von Pein]

>>> "David: I was going to qualify my answer at first blush, but I will
simply say, that no, I don't agree with that." <<<

OK, John. Thanks.

[Sandy McCroskey]

No way does that follow from what I said.
/sm

[John McAdams]

On 21 Dec 2012 20:37:18 -0500, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>
>
>We know your agenda.
>
>>
>>> And of course you know the people, but you may not know exactly that
>>> they did.
>>>
>>
>> Baseless ravings.
>
>You don't want to know what your colleagues are really doing.
>
>>
>>>> don't know anyone who has. But in my post there wasn't even anything
>>>> alleged about the JFK assassination that you yourself *disagree* with.
>>>> You certainly don't believe that a Mauser was found on the sixth floor
>>>> of the TSDB. Nor do you believe that Oswald was standing in the doorway
>>>> when the motorcade went by. Surely it is reasonable to speculate about
>>>> why such myths continue to live in the minds of some people.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Surely it is reasonable to speculate about why so many WC myths continue
>>> to live in the minds of some people.
>>>
>>
>> I think a comparison of the reasons one person puts forth for agreeing
>> with the general conclusions of the Warren Commission Report and the
>> reasons adduced, by someone else, for believing that, say, a Mauser was
>> found on the sixth floor of the TSDB would be very instructive.
>>
>
>Huh? So you really want people to think that the only possible reason for
>defending the WC is that the person is being paid to do so by the CIA? We
>know that the kooks mistakenly believe every rumor that comes along.
>

But *you* believe, Tony, that everybody who says Oswald was the lone
assassin is being paid by the CIA.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John Fiorentino]

You're welcome David.

John F.


"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:a9039226-66e6-44d6...@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

Nope, not EVERYBODY. It is not necessary to have them all on the payroll.
Some of them cooperate voluntarily out of a jaded sense of patriotism.
Some people work for the CIA without pay. My father worked for a token $1
a year.


> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[Jason Burke]

Methinks tokin' is the operative word here...

>
>
>> .John
>> --------------
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>
>

[mainframetech]

On Dec 15, 11:02 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:

> On 12/15/2012 4:30 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > As if we didn't already know this, the horrific tragedy yesterday in
> > Newton, CT gives us one more example of how unreliable early reports and
> > information are in the wake of these events. Electronic media were
> > crawling over each other in an effort to get any scrap of information they
> > could and as a result, normal journalistic dilligence went out the window.
> > The result was the reporting of numerous "facts" that now seem to be in
> > serious question. The worst was the reporting that the shooting was done
> > by the real shooter's brother who was at his job in New Jersey at the time
> > of the shooting. It was initially reported that the mother of the shooter,
> > who apparently was his first victim, was a teacher at the school. Now that
> > seems to be in doubt. Early reports indicated a Bushmaster .223 assault
> > rifle was used in the attack but not it appears that weapon was left in
> > the shooter's car. There are still conflicting reports of how many
> > handguns were used in the attack. Initially it was believed that there
> > were two but now it seems there may have been as many as four.
>

> This is nothing new and one of the reasons why law enforcement tries to be
> very slow and careful about what information to release. But nothing will
> come from learning any facts about this tragedy. No changes, no sympathy,
> nothing. No new legislation. It wasn't big enough to budge the NRA or its
> proxies (political whores). Osama bin Laden learned that lesson well.
> First he killed only dozens of Americans and then hundreds of Americans
> and still the US refused to declare war and send troops into Aghanistan.
> So he had to kill thousands in order to prod the US into sending in
> troops. Bin Laden did not have planes, ships, tanks or transports to ferry
> his fighters to America. So he had to lure them into war with a massive
> terrorist attack in order to be able to kill as many US troops and waste
> as much American money as possible to bring down the US as he did the
> Russians.
>
> The NRA and the Republicans are so powerful that nothing will be done
> until there are 2,500 victims in one incident.
>
> Remember as the NRA says, "Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill
> people."
>
> Coincidentally, at the same time there was a madman using a knife to
> attack 22 children at a school in China. No children died. Nuff said.

>
> > What all this illustrates is how unreliable early information can be. We
> > saw the same thing happen in the JFK assassination and the Reagan
> > assassination attempt, even though 24 hour news channels weren't even on
> > the horizon back then. The media that did exist were just as anxious to
>

> Well, not so sure about that. Some networks could quickly shift to all
> day coverage. CNN was launched on June 1, 1980.

>
> > get information out as quickly as possible and as would be expected, much
> > of what was reported early on we later found out was just plain wrong. For
> > some curious reason, in the case of the JFK assassination, many choose to
>

> And yet one important difference is that because of the JFK assassination
> networks assigned news crews to the President on a death watch to be able
> to film and document live any future assassinations. And the video from
> the attack was quite helpful early on. Within minutes I was calling Bob
> Cutler to tell him that I noticed that Reagan was hit by a ricochet off
> the limo's frame.

>
>
>
> > continue to cling to what those early reports said rather than accept what
> > we later learned to be true. Those who want to know the truth will turn to
> > the most reliable information available to them while those that want the
> > beliefs to be true will turn to whatever they can to support those
> > beliefs.

It won't matter. Any video will be confiscated by the FBI and never
returned, and will never be found when ordered to be made public.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Dec 16, 1:11 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 15, 11:44 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 4:30 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > As if we didn't already know this, the horrific tragedy yesterday in
> > > Newton, CT gives us one more example of how unreliable early reports and
> > > information are in the wake of these events. Electronic media were
> > > crawling over each other in an effort to get any scrap of information they
> > > could and as a result, normal journalistic dilligence went out the window.
> > > The result was the reporting of numerous "facts" that now seem to be in
> > > serious question. The worst was the reporting that the shooting was done
> > > by the real shooter's brother who was at his job in New Jersey at the time
> > > of the shooting. It was initially reported that the mother of the shooter,
> > > who apparently was his first victim, was a teacher at the school. Now that
> > > seems to be in doubt. Early reports indicated a Bushmaster .223 assault
> > > rifle was used in the attack but not it appears that weapon was left in
> > > the shooter's car. There are still conflicting reports of how many
> > > handguns were used in the attack. Initially it was believed that there
> > > were two but now it seems there may have been as many as four.
>

> > > What all this illustrates is how unreliable early information can be. We
> > > saw the same thing happen in the JFK assassination and the Reagan
> > > assassination attempt, even though 24 hour news channels weren't even on
> > > the horizon back then. The media that did exist were just as anxious to

> > > get information out as quickly as possible and as would be expected, much
> > > of what was reported early on we later found out was just plain wrong. For
> > > some curious reason, in the case of the JFK assassination, many choose to

> > > continue to cling to what those early reports said rather than accept what
> > > we later learned to be true. Those who want to know the truth will turn to
> > > the most reliable information available to them while those that want the
> > > beliefs to be true will turn to whatever they can to support those
> > > beliefs.
>

> >   Fortunately, in this case the facts were helped to come out after some
> > time had passed.  The early reports were indeed wrong, saying that a lone
> > nut assassinated the president.  Over time, we have slowly and laboriously
> > gleaned information showing the real facts and leading us closer and
> > closer to the truth.  Look into Doublas Horne and his effort to organize
> > the information at the ARRB.
>
> > Chris
>

>   "make pretend" progress. Goes nowhere, does nothing, all part of the
> hobby.

Poor little buddy. You're never going to get it. More and more
information is brought out, many more connections are being made, the very
conversation and chat that YOU cause will bring out facts and new ways of
looking at the data. Actually, YOU one of the reasons the subject keeps
dawning anew!

Chris

[bigdog]

You guys have been gathering loose threads for decades and what have you
come up with for all your efforts? A pile of loose threads. Or as Bud so
accurately put it, pretend progress. You continue to delude yourselves
into believing you are making progress when in fact you are right where
you were 20 years ago. If Rip Van Winkle had gone to sleep in 1992 and
woke up today, he wouldn't have missed a thing as far as the JFK
assassination goes.

[Bud]

Goes nowhere, does nothing. You guys are arranging information into
a way that creates a reality you like. Has nothing to do with what
actually happened, just the way you really, really want to believe it
did.

> the very
> conversation and chat that YOU cause will bring out facts and new ways of
> looking at the data.  Actually, YOU one of the reasons the subject keeps
> dawning anew!
>
> Chris

Poor little Chrissy, you don`t understand that you engage in this
hobby because you derive pleasure from it. You`d be doing it whether I
informed you of what you are actually doing or not.

[mainframetech]

Welp, when you carefully knit threads together, you can get quite a
large and warm comforter...:)

You guys have tried for 50 years to cover up and hide the facts in the
JFK murder case, and have failed badly. Slowly but surely more and more
facts come out. More and more work is done on past evidence finding out
if it was valid or not in the first place, uncovering new bits of info
here and there. The web is being woven and you will be surprised one day
waking up to headlines of the admission of one of the conspirators of his
complicity. As folks get older, they get a conscience and begin spilling
the beans on what they knew. Many witnesses now have come out of the
woodwork years after the fact, some because they were warned to shut up or
get hurt.

Let's see...there was E. Howard Hunt giving up his 'involvement' when
he swore he had nothing to do with it for years. There there's D. Adams
the ex-FBI agent speaking of the illegal things the FBI did and the
criminals they let go to protect the Hoover scenario of the lone nut, and
there's Acquilla Clemmons telling her story a few years later after being
warned to shut up or get hurt, then there Ed Hoffman told to shut up and
finally came out a few years later after the FBI brushed him off.

Yep, We've got all the time in the world...:)

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

In case you missed it, we WON and you LOST.
The HSCA declared it was a conspiracy. You have what, maybe 10% of the
public on your side? You need to work harder.

[Anthony Marsh]

You're just a sore loser.

>> the very
>> conversation and chat that YOU cause will bring out facts and new ways of
>> looking at the data. Actually, YOU one of the reasons the subject keeps
>> dawning anew!
>>
>> Chris
>
> Poor little Chrissy, you don`t understand that you engage in this
> hobby because you derive pleasure from it. You`d be doing it whether I
> informed you of what you are actually doing or not.
>

And you derive pleasure from your false sense of superiority by looking
down on anyone who believes in conspiracy.

[David Von Pein]

TONY MARSH SAID:

The HSCA declared it was a conspiracy.

DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

Based on faulty evidence.

But Marsh likes the idea that the silly acoustics evidence is still
valid here in the 21st century, so Marsh will tout that evidence as
still being valid, regardless of how unreliable and worthless it
really is.

Typical CTer.

[mainframetech]

You rarely sem to present any evidence for your WCR beliefs. Is it
because you have forgotten the material now? It's been a long time that
you've been trying to convince people to cling to the WCR as you do, and
you've failed to get even one person to see things your way. And yet you
say it's interesting for you to do it. One wonders about the years you've
spent in repeating the same old insults, showing the same lack of evidence
and never quitting. Is something driving you to continue to insult and
demean everyone that doesn't think like you? Is that fun?

> > the very
> > conversation and chat that YOU cause will bring out facts and new ways of
> > looking at the data.  Actually, YOU one of the reasons the subject keeps
> > dawning anew!
>
> > Chris
>
>   Poor little Chrissy, you don`t understand that you engage in this
> hobby because you derive pleasure from it. You`d be doing it whether I
> informed you of what you are actually doing or not.

It's true that I'd be doing anything that I do now whether you existed
or not...:) And yes, I enjoy it. Do you enjoy what you do every day here
and in ACJ?

Chris

[mainframetech]

David, I'm surprised at you. You've failed to notice that those in
opposition to the tired old WCR have produced much evidence to the
contrary. Remember our debate that you lost about the autopsy and the
photos and X-rays. That evidence is still there to hound those that made
it. Of course, now there is Douglas Horne putting together bits and
pieces from the ARRB information that holds reams of new untapped data and
conclusions.

Yhe effort to dig up the full and correct story will continue.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Funny how I was arguing conspiracy long before the acoustical evidence
was ever known. Funny how you were arguing that no conspiracies have
ever existed even before the assassination.
So did you argue that Nixon was innocent because BBN analyzed the White
House tapes?

[Anthony Marsh]

We already have the admissions. What we need is the hard evidence to
back up the admissions. That is what the government is continuing to
cover up. This has been a very long process of forcing the government to
release files and when they do we see the evidence they were covering up
and how it disproves their lies.

[Anthony Marsh]

But you don't want to see any evidence. You want to rely on your hand
picked witnesses and thrown out the evidence. When I try to show you the
evidence, you refuse to look at it and run away crying.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "You were arguing that no conspiracies have ever existed even before
the assassination." <<<

A lie.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't understand. You are trying to admit that you lied about that?
You know that the rules do not allow me to accuse you of lying, but it's
ok if you want to admit that you lied about it.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "I don't understand. You are trying to admit that you lied about
that?" <<<

No, Tony. I was merely pointing out the fact that this statement you
made about me is nothing but a lie (because you know you can't
possibly quote me as saying anything that even closely resembles
this).....

"You were arguing that no conspiracies have ever existed even

before the assassination." -- W. Anthony Marsh

But, as usual, Tony likes to assert things about other people that are
simply not true (i.e., things he can't support if his life hung in the
balance).

~yawn~

[mainframetech]

Evidence is fine. Witness statements are also evidence.
Unfortunately, they both can be 'messed with'. Bullets can turn from
pointy nosed to round nosed, and witnesses cn be warned to shut up or
get hurt. Both have occurred in this JFK case.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/29/2012 11:30 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>>>> "I don't understand. You are trying to admit that you lied about
> that?" <<<
>
> No, Tony. I was merely pointing out the fact that this statement you
> made about me is nothing but a lie (because you know you can't
> possibly quote me as saying anything that even closely resembles
> this).....
>

McAdams told you that you are not allowed to accuse me of lying.

[David Von Pein]

>>> "McAdams told you that you are not allowed to accuse me of lying." <<<

Cry me a river.

When did John ever tell me that?

[Bud]

He made it up.

[Bud]

On Dec 29, 11:22 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/29/2012 11:30 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> "I don't understand. You are trying to admit that you lied about
> > that?" <<<
>
> > No, Tony. I was merely pointing out the fact that this statement you
> > made about me is nothing but a lie (because you know you can't
> > possibly quote me as saying anything that even closely resembles
> > this).....
>
> McAdams told you that you are not allowed to accuse me of lying.

It wasn`t an accusation. Try again.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/30/2012 10:21 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Dec 29, 11:22 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 12/29/2012 11:30 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "I don't understand. You are trying to admit that you lied about
>>> that?" <<<
>>
>>> No, Tony. I was merely pointing out the fact that this statement you
>>> made about me is nothing but a lie (because you know you can't
>>> possibly quote me as saying anything that even closely resembles
>>> this).....
>>
>> McAdams told you that you are not allowed to accuse me of lying.
>
> It wasn`t an accusation. Try again.
>

You've seen McAdams explain the rules and he allows you to violate them.
But if I violate the same rules I am locked out. And some people call
that moderation?