Poll For Fellow LN's

[BT George]

When I started posting here some 2 years and 7 months ago, I was probably
as delusional as the next guy about making some form of lasting impact on
this long running debate. Oh I didn't think I would "change the world" or
seriously curtail the level of debate, but I thought I *might* be able to
at least persuade a *few* persons.

Alas however modest my delusions, reality and perspective soon set in
after only a few months of dealing with the likes of our very own Bob
(Z285) Harris, Tony (auto-attack) Marsh, Chris (everything-was-faked)
Mainframe Tech, and Ralph (seeing-things) Cinque. It quickly dawned on
me, "These people really don't live in the real world and have no desire
to do so!"

Also I recall vividly that sometime as we neared the 50th anniversary,
that it set in at a new a deeper level just how *old* this case was
becoming and how it was more, and more, simply a debate over how history
should be written rather than a realistic fight over how the crime should
be solved.

Well since they remain (forever it would seem certain) impervious to logic
and reason in the matter, I just wanted to conduct a poll of my fellow
LN's as to whether 52 years on:

1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore that
we are helping out of the morass of confusion?

2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?

3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
at all?


BT George

[Marcus Hanson]

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 7:31:09 AM UTC+11, BT George wrote:

> 1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore that
> we are helping out of the morass of confusion?

> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?

> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
> at all?

> BT George

1)Maybe.

2)Yes.

I have a gut feeling that there are unseen photos,or even films,in
somebody's attic which could give us - no pun intended - a clearer picture
of what happened in DP.

Hard to believe that =every= single amateur in the area with a camera,
even in a less technology-soaked era,was located.

I like the work being done by Denis Morissette,on attempting to put more
names to faces in the extant photographic record.

Everyone must surely be curious about what documents are still under
seal,too. That's why I support what Jeff Morley is doing,even though he is
not an LN.

3)Sometimes.

Still,it would be closed-minded to dismiss the perspective of
others,without at least giving their ideas some consideration.

But I realised long ago that this is an "old men's hobby".
(Plus Jean and Pamela!).

We should all probably find a better way to make a contribution to
society, like helping old ladies to cross the street or picking up rubbish
from the local nature reserve. Problem is,we'd still have to find an
outlet for our desire to argue.

Without wishing to diminish the significance of the assassination - nobody
could - I believe some people take themselves far too seriously. A person
may be considered a passionate advocate by some,but a tedious bore,or just
plain nuts,by others.

That is most evident in those forums where members must subscribe to the
forum owners' orthodoxy. Some of them are so full of their own
self-importance and tortured contrivances that they have,to use a crude
English phrase, "disappeared up their own a-holes".

[Bud]

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:31:09 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> When I started posting here some 2 years and 7 months ago, I was probably
> as delusional as the next guy about making some form of lasting impact on
> this long running debate. Oh I didn't think I would "change the world" or
> seriously curtail the level of debate, but I thought I *might* be able to
> at least persuade a *few* persons.

I think I`ve been at it for over ten years. Wandered into the nuthouse
wondering what all the fuss was about Oswald being an innocent patsy. Was
set upon by Walt Cakebread, Ben Holmes and others, and not knowing much
about the particulars started looking into their issues, finding that
wherever I looked, what they represented the evidence to be and what it
actually was differed greatly. I was hooked, correcting them and poking
fun at their thinking was my calling.

> Alas however modest my delusions, reality and perspective soon set in
> after only a few months of dealing with the likes of our very own Bob
> (Z285) Harris, Tony (auto-attack) Marsh, Chris (everything-was-faked)
> Mainframe Tech, and Ralph (seeing-things) Cinque. It quickly dawned on
> me, "These people really don't live in the real world and have no desire
> to do so!"
>
> Also I recall vividly that sometime as we neared the 50th anniversary,
> that it set in at a new a deeper level just how *old* this case was
> becoming and how it was more, and more, simply a debate over how history
> should be written rather than a realistic fight over how the crime should
> be solved.
>
> Well since they remain (forever it would seem certain) impervious to logic
> and reason in the matter, I just wanted to conduct a poll of my fellow
> LN's as to whether 52 years on:
>
> 1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore that
> we are helping out of the morass of confusion?

No, I suspect most people who lurk (if any exist) already have their
minds made up. Some might come hoping to bolster what they have already
decided to believe. Lets face it, the banquet has been on the table for
over 50 years, if some don`t want to partake there is no point shoving it
down their craw. If there are lurkers out there who can`t figure out who
killed Kennedy with what is available then they are beyond help anyway.

> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?

Nothing. It`s a dead horse. Conspiracy hobbyists like to see it as some
dynamic process, but you know how in touch with reality they are.

That said, I`d like to see the FBI apply modern forensics to the
evidence in this case. The paper bag found near the SN was taped together,
could it yield a hair that could be DNA matched to Oswald? Granted the bag
already has Oswald prints on it and the CTers would only scoff at any new
evidence incriminating Oswald, but it might turn up some interesting
information. Note that since Oswald is guilty I have no expectation of
anything turning up that would put that obvious fact in jeopardy.

> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
> at all?

No, not bored at all. I like calling them out on their bad thinking. I
check here a couple times a day hoping one of them will say something
stupid so I can <snicker> at it. They never disappoint.


>
> BT George

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:31:09 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:

As a proud CT myself, I could havew written this myself about LNs. I
STILL think that with logic and links to REAL SWORN TESTIMONY, that I can
convince someone of the truth held in mainly the ARRB files. Oddly, most
LNs refuse to look at the data I point to, I guess in fear of what they'll
find. Most LNs also refuse to argue about the points brought up because
they don't have the strong belief in their data that I have in the
testimony and witness statements that I've shown.

So you see those feelings are on both sides of the argument. Having
been an LN myself many years ago, I can understand the hard headedness of
some LNs, but not the inability to face new information that changes the
arguments, which happened for me.

I will keep plugging along showing proofs against opinions anyway, in
hopes that sometime, somewhere, justice will prevail for the conspirators
and they will be recognized for what they are, and if any are left,
prosecuted to the fullest, and the truth brought out.

Chris

[Mitch Todd]

On 11/4/2015 2:31 PM, BT George wrote:
> When I started posting here some 2 years and 7 months ago, I was probably
> as delusional as the next guy about making some form of lasting impact on
> this long running debate. Oh I didn't think I would "change the world" or
> seriously curtail the level of debate, but I thought I *might* be able to
> at least persuade a *few* persons.
>
> Alas however modest my delusions, reality and perspective soon set in
> after only a few months of dealing with the likes of our very own Bob
> (Z285) Harris, Tony (auto-attack) Marsh, Chris (everything-was-faked)
> Mainframe Tech, and Ralph (seeing-things) Cinque. It quickly dawned on
> me, "These people really don't live in the real world and have no desire
> to do so!"
>
> Also I recall vividly that sometime as we neared the 50th anniversary,
> that it set in at a new a deeper level just how *old* this case was
> becoming and how it was more, and more, simply a debate over how history
> should be written rather than a realistic fight over how the crime should
> be solved.
>
> Well since they remain (forever it would seem certain) impervious to logic
> and reason in the matter, I just wanted to conduct a poll of my fellow
> LN's as to whether 52 years on:
>
> 1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore that
> we are helping out of the morass of confusion?

Maybe. In the Olden Days, back before the web unleashed endless
September, LNs had a surprising amount of influence, at least
among the then-large number of researchers who weren't a priori
certain that there was a conspiracy. Of course, you still had
to put in a good argument founded on solid facts. The a priori
CT crowd scattered out to other forums where they felt the
safety in their own numbers and/or protective moderation.
They'll stay in their little reservations, shielded forever,
where nothing will ever endanger their precious shibboleths.

> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?

Oh yes! Someone shoots two guys in front of 500 other people, half
of whom seem to have brought some kind of camera. 50 years later,
people still argue about the basics of what happened!

One other thing gets me: the way that different witness statements
have changed over the years. Bonnie Ray Williams was asked why
he initially said he only heard two shots, but later reported three.
He replied that he originally remembered two, but after he
went home and thought about it for a while, his memory "got
better." :-D That's happened to a lot of witnesses over time.

> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
> at all?

Yeah. Don't have all that much time anymore, and the CT arguments
have become more convoluted over the years, especially with the
ascendency of the Horney-Felcher axis. Still, I miss getting crosswise
with Aguilar, and it would be nice having Barb J back. There are
a few more that were some combination of interesting, well-argued,
and worth reading, even if I didn't agree with them. Believe it
or not, Tony was one of them back in the day.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:31:09 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:

1) Maybe a few. In all the years I have argued this case on various
forums, the only one I've seen switch from CT to LN was Dr. Bob Artwohl
back in the early 1990s on the old Prodigy system. I don't know what if
anything I had to do with him changing sides but he did compliment me
about an argument I made regarding how illogical it would have been for
anyone to have planted CE399 at Parkland.

2) Much of it still fascinates me and I am still learning things that I
didn't know before which keeps it interesting. I am also fascinated by the
numerous subplots and random chance they played such a big part in the
unfolding of events, especially as it pertains to Ruby killing Oswald. If
ever there was an act that was so obviously not premeditated it was that.
Like Oswald's killing of Kennedy, Ruby's was a crime of opportunity and it
was a series of unrelated events that created the opportunity.

3) I have gotten bored with it from time to time and on several occasions
I have left this forum only to return months later. Sometimes I feel like
Michael Corleone in The Godfather III, "Just when I thought I was out,
they pull me back in".

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, sure. Name them and tell us what they uncovered.

> CT crowd scattered out to other forums where they felt the
> safety in their own numbers and/or protective moderation.

Excuse me? Some conspiracy believers were scared away by the Nazis here.
I guess you aren't old enough to remember the Nuthouse.

> They'll stay in their little reservations, shielded forever,
> where nothing will ever endanger their precious shibboleths.
>

Shielded? Who's shielded. The Nazis here are shielded. I am not allowed
to call you a liar, but the Nazis and the kooks are allowed to call ME a
liar. Shielded?

>
>> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?
>
> Oh yes! Someone shoots two guys in front of 500 other people, half
> of whom seem to have brought some kind of camera. 50 years later,
> people still argue about the basics of what happened!
>

Do you even understand what a President of the United States is?
You think it was just a coincidence that thousands of people lined the
streets that day in Dallas. Show me a similar crowd for ANY of your
rightwing heroes.

> One other thing gets me: the way that different witness statements
> have changed over the years. Bonnie Ray Williams was asked why
> he initially said he only heard two shots, but later reported three.
> He replied that he originally remembered two, but after he
> went home and thought about it for a while, his memory "got
> better." :-D That's happened to a lot of witnesses over time.
>

We are not interested in your revisionism. Stick to the facts.
You can't explain the JFK assassination with only 2 shots.
You won't even try. You'll just be the only one here to casually mention
it, but you can't defend it. And because YOU are superior to every other
person on this planet that's how you know you are right.

>
>> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find
>> yourself

No, we don't like you.

>> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
>> at all?
>

Hardcore CT-types? We hardcore CT-types are the ones who got the case
reopened. You don't believe the WC when it said 3 shots, but you are
happy to let that LIE stand.

> Yeah. Don't have all that much time anymore, and the CT arguments

Who don't have all that much time anymore? YOU have plenty of time to
write lots of silly messages here.

But not answer questions. That's beneath your dignity.
When you declare something it must be right and no one is worthy to
challenge you.

> have become more convoluted over the years, especially with the
> ascendency of the Horney-Felcher axis. Still, I miss getting crosswise

I thought you destroyed the Horney-Felcher axis? (I hope that is a vulgar
homosexual reference that you slipped past the censor)

> with Aguilar, and it would be nice having Barb J back. There are

Why in the world would Barb want to discuss the JFK assassination?
This is a DISCUSSION GROUP.

> a few more that were some combination of interesting, well-argued,
> and worth reading, even if I didn't agree with them. Believe it
> or not, Tony was one of them back in the day.
>
>
>

Flattery will get you nowhere, Big Boy.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/4/2015 9:36 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:31:09 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
>> When I started posting here some 2 years and 7 months ago, I was probably
>> as delusional as the next guy about making some form of lasting impact on
>> this long running debate. Oh I didn't think I would "change the world" or
>> seriously curtail the level of debate, but I thought I *might* be able to
>> at least persuade a *few* persons.
>
> I think I`ve been at it for over ten years. Wandered into the nuthouse

That figures. It's called Trolling. You're only here to attack people
for amusement.

> wondering what all the fuss was about Oswald being an innocent patsy. Was
> set upon by Walt Cakebread, Ben Holmes and others, and not knowing much

And back then you didn't realize those were only aliases?

Some lurkers are afraid to post because of people like you.
Others want to see if there is anything new.

>
>> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?
>
> Nothing. It`s a dead horse. Conspiracy hobbyists like to see it as some
> dynamic process, but you know how in touch with reality they are.
>

That's the purpose of a cover-up. To turn current events into ancient
history.

> That said, I`d like to see the FBI apply modern forensics to the
> evidence in this case. The paper bag found near the SN was taped together,

They refused. Because you told them to cover it up.

> could it yield a hair that could be DNA matched to Oswald? Granted the bag

Oh please. Now you want DNA? What about the scandal last month with the
FBI admitting they lied about hair analysis?

> already has Oswald prints on it and the CTers would only scoff at any new
> evidence incriminating Oswald, but it might turn up some interesting
> information. Note that since Oswald is guilty I have no expectation of
> anything turning up that would put that obvious fact in jeopardy.
>

I have asked for new tests and they won't do it.

>> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
>> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
>> at all?
>
> No, not bored at all. I like calling them out on their bad thinking. I
> check here a couple times a day hoping one of them will say something
> stupid so I can <snicker> at it. They never disappoint.
>

Pot meet Kettle.

>
>>
>> BT George
>
>

[David Emerling]

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 2:31:09 PM UTC-6, BT George wrote:

> 1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore that
> we are helping out of the morass of confusion?

Nobody who takes the time to frequent a discussion group like this, and
believes there was a conspiracy, is ever going to be convinced. At least,
they are never going to admit it. It is no longer just a "belief" on their
part. It has become WHO they are as a person. It defines them. The debate
is mostly a conduit to express their cynical, paranoid, arrogant and
militant worldview.

THEY can see all the corruption that has permeated every aspect of our
government and its agencies. WE (the LNs) seem to be blinded by this. THEY
can see the harm to society if this case is not solved and the real
culprits are not brought to justice. On the other hand, WE are oblivious
to how important this is. THEY can see how all the pieces fit together and
point toward a conspiracy. WE seem to lack the perceptiveness and
intellectual capacity to see what is so obvious to them. THEY have
connected the dots. WE are incapable of making those connections.

From the book _Among the Truthers", which gets heavily into the psychology
of the conspiracy mentality: "For all their pretensions to sophisticated
truth-seeking, conspiracists often seem stuck in the suburban basement
universe of secret decoder rings and Star Wars action figures."

> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?

Not really. I have long since been convinced of what EXACTLY happened in
Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963. There was a time when it was a
fascinating mystery to me. I started this journey (back in college in the
late 70's) with the presumption that there MUST be some kind of
conspiracy. Like most Americans, I was a victim of the pervasive,
pop-culture view that the Kennedy assassination was a metaphor for
"conspiracy". A modicum of responsible research, mostly from
investigations conducted by people who were far smarter than myself,
rapidly convinced me of the absurdity of all these various conspiracy
theories. The sheer fact that there were so many of them, with mutually
exclusive elements to each, was enough to give me pause and realize, "Most
of them MUST be wrong - by definition!" Closer inspection revealed that
they were ALL wrong.

So, why do I even bother discussing this case? (A fair question) Well, for
me, I have to admit, it's like going to the circus to see the bearded
lady. I'm no longer fascinated by the details of the case. Like I said, I
KNOW what happened. I'm now much more fascinated by the phenomenon of
people who are intelligent enough, at least, to construct a sentence with
a subject and verb; yet, the most deliciously stupid things come flying
off their fingertips when they post their comments. It's fascinating just
as the movie "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" was fascinating.

To answer the question: What fascinates me about this case? It's not the
ballistics, fingerprints, photographs, testimony or medical evidence. It's
the people who look at this information and construct an improbably
convoluted fantasy world to which they are highly committed. It comes very
close to insanity! It's a train wreck and it's fascinating to watch.

My research is over in this case. It's as if I used to work for the NTSB
but have retired. Yet, whenever there is an airline accident, I'm still
have a level of interest in it because of my background. It's something I
know a lot about. There was a time in my life when I spent a great deal of
time on this topic. Now, I just sit back and shake my head in amazement at
those who may have spent even LONGER "researching" this case, having
access to the same information that I did, yet draw the most preposterous
(almost humorous) conclusions.

> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
> at all?

Absolutely! This is why I am not a frequent poster on this site. Visiting
here every day, reading all the posts and making snarky comments to each
one is not a form of enjoyment for me.

It's not frustrating for me, however. I have long since determined that
hardcore conspiracy believers, the likes of which frequent this site, are
NEVER going to be converted. I'm not even trying - really. I do not
flatter myself in that way.

The only ones who can be convinced are, what I call, the "casual
conspiracy believers". These are the people who you come across in your
daily life, maybe at a neighborhood party, maybe during your lunch break
at work, and the Kennedy assassination might come up for some reason.
Invariably, they'll say something like, "I just don't think Oswald acted
alone. I think he must have had some kind of help." By far, this comment
is the #1 thing I hear. This is why polls consistently indicate that a
majority of Americans believe there was a conspiracy. They really don't
know much about the case. They've probably seen a documentary or two on
TV. They have all seen the movie JFK. But, mostly, they are aware that
there has been talk about a conspiracy that has persisted for decades. So,
there "opinion" is not an altogether surprising reflection of pop culture
thinking. Those type of people can be convinced. They are usually not
emotionally invested in the case. They are still capable of saying, "Hmm.
I didn't know that! Every bullet and fragment in this case was linked to
the rifle Oswald purchased? I had never heard that before. And, a team of
three pathologists spent four hours conducting an autopsy and concluded
that Kennedy was hit ONLY from behind? If that's the case, I don't see how
Kennedy could have been hit from the grassy knoll. Why do people even
claim that, then?" These type of people can be convinced. But you won't
see the likes of them ever visit a site like this.

Again, from the book _Among the Truthers_: "The experience also has
convinced me that any effort to engage committed conspiracy theorists in
reasoned debate is a waste of time. Once someone has bitten down on the
red pill, it's too late. As with any incurable disease, the best course
isn't treatment, it's prevention."

Bugliosi was correct when he characterized the topic as "toxic". It's not
a productive pursuit any longer - at least, not in a THIS venue.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/4/2015 9:33 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 7:31:09 AM UTC+11, BT George wrote:
>
>> 1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore that
>> we are helping out of the morass of confusion?
>
>> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?
>
>> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
>> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
>> at all?
>
>> BT George
>
> 1)Maybe.
>
> 2)Yes.
>
> I have a gut feeling that there are unseen photos,or even films,in
> somebody's attic which could give us - no pun intended - a clearer picture
> of what happened in DP.
>

Sure, but your cover-up has scare people into not coming forward.

> Hard to believe that =every= single amateur in the area with a camera,
> even in a less technology-soaked era,was located.
>

Martin and I identified at least 4 photographers who never came forward.
But that's the advantage of a cover-up. You guys can just sit back and
claim that no new evidence ever comes out. Then when we cite new
evidence coming out you can call us kooks. End of debate.
You didn't even know that Kodak developed the 5 autopsy photos which the
SS had destroyed.

> I like the work being done by Denis Morissette,on attempting to put more
> names to faces in the extant photographic record.
>

Fun to guess isn't it?
George Bush, Allen Dulles, William Colby. E. Howard Hunt?
Did I leave out any CIA officers? Oh, that's ok, you wouldn't know their
names anyway.

> Everyone must surely be curious about what documents are still under
> seal,too. That's why I support what Jeff Morley is doing,even though he is
> not an LN.
>

Funny, but we already KNOW. We just want to see them released to the public.

> 3)Sometimes.
>
> Still,it would be closed-minded to dismiss the perspective of
> others,without at least giving their ideas some consideration.

Isn't that why this newsgroup was created?

>
> But I realised long ago that this is an "old men's hobby".
> (Plus Jean and Pamela!).
>

AWOL

> We should all probably find a better way to make a contribution to
> society, like helping old ladies to cross the street or picking up rubbish
> from the local nature reserve. Problem is,we'd still have to find an
> outlet for our desire to argue.
>

Been there, done that. My Boy Scout days are over. Now I need a pretty
coed to help ME across the street.

> Without wishing to diminish the significance of the assassination - nobody
> could - I believe some people take themselves far too seriously. A person
> may be considered a passionate advocate by some,but a tedious bore,or just
> plain nuts,by others.
>

Maybe because our ranks have thinned out the burden falls on only a few
to keep up the good fight.

> That is most evident in those forums where members must subscribe to the
> forum owners' orthodoxy. Some of them are so full of their own
> self-importance and tortured contrivances that they have,to use a crude
> English phrase, "disappeared up their own a-holes".
>
>

That's one reason why I keep posting here. It's not a forum run by a
private individual. I don't have to care what the Nazis think.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/4/2015 3:31 PM, BT George wrote:
> When I started posting here some 2 years and 7 months ago, I was probably
> as delusional as the next guy about making some form of lasting impact on
> this long running debate. Oh I didn't think I would "change the world" or
> seriously curtail the level of debate, but I thought I *might* be able to
> at least persuade a *few* persons.
>

Piker. Where were you during the HSCA investigation?
How do you know you haven't won over 2 or 3 lurkers?

> Alas however modest my delusions, reality and perspective soon set in
> after only a few months of dealing with the likes of our very own Bob
> (Z285) Harris, Tony (auto-attack) Marsh, Chris (everything-was-faked)
> Mainframe Tech, and Ralph (seeing-things) Cinque. It quickly dawned on
> me, "These people really don't live in the real world and have no desire
> to do so!"
>
> Also I recall vividly that sometime as we neared the 50th anniversary,
> that it set in at a new a deeper level just how *old* this case was
> becoming and how it was more, and more, simply a debate over how history
> should be written rather than a realistic fight over how the crime should
> be solved.
>
> Well since they remain (forever it would seem certain) impervious to logic
> and reason in the matter, I just wanted to conduct a poll of my fellow
> LN's as to whether 52 years on:
>
> 1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore that
> we are helping out of the morass of confusion?
>

Yes, but they are afraid to post here because of people like you.

> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?
>

Can you explain why we still need such a massive cover-up of all the
evidence. If they released the autopsy photos would Russia launch
nuclear missiles at us? National Security is just a screen to cover up
illegality. Like praising that hero cop GI Joe who was just a petty
criminal.

> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
> at all?
>

No, we don't like you at all.
Some of your buddies do it just for giggles.
Other because it's easier than beating the dog.

>
> BT George
>

[BT George]

On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:16:52 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/4/2015 3:31 PM, BT George wrote:
> > When I started posting here some 2 years and 7 months ago, I was probably
> > as delusional as the next guy about making some form of lasting impact on
> > this long running debate. Oh I didn't think I would "change the world" or
> > seriously curtail the level of debate, but I thought I *might* be able to
> > at least persuade a *few* persons.
> >
>
> Piker. Where were you during the HSCA investigation?
> How do you know you haven't won over 2 or 3 lurkers?

I don't, but if so, none have ever chimed in to say so. But in the
earlier days around here, I was misguided enough to imagine that some of
even the hardcore CT's might at least conceded a point or two or perhaps
even move themselves to the camp of those less cocksure in their
belief-system. A delusion indeed...as is trying to reason with *you*!

>
> > Alas however modest my delusions, reality and perspective soon set in
> > after only a few months of dealing with the likes of our very own Bob
> > (Z285) Harris, Tony (auto-attack) Marsh, Chris (everything-was-faked)
> > Mainframe Tech, and Ralph (seeing-things) Cinque. It quickly dawned on
> > me, "These people really don't live in the real world and have no desire
> > to do so!"
> >
> > Also I recall vividly that sometime as we neared the 50th anniversary,
> > that it set in at a new a deeper level just how *old* this case was
> > becoming and how it was more, and more, simply a debate over how history
> > should be written rather than a realistic fight over how the crime should
> > be solved.
> >
> > Well since they remain (forever it would seem certain) impervious to logic
> > and reason in the matter, I just wanted to conduct a poll of my fellow
> > LN's as to whether 52 years on:
> >
> > 1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore that
> > we are helping out of the morass of confusion?
> >
>
> Yes, but they are afraid to post here because of people like you.

LOL! Yep. I'm sure it's not your "charming" personality that drives 'em
away!

>
> > 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?
> >
>
> Can you explain why we still need such a massive cover-up of all the
> evidence. If they released the autopsy photos would Russia launch
> nuclear missiles at us? National Security is just a screen to cover up
> illegality. Like praising that hero cop GI Joe who was just a petty
> criminal.
>

Typical CT blathery. An ongoing "massive" cover-up these 52 years and
these 9 Administrations later (not counting second terms) later.

>
> > 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
> > getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
> > at all?
> >
>
> No, we don't like you at all.

Still displaying that stellar reading prowess, eh Tony? I never asked if
anyone liked me. I asked if there was anyone here that was like (as in
same/similar) to me in wondering why they still engaged with persons like
*you*.

> Some of your buddies do it just for giggles.
> Other because it's easier than beating the dog.
>

You might add just "slightly" more fun than beating the dog too.

> >
> > BT George
> >

[Bud]

On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 11:10:06 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/4/2015 9:36 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:31:09 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> >> When I started posting here some 2 years and 7 months ago, I was probably
> >> as delusional as the next guy about making some form of lasting impact on
> >> this long running debate. Oh I didn't think I would "change the world" or
> >> seriously curtail the level of debate, but I thought I *might* be able to
> >> at least persuade a *few* persons.
> >
> > I think I`ve been at it for over ten years. Wandered into the nuthouse
>
> That figures. It's called Trolling. You're only here to attack people
> for amusement.

You say it like its a bad thing.

> > wondering what all the fuss was about Oswald being an innocent patsy. Was
> > set upon by Walt Cakebread, Ben Holmes and others, and not knowing much
>
> And back then you didn't realize those were only aliases?

Didn`t really matter to me. Never did think Ann Archy was the poster`s
actual name, though.

As well they should be. I shall crush their spirit and belittle their
silly ideas. Hide and be very, very afraid dumbass lurkers.

> Others want to see if there is anything new.

There is some undying optimism.

> >
> >> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?
> >
> > Nothing. It`s a dead horse. Conspiracy hobbyists like to see it as some
> > dynamic process, but you know how in touch with reality they are.
> >
>
> That's the purpose of a cover-up. To turn current events into ancient
> history.

Currently JFK is dead, the person who killed JFK is dead and the person
who killed the person who killed JFK is dead.

> > That said, I`d like to see the FBI apply modern forensics to the
> > evidence in this case. The paper bag found near the SN was taped together,
>
> They refused. Because you told them to cover it up.

Them was just the voices in your head.

> > could it yield a hair that could be DNA matched to Oswald? Granted the bag
>
> Oh please. Now you want DNA?

I have my own, thanks.

> What about the scandal last month with the
> FBI admitting they lied about hair analysis?

How about those Patriots?

> > already has Oswald prints on it and the CTers would only scoff at any new
> > evidence incriminating Oswald, but it might turn up some interesting
> > information. Note that since Oswald is guilty I have no expectation of
> > anything turning up that would put that obvious fact in jeopardy.
> >
>
> I have asked for new tests and they won't do it.

Did you use the magic word?

> >> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
> >> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
> >> at all?
> >
> > No, not bored at all. I like calling them out on their bad thinking. I
> > check here a couple times a day hoping one of them will say something
> > stupid so I can <snicker> at it. They never disappoint.
> >
>
> Pot meet Kettle.

Conspiracy theorist meet reality. You`ve never met.

> >
> >>
> >> BT George
> >
> >

[tom...@cox.net]

Marcus Hanson <marcus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 7:31:09 AM UTC+11, BT George wrote:

> =20

> > 1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore

> > that=
> =20

> > we are helping out of the morass of confusion?

> =20

> > 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?

> =20

> > 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find

> > yoursel=
> f=20

> > getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore

> > CT-types=
> =20
> > at all?
> =20

> > BT George
>
> 1)Maybe.
>
> 2)Yes.
>
> I have a gut feeling that there are unseen photos,or even films,in
> somebody's attic which could give us - no pun intended - a clearer
> picture of what happened in DP.
>

> Hard to believe that =3Devery=3D single amateur in the area with a

> camera, even in a less technology-soaked era,was located.
>
> I like the work being done by Denis Morissette,on attempting to put more
> names to faces in the extant photographic record.
>
> Everyone must surely be curious about what documents are still under
> seal,too. That's why I support what Jeff Morley is doing,even though he
> is not an LN.
>
> 3)Sometimes.
>
> Still,it would be closed-minded to dismiss the perspective of
> others,without at least giving their ideas some consideration.
>
> But I realised long ago that this is an "old men's hobby".
> (Plus Jean and Pamela!).
>
> We should all probably find a better way to make a contribution to
> society, like helping old ladies to cross the street or picking up
> rubbish from the local nature reserve. Problem is,we'd still have to find
> an outlet for our desire to argue.
>
> Without wishing to diminish the significance of the assassination -
> nobody could - I believe some people take themselves far too seriously. A
> person may be considered a passionate advocate by some,but a tedious
> bore,or just plain nuts,by others.
>
> That is most evident in those forums where members must subscribe to the
> forum owners' orthodoxy. Some of them are so full of their own
> self-importance and tortured contrivances that they have,to use a crude
> English phrase, "disappeared up their own a-holes".

===========================================================================
===== WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO READ THE OFFICIAL
EVIDNCE/TESTIMONY FROM THE COMMISSION'S 26 VOLUMES ! ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====

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

[Anthony Marsh]

Which alias were you using on Prodigy? Big Fart?
I never saw Artwohl say anything remotely hinting at conspiracy.
Got any quotes?

Jim Ward
2/23/97

Mr. Corbett:

Please read below....

====================================================================
Mr. Corbett wrote, once again proving the true depth of his knowledge of
the JFK assassination:

Mr Griffith's long winded post is a classic example of a favorite buff
technique. Raise questions but never attempt to answer any of them. Jim
Marrs wrote an entire book based largely on this technique. The
implication is that any unanswered question in and of itself constitutes
evidence of conspiracy. A true researcher would not be satisfied simply to
uncover an unanswered question but would attempt to answer it before
attempting to assign any meaning to it. Notice that Mr. Griffith did not
attempt to answer any of the questions he raised. The reason the buffs do
this is quite obvious. They know through experience that when one attempts
to answer these questions, there is usually a very valid reason why
certain things were done and in other cases, people simply screwed up and
did not follow proper procedures.

======================================================================
JW:

What makes Mr. Griffith's articles so good, is that he is much more
conservative than most pro-conspiracists.

He will not state anything as an absolute until he is very, very sure.

When he asks questions, however, it is to provoke a thinking process
from those capable of having such a process.
=====================================================================

Getting back to the specific question of the Day palmprint, this lifted
print also showed markings from MC rifle C2766.
==============================================================
JW:

"Lifted" is the correct term, but "when" is the real issue.

When was the print found?
====================================================================

It would have been a neat
trick for Day to have planted the print after having already surrendered
the rifle the night of 11/22/1963.
=================================================================
JW:

Since no one at the DPD had found a print prior to the rifle being
surrendered to the FBI, it would have indeed been a "neat trick".

You do know, *don't you*, that after taking receipt of the MC, that
the FBI lab failed to find a print as well?

It was only after the MC was returned to Dallas that Day suddenly
came forward and said "Gee...look what I found!".

That was very convenient wasn't it? And LHO was already dead.
==================================================================

It should also be pointed out that the WC had the palmprint findings
independently verified by the NYPD fingerprint division.

=============================================================
JW:

All they did was verify that the print came from LHO...they had
no way of knowing where the print actually came from, nor exactly
when.

Did it come from the funeral home where LHO's body was being
prepared for burial?
==============================================================

The WC did have concerns about the legitimacy of the
print, but unlike the buffs, they did not stop just by raising the
question. They sought and got answers to their questions.

John Corbett
=======================================================
JW:

You've CLEARLY gotten this reversed! Some of the Commisioners had
questions, but they did not go far enough to get the answers. In
fact, most of them already knew what their conclusions had to be.

Again, sorry....you need more work at the library.

> anything I had to do with him changing sides but he did compliment me
> about an argument I made regarding how illogical it would have been for
> anyone to have planted CE399 at Parkland.
>

Ridiculous.

> 2) Much of it still fascinates me and I am still learning things that I
> didn't know before which keeps it interesting. I am also fascinated by the
> numerous subplots and random chance they played such a big part in the
> unfolding of events, especially as it pertains to Ruby killing Oswald. If
> ever there was an act that was so obviously not premeditated it was that.
> Like Oswald's killing of Kennedy, Ruby's was a crime of opportunity and it
> was a series of unrelated events that created the opportunity.
>
> 3) I have gotten bored with it from time to time and on several occasions
> I have left this forum only to return months later. Sometimes I feel like
> Michael Corleone in The Godfather III, "Just when I thought I was out,
> they pull me back in".
>

You never can keep your promises, but at least you can keep the same
alias for a couple of years.

[black...@aol.com]

The thread is explicitly directed at LNs, for discussion BETWEEN
THEMSELVES of three interesting points.

But Anthony Marsh, probably not an LN, felt the need to barge in and, once
again, hijack the thread to a discussion about him. A pointless one, at
that.

It's ALL ABOUT ANTHONY.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/6/2015 7:21 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, November 5, 2015 at 11:10:06 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 11/4/2015 9:36 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:31:09 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
>>>> When I started posting here some 2 years and 7 months ago, I was probably
>>>> as delusional as the next guy about making some form of lasting impact on
>>>> this long running debate. Oh I didn't think I would "change the world" or
>>>> seriously curtail the level of debate, but I thought I *might* be able to
>>>> at least persuade a *few* persons.
>>>
>>> I think I`ve been at it for over ten years. Wandered into the nuthouse
>>
>> That figures. It's called Trolling. You're only here to attack people
>> for amusement.
>
> You say it like its a bad thing.
>

Nice to see you finally admit it.

>>> wondering what all the fuss was about Oswald being an innocent patsy. Was
>>> set upon by Walt Cakebread, Ben Holmes and others, and not knowing much
>>
>> And back then you didn't realize those were only aliases?
>
> Didn`t really matter to me. Never did think Ann Archy was the poster`s
> actual name, though.

I've actually met some of the people who had been using aliases.
Art Swanson helped me set up my BBS.
He was a retired CIA officer.
I think it was at the same conference where I met Walt Brown and bought
the Fox set from him.
And I met .John McAdams and confirmed that he is NOT Bigfoot.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/6/2015 7:19 PM, BT George wrote:
> On Friday, November 6, 2015 at 10:16:52 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 11/4/2015 3:31 PM, BT George wrote:
>>> When I started posting here some 2 years and 7 months ago, I was probably
>>> as delusional as the next guy about making some form of lasting impact on
>>> this long running debate. Oh I didn't think I would "change the world" or
>>> seriously curtail the level of debate, but I thought I *might* be able to
>>> at least persuade a *few* persons.
>>>
>>
>> Piker. Where were you during the HSCA investigation?
>> How do you know you haven't won over 2 or 3 lurkers?
>
> I don't, but if so, none have ever chimed in to say so. But in the

Ah, look up the term lurkers. They don't post here, but they read the
messages. Duh!

> earlier days around here, I was misguided enough to imagine that some of
> even the hardcore CT's might at least conceded a point or two or perhaps
> even move themselves to the camp of those less cocksure in their
> belief-system. A delusion indeed...as is trying to reason with *you*!
>

I have admitted several points. I've given some of the Nazis A+ for a
correct answer.

What's the matter, I'm not hardcore enough for you?

>>
>>> Alas however modest my delusions, reality and perspective soon set in
>>> after only a few months of dealing with the likes of our very own Bob
>>> (Z285) Harris, Tony (auto-attack) Marsh, Chris (everything-was-faked)
>>> Mainframe Tech, and Ralph (seeing-things) Cinque. It quickly dawned on
>>> me, "These people really don't live in the real world and have no desire
>>> to do so!"
>>>
>>> Also I recall vividly that sometime as we neared the 50th anniversary,
>>> that it set in at a new a deeper level just how *old* this case was
>>> becoming and how it was more, and more, simply a debate over how history
>>> should be written rather than a realistic fight over how the crime should
>>> be solved.
>>>
>>> Well since they remain (forever it would seem certain) impervious to logic
>>> and reason in the matter, I just wanted to conduct a poll of my fellow
>>> LN's as to whether 52 years on:
>>>
>>> 1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore that
>>> we are helping out of the morass of confusion?
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but they are afraid to post here because of people like you.
>
> LOL! Yep. I'm sure it's not your "charming" personality that drives 'em
> away!
>

Lurkers tend to be timid conspiracy believers who are afraid of bullies,
not rightwing bullies.

>>
>>> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?
>>>
>>
>> Can you explain why we still need such a massive cover-up of all the
>> evidence. If they released the autopsy photos would Russia launch
>> nuclear missiles at us? National Security is just a screen to cover up
>> illegality. Like praising that hero cop GI Joe who was just a petty
>> criminal.
>>
>
> Typical CT blathery. An ongoing "massive" cover-up these 52 years and
> these 9 Administrations later (not counting second terms) later.
>

Yeah, can you explain it? Can you explain why the CIA still classified
things from World War 1 as Top Secret?

>>
>>> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
>>> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
>>> at all?
>>>
>>
>> No, we don't like you at all.
>
> Still displaying that stellar reading prowess, eh Tony? I never asked if
> anyone liked me. I asked if there was anyone here that was like (as in
> same/similar) to me in wondering why they still engaged with persons like
> *you*.
>

I was making fun of your sentence construction.
You see LOTS of people like you who still enjoy attacking me.

>
>> Some of your buddies do it just for giggles.
>> Other because it's easier than beating the dog.
>>
>
> You might add just "slightly" more fun than beating the dog too.
>

No, I meant easier. The dog gets to fight back.

>>>
>>> BT George
>>>
>
>

[black...@aol.com]

On Sunday, November 8, 2015 at 12:00:56 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> I've actually met some of the people...helped me set up my BBS...the same conference where I met Walt Brown...and I met .John McAdams

All about Anthony.

[Bud]

You`re claiming to know the beliefs of people that don`t express them?

[bigdog]

Who's Anthony Marsh?

[OHLeeRedux]

bigdog
- hide quoted text -

He's with John Galt in Atlantis.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's all about ME TV. I just watched it last night.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 2:31:09 PM UTC-6, BT George wrote:

Thanks to all who've responded so far. (Except for those CT's who either
cannot read or cannot respect the fact that this poll was written
specifically to be answered by fellow LN's.)

For my own responses:

1) I think there are a few lurkers still out there, as I was one of them
for a while. In my case, I was already sure what I believed, but was
building a more thorough understanding of the case before I began actively
posting. But I must imagine there are a few undecideds still out there
who occasionally come here and perhaps might yet be influenced by what
they see.

2) Only a couple of areas of the case still interest me very much. First
the unresolved BOH entrance wound location low vs. high; which may never
conclusively be put to rest unless JFK's body is eventually exhumed and
re-autopsied. And second, the few remaining unsealed assassination related
records. Not that I think the "smoking gun" of conspiracy is contained
within them, but perhaps a more well-rounded picture of what agencies like
the CIA and FBI knew that they chose not to reveal citing national
security or privacy concerns. (I suspect that further bureaucratic
incompetence and unnecessary secretiveness will be revealed.)

3) Answer already indicated in original post. I'll probably not be able
to resist chiming in sometimes, but my participation will probably remain
intermittent over time.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

At least I use my own real name.

[Anthony Marsh]

Then why did I mention all those other people?

[Alex Foyle]

On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:31:09 PM UTC+1, BT George wrote:

Ok, thanks for asking, I'll give it go too.

> 1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore that
> we are helping out of the morass of confusion?

Yes. When I discovered this group in the mid/late 1990s I was a
full-fledged CT and watching all the discussions here and at other forums
helped me get a clearer picture of those who disseminate conspiratorial
claims. That plus the online release of the vast majority of original
documents and my own discussions with CTs eventually dispelled all my
cherished CT beliefs. I remember Dave Reitzes being quite CT in the 1990s
and then changing his beliefs through his own thorough research and
discussions with CTs too. Seeing some of the younger and also older
newbies to this case here, in other forums and at Facebook today I
definitely think that anyone can help them finding answers to their
questions and thereby changing their conspiratorial outlook on this case.

> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?

Lots, I've been a sucker for all things related to this crime since I
stumbled onto a coffee table edition of "The Best of Time Life" when I was
9 years old in 1977 and seeing the iconic photo of Ruby shooting Oswald.
Things that still fascinate me today are Abraham Bolden and the alleged
Chicago plot(s), Kerry Thornley and his experiences, the incident with
Sylvia Odio, grassy knoll witnesses (especially the colored man on the
stairs and Black Dog Man), etc.

> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
> at all?

These days when watching the likes of Cinque, Charnin, Fetzer, Judyth
Baker, mainframetech or Marsh I do get bored indeed sometimes. I mean it's
like trying to convince Hitler that the Jews don't really rule the world.
It's hopeless to argue with them, no matter how many times you show and
prove how faulty their beliefs are they'll still cling on to believing
nonsense like the accoustic "evidence", Gordon Arnold, Oswald was out with
Shelley during the shooting, Thornley having an affair with Marina or the
alleged "suspicious" death list. But it is fun to rub their noses in their
own bs now and then so they don't get too comfortable in their
connspiratorial cloud cuckoo land and so lurkers can see the untenability
of their fraudulent claims by checking the sources for themselves.

P.S.: Nice to see Marsh twisting out their in his self made hot
whirlwinds. Hilarious that he (of all people) would accuse LNs for scaring
away newbies, oldies or women. The only person here who does stuff like
that is Anthony himself, of course.

[black...@aol.com]

Again, and again, and again. In every thread.

[GKnoll]

Because you are trying to claim that your credible because of the people
you met. Just like Ralph Cinque does.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/10/2015 9:16 AM, Alex Foyle wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 9:31:09 PM UTC+1, BT George wrote:
>
> Ok, thanks for asking, I'll give it go too.
>
>> 1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore that
>> we are helping out of the morass of confusion?
>
> Yes. When I discovered this group in the mid/late 1990s I was a
> full-fledged CT and watching all the discussions here and at other forums

Yeah, sure. Tell us what your conspiracy theory was then. Show us some
of your old messages. Were you a Liftonite?

> helped me get a clearer picture of those who disseminate conspiratorial
> claims. That plus the online release of the vast majority of original

ALL conspiracies? Or just the ones which blame the government?

> documents and my own discussions with CTs eventually dispelled all my
> cherished CT beliefs. I remember Dave Reitzes being quite CT in the 1990s

Please list your cherished CT beliefs. Is that only about the JFK
assassination or were you also a 9/11 Truther?

> and then changing his beliefs through his own thorough research and
> discussions with CTs too. Seeing some of the younger and also older

How do discussions with only other CTers convince you of the WC theories?

> newbies to this case here, in other forums and at Facebook today I
> definitely think that anyone can help them finding answers to their
> questions and thereby changing their conspiratorial outlook on this case.

Do you mean changing to different conspiracy theories or conforming with
the government line?

>
>> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?
>
> Lots, I've been a sucker for all things related to this crime since I
> stumbled onto a coffee table edition of "The Best of Time Life" when I was
> 9 years old in 1977 and seeing the iconic photo of Ruby shooting Oswald.
> Things that still fascinate me today are Abraham Bolden and the alleged
> Chicago plot(s), Kerry Thornley and his experiences, the incident with
> Sylvia Odio, grassy knoll witnesses (especially the colored man on the
> stairs and Black Dog Man), etc.
>
>
>> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
>> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
>> at all?
>
> These days when watching the likes of Cinque, Charnin, Fetzer, Judyth
> Baker, mainframetech or Marsh I do get bored indeed sometimes. I mean it's

Do you even understand that Marsh disagrees with and mercilessly attacks
the others you've mentioned? Did you buy an extra broad brush this
weekend? So you plan to be a responsible conspiracy believe is to attack
ALL conspiracy believers? Do you enjoy attacking yourself? Please don't do
it in public.

> like trying to convince Hitler that the Jews don't really rule the world.

That's a little too far to stretch an analogy. BTW, there is a new
sci-fi series where Hitler won the war and the US is under Nazi control.

> It's hopeless to argue with them, no matter how many times you show and
> prove how faulty their beliefs are they'll still cling on to believing
> nonsense like the accoustic "evidence", Gordon Arnold, Oswald was out with

You don't even want to discuss the acoustics evidence. It would take you
10 years to study it, not just a weekend.


As a rule of thumb you can discount anything when you see both Marsh and
McAdams saying it's bunkum.

> Shelley during the shooting, Thornley having an affair with Marina or the
> alleged "suspicious" death list. But it is fun to rub their noses in their
> own bs now and then so they don't get too comfortable in their
> connspiratorial cloud cuckoo land and so lurkers can see the untenability
> of their fraudulent claims by checking the sources for themselves.
>

Oh yeah, that language really makes you sound like a fellow conspiracy
believer. NOT.

> P.S.: Nice to see Marsh twisting out their in his self made hot
> whirlwinds. Hilarious that he (of all people) would accuse LNs for scaring
> away newbies, oldies or women. The only person here who does stuff like
> that is Anthony himself, of course.
>

First time I've heard them called oldies. Is that politically correct? ;])

[Anthony Marsh]

It may not be necessary to exhume the body to examine it.
Have you seen the autopsy photos?
Do you accept that they are genuine? Can you see ANY bullet hole on the
back of JFK's head? If so, show me where YOU see it.

> re-autopsied. And second, the few remaining unsealed assassination related
> records. Not that I think the "smoking gun" of conspiracy is contained

Or maybe the smoking gun of the cover-up. Why they had to start the
cover-up.

[Anthony Marsh]

No. That is just a personl attack.

[GKnoll]

No. Each time you play the "i knew them card" to claim credibility for
your statements that you cannot and do not support with actual evidence.

[tims...@gmail.com]

On Friday, 6 November 2015 15:10:06 UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/4/2015 9:36 PM, Bud wrote:

> > On Wednesday, November 4, 2015 at 3:31:09 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:
> >> When I started posting here some 2 years and 7 months ago, I was probably
> >> as delusional as the next guy about making some form of lasting impact on
> >> this long running debate. Oh I didn't think I would "change the world" or
> >> seriously curtail the level of debate, but I thought I *might* be able to
> >> at least persuade a *few* persons.
> >

> > I think I`ve been at it for over ten years. Wandered into the nuthouse
>
> That figures. It's called Trolling. You're only here to attack people
> for amusement.
>

> > wondering what all the fuss was about Oswald being an innocent patsy. Was
> > set upon by Walt Cakebread, Ben Holmes and others, and not knowing much
>
> And back then you didn't realize those were only aliases?
>

> > about the particulars started looking into their issues, finding that
> > wherever I looked, what they represented the evidence to be and what it
> > actually was differed greatly. I was hooked, correcting them and poking
> > fun at their thinking was my calling.
> >

> >> Alas however modest my delusions, reality and perspective soon set in
> >> after only a few months of dealing with the likes of our very own Bob
> >> (Z285) Harris, Tony (auto-attack) Marsh, Chris (everything-was-faked)
> >> Mainframe Tech, and Ralph (seeing-things) Cinque. It quickly dawned on
> >> me, "These people really don't live in the real world and have no desire
> >> to do so!"
> >>
> >> Also I recall vividly that sometime as we neared the 50th anniversary,
> >> that it set in at a new a deeper level just how *old* this case was
> >> becoming and how it was more, and more, simply a debate over how history
> >> should be written rather than a realistic fight over how the crime should
> >> be solved.
> >>
> >> Well since they remain (forever it would seem certain) impervious to logic
> >> and reason in the matter, I just wanted to conduct a poll of my fellow
> >> LN's as to whether 52 years on:
> >>
> >> 1) Do you think there is anybody out there among the lurkers anymore that
> >> we are helping out of the morass of confusion?
> >

> > No, I suspect most people who lurk (if any exist) already have their
> > minds made up. Some might come hoping to bolster what they have already
> > decided to believe. Lets face it, the banquet has been on the table for
> > over 50 years, if some don`t want to partake there is no point shoving it
> > down their craw. If there are lurkers out there who can`t figure out who
> > killed Kennedy with what is available then they are beyond help anyway.
> >
>

> Some lurkers are afraid to post because of people like you.

> Others want to see if there is anything new.
>
> >

> >> 2) Does anything about this case still fascinate you? If so, what?
> >

> > Nothing. It`s a dead horse. Conspiracy hobbyists like to see it as some
> > dynamic process, but you know how in touch with reality they are.
> >
>
> That's the purpose of a cover-up. To turn current events into ancient
> history.
>

> > That said, I`d like to see the FBI apply modern forensics to the
> > evidence in this case. The paper bag found near the SN was taped together,
>
> They refused. Because you told them to cover it up.
>

> > could it yield a hair that could be DNA matched to Oswald? Granted the bag
>

> Oh please. Now you want DNA? What about the scandal last month with the

> FBI admitting they lied about hair analysis?
>

> > already has Oswald prints on it and the CTers would only scoff at any new
> > evidence incriminating Oswald, but it might turn up some interesting
> > information. Note that since Oswald is guilty I have no expectation of
> > anything turning up that would put that obvious fact in jeopardy.
> >
>
> I have asked for new tests and they won't do it.
>

> >> 3) Regardless of your answer to 2), do you---like me---often find yourself
> >> getting bored by it and wonder why you still engage the hardcore CT-types
> >> at all?
> >

> > No, not bored at all. I like calling them out on their bad thinking. I
> > check here a couple times a day hoping one of them will say something
> > stupid so I can <snicker> at it. They never disappoint.
> >
>
> Pot meet Kettle.
>
> >
> >>

> >> BT George
> >
> >

Why TF are you responding on a thread that is CLEARLY marked as being for
LNs ONLY, Marsh?!

You've started a blue with just about EVERY other poster on this thread,
Marsh!

It's not ALL about YOU, Marsh!

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

[black...@aol.com]

Tony, can you just shut-up for a while? Resist the urge to post on every
topic, to pick the same fights in every thread

People would listen to you more if you just posted less.

[GKnoll]

He can't do it. If McAdams would do his job and not allow tr..lling, it
would help the group and it would help Tony.

[Mark Florio]

You're right, but he'll never listen. The best way to deal with an
arrogant internet bully is to ignore him. He lives for this. The attention
he creates for himself on here feeds his ego. This group is his whole
life. Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Thanks for the habitual gratuitous attack. Nice to know you're still
alive. That's the ONLY way we would know since you never log on here to
post information.
As I've explained many times before and demonstrated, the number of
posts that I make is generated by the number of lies posted by the Nazis
and the kooks. If they didn't post so many lies I would have no reason
to post at all. You can count on your fingers the number of times that I
have started a new thread. Usually only an alert to let people know
about a new TV show.

[Anthony Marsh]

Because I don't respect anything that known liars say.

> You've started a blue with just about EVERY other poster on this thread,
> Marsh!
>

Blue is my favorite color. How did you know.

> It's not ALL about YOU, Marsh!
>

Only because all your attacks draw attention to me.
Maybe if you guys would learn to tell the truth I wouldn't have to post
here at all.

[OHLeeRedux]

6:24 AMAnthony Marsh

- hide quoted text -

There are no Nazis here, Anthony. They are in your imagination.

Time to put on your tinfoil hat, get your shopping cart, and hit the
dumpsters.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's not a nice way to talk about Roy. How can he want to be famous
when he keeps using aliases?

[Anthony Marsh]

McAdams never made a rule against trolling.
And I am a long time poster.

[black...@aol.com]

It's hard to believe that you can't understand that my comments are aimed
at HELPING you and helping make your contributions here
better-appreciated. You're being a cement-head about it.

[Anthony Marsh]

In case this is your first time here, maybe you missed the thousands of
messages where I explained why I use the term Nazis. Because McAdams
censors everything here and doesn't let me use the correct words.
If I say Fascists a a lot of people won't understand what that means.
I am not allowed to call a specific person here a liar.

> Time to put on your tinfoil hat, get your shopping cart, and hit the
> dumpsters.
>

I don't have a tinfoil hat.
I don't have my own shopping cart. I use the one at the grocery store
and if you try to steal it then it locks up.
I have a friend who goes dumpster diving for electronics, but I try to
salvage things before they get to the dumpster.

>
>
>

[Jason Burke]

Sad.

But true.

[Jason Burke]

But cement actually has a purpose.

[GKnoll]

Tony's statement above is a very good example of how he exaggerates and
places himself in the center of everything.

We all know that Tony responds to EVERY SINGLE POST. Many posts that have
absolutely nothing to do with him. His statement above, where he says the
number of posts that he makes is genearted by the number of lies posted by
the Nazis and kooks, is just another fabrication on his part. Tony Marsh
cannot say anything accurately. Anything, and everything he states needs
to be checked before it is believed. And that includes his work from years
ago.

[Anthony Marsh]

I can't believe that you are so naive as to think that I would believe
anything you say. Some troll who logs on with an alias.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not true. I also pointed out that I ignore some posts from kooks and
sometimes have to start a new thread, especially if I notice a TV special
coming up. I will explain this again, very slowly for the dimwitted here.
I read the messages here in reverse chronological order so that I can see
what has already been responded to and what has not. That means I read the
newest messages first and work my way down to the oldest. If I see that
someone has already answered a stupid question to my satisfaction then
there is no need for ME to answer it.

I did not see anyone mentioning the REELZ specials so I did.

Only to annoy a certain kook here who actually believes The Smoking Gun.
Just to rub it in.

[black...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 5:32:42 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> > It's hard to believe that you can't understand that my comments are aimed
> > at HELPING you and helping make your contributions here
> > better-appreciated. You're being a cement-head about it.
> >
>
> I can't believe that you are so naive as to think that I would believe
> anything you say.

EVERYBODY out here agrees with me. Can you name one poster here who
defends you on this??? You post TOO MUCH, TOO SELF-CENTERED and TOO ANGRY.

> Some troll who logs on with an alias.

Like I haven't explained that dozens of times out here.

[GKnoll]

Again, every statement you make just proves my point...You are unable to
say anything accurately you always exaggerate or worse

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/18/2015 1:51 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 5:32:42 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>>> It's hard to believe that you can't understand that my comments are aimed
>>> at HELPING you and helping make your contributions here
>>> better-appreciated. You're being a cement-head about it.
>>>
>>
>> I can't believe that you are so naive as to think that I would believe
>> anything you say.
>
> EVERYBODY out here agrees with me. Can you name one poster here who
> defends you on this??? You post TOO MUCH, TOO SELF-CENTERED and TOO ANGRY.
>

So you appointed yourself to speak for the whole group? Including the
lurkers?

>> Some troll who logs on with an alias.
>
> Like I haven't explained that dozens of times out here.
>

We don't care for your pathetic excuses. It shows a pattern or deception.

Why am I angry. Because you guys killed my President and you are still
covering it up.

[GKnoll]

Marsh, you are part of those guys who are covering it up.

The HSCA was part of the cover-up as well. It was a "limited hangout".
The government admitted there was a shooter on the knoll but covered up
where he was located and who were his accomplices. You should know that.
You are no different than the LN's. I think you are actually worse.

[Bud]

Oswald killed your President and you`ve done your best to obscure that
fact for decades so you can pretend the CIA did it.

[Alex Foyle]

On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 4:10:19 PM UTC+1, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Why am I angry. Because you guys killed my President and you are still
> covering it up.

That's what you believe? We guys killed your president and we are still
covering it up? Pretty delusional, don't you think? How about some little
shit called Oswald killed the president and you're still covering up that
fact? Ever thought about that?

[bigdog]

Tony found me out. I was in 7th grade at the time and was the youngest
member of the conspiracy, but I masterminded the whole thing. Boy, it
feels good to finally get that off my chest.

[Anthony Marsh]

Is this attack aimed at me? You know nothing about me. I hated the CIA
long before the JFK assassination. My earliest theories were not about
blaming the CIA for the assassination of President Kennedy. I thought it
was what we call the Military Industrial Complex.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe you weren't around to hear me explain that there were TWO HSCAs. The
first was looking for conspiracy. The second was created to cover up the
conspiracy, but they accidentally stumbled onto the acoustical evidence.

[Mark Florio]

I tell you what, you 7th graders. Did you conspire with the Bush family,
LBJ or the CIA, or the Secret Service, the Army, those dadgum rightwing
Texas oil men, or the mob, or the FBI or the DPD? Fess up, now. You're
gonna be found out come 2017. Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

No. I have never covered up anything Oswald did. I said that he killed
Tippit. We have proof of that. If we has proof that Oswald killed
Kennedy the WC would have proved it. But they couldn't.

[GKnoll]

The acoustical result is part of the cover-up. As I said several times,
the HSCA ( the second one ) is a almost a text book example of a "limited
hangout" operation. They admitted there was a shooter on the knoll but
they covered up where that shooter was located and who were his
accomplices.

Your problem is that you stopped learning a long time ago. You talk about
an acoustic program you wrote for a Commodore computer 30 years ago. Where
is your current program? You don't have one.

[Bud]

On Saturday, November 21, 2015 at 9:25:31 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 11/19/2015 10:18 PM, Bud wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 19, 2015 at 10:10:19 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 11/18/2015 1:51 PM, black...@aol.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 5:32:42 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> It's hard to believe that you can't understand that my comments are aimed
> >>>>> at HELPING you and helping make your contributions here
> >>>>> better-appreciated. You're being a cement-head about it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I can't believe that you are so naive as to think that I would believe
> >>>> anything you say.
> >>>
> >>> EVERYBODY out here agrees with me. Can you name one poster here who
> >>> defends you on this??? You post TOO MUCH, TOO SELF-CENTERED and TOO ANGRY.
> >>>
> >>
> >> So you appointed yourself to speak for the whole group? Including the
> >> lurkers?
> >
> >>>> Some troll who logs on with an alias.
> >>>
> >>> Like I haven't explained that dozens of times out here.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> We don't care for your pathetic excuses. It shows a pattern or deception.
> >>
> >> Why am I angry. Because you guys killed my President and you are still
> >> covering it up.
> >
> > Oswald killed your President and you`ve done your best to obscure that
> > fact for decades so you can pretend the CIA did it.
> >
>
>
> Is this attack aimed at me?

<snicker> Attack? You are full of yourself, aren`t you? It was an
observation, try not to be alarmed.

>You know nothing about me.

I know almost nothing, and the almost is too much.

> I hated the CIA
> long before the JFK assassination.

So you are like the guy who put chocolate and peanut butter together and
came up with the Reese`s Cup.

[bigdog]

It was my Boy Scout troop.

[Alex Foyle]

On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 3:52:19 AM UTC+1, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> No. I have never covered up anything Oswald did. I said that he killed
> Tippit. We have proof of that. If we has proof that Oswald killed
> Kennedy the WC would have proved it. But they couldn't.

They did indeed. Only confused people like you who believe in the
accoustic "evidence" cannot accept the facts of this case.

[Anthony Marsh]

Don't you watch TV? That was just an accident when 2 little kids were
playing around with a chocolate bar and a jar of peanut butter.

[Anthony Marsh]

You know nothing about the HSCA. When Barger reluctantly called Blakey,
Blakey was worried. How could he ignore it.

> Your problem is that you stopped learning a long time ago. You talk
> about an acoustic program you wrote for a Commodore computer 30 years
> ago. Where is your current program? You don't have one.
>

Excuse me? Who still uses BASIC? I rewrote it in PROMAL, but even that
is a dead language now. I gave away my Commodore computers.

[GKnoll]

I am not talking about Barger. His work is excellent. I am talking
about when the HSCA removed Barger from the case when they gave the task
to Weiss and Aschkenasy.

>> Your problem is that you stopped learning a long time ago. You talk
>> about an acoustic program you wrote for a Commodore computer 30 years
>> ago. Where is your current program? You don't have one.
>>
>
> Excuse me? Who still uses BASIC? I rewrote it in PROMAL, but even that
> is a dead language now. I gave away my Commodore computers.
>
>

You need to scrap that program and start again. Franky, you should
have done that long ago. You have fallen behind, very far behind.


>

[Anthony Marsh]

You don't have any facts. Only wild theories.

[black...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 9:38:32 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> You know nothing about the HSCA. When Barger reluctantly called Blakey,
> Blakey was worried. How could he ignore it.
>
>

> Excuse me? Who still uses BASIC? I rewrote it in PROMAL, but even that
> is a dead language now. I gave away my Commodore computers.

Not about YOU.
It's all about me, me, ME - Anthony.

[Alex Foyle]

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 3:24:14 PM UTC+1, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> You don't have any facts. Only wild theories.

Ha ha, talk about wild theories ... from the one who still hears shots on
that dictabelt ... truly hopeless and fact free.

[Anthony Marsh]

Removed is not the right word. And he endorsed and concurred with the
W&A work.

>
>>> Your problem is that you stopped learning a long time ago. You talk
>>> about an acoustic program you wrote for a Commodore computer 30 years
>>> ago. Where is your current program? You don't have one.
>>>
>>
>> Excuse me? Who still uses BASIC? I rewrote it in PROMAL, but even that
>> is a dead language now. I gave away my Commodore computers.
>>
>>
> You need to scrap that program and start again. Franky, you should
> have done that long ago. You have fallen behind, very far behind.
>

I don't have a Commodore 64 any more to run it on.

>
>>
>
>

[GKnoll]

Actions speak louder than words. Dr. Barger told Robert Blakey, in a
1983 letter, that BBN did not wish to perform any of the studies themselves.

"We hope this list of topics for further study will be useful to you.
Although we do not wish to perform any of these studies ourselves, we
will discuss our ideas with whichever investigators you decide upon."

>>
>>>> Your problem is that you stopped learning a long time ago. You talk
>>>> about an acoustic program you wrote for a Commodore computer 30 years
>>>> ago. Where is your current program? You don't have one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Excuse me? Who still uses BASIC? I rewrote it in PROMAL, but even that
>>> is a dead language now. I gave away my Commodore computers.
>>>
>>>
>> You need to scrap that program and start again. Franky, you should
>> have done that long ago. You have fallen behind, very far behind.
>>
>
> I don't have a Commodore 64 any more to run it on.

Who is talking about a Commodore?

You need to get up to speed with a modern software language. You
would be very surprised at what can be done today.


>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

More slander. I never said that I hear shots on that dictabelt. Gary
Mack did.

[Anthony Marsh]

As I said before several times, when I wrote the program the only thing
we had for the Commodore 64 was BASIC. Then when PROMAL came out I
rewrote it for PROMAL. But now even PROMAL is a dead language.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Alex Foyle]

Slander? Only in your paranoid imagination. Isn't the dictabelt recording
your only proof for your Bender shooting from the knoll fantasy? So the
dictabelt recording does not prove a shooter on the knoll?

[tims...@gmail.com]

Did tomnln assist with any of the coding, perchance?

The expression GIGO comes to mind...

Helpful Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[Anthony Marsh]

I posted the program on my Web site many years ago.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/28/2015 10:49 PM, Alex Foyle wrote:
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 7:27:36 PM UTC+1, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 11/25/2015 7:45 PM, Alex Foyle wrote:
>
>>> Ha ha, talk about wild theories ... from the one who still hears shots on
>>> that dictabelt ... truly hopeless and fact free.
>>>
>> More slander. I never said that I hear shots on that dictabelt. Gary
>> Mack did.
>
> Slander? Only in your paranoid imagination. Isn't the dictabelt recording
> your only proof for your Bender shooting from the knoll fantasy? So the

No, the dictabelt does not tell us who fired the shot. But it does tell us
that it was a rifle rather than a handgun. And the muzzle velocity is in
the range of a Carcano. I think it was Bender based on the physical
description. As one of his buddies said he would have drawn a crowd.

[Alex Foyle]

On Tuesday, December 1, 2015 at 5:29:54 AM UTC+1, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> No, the dictabelt does not tell us who fired the shot.

No kidding, Sherlock, so just for the record: The dictabelt recording is
still your proof that there was a shot from the knoll?

[Anthony Marsh]

No.

[Alex Foyle]

So what is your proof for Bender shooting from the knoll?

[Anthony Marsh]

I never said proof.

[Alex Foyle]

Exactly, there is no proof for Bender or anybody else shooting from the
knoll.

[Anthony Marsh]

Just as you have no proof that Oswald was shooting. But my proof that
someone fired 3 shots from the sniper's nest also proves that someone
fired from the grassy knoll.

So now you have to claim that NO ONE was firing from the sniper's nest.

[Mark Florio]

Duly noted. BSA has been added to the list. Mark