A World Gone Mad

[David Von Pein]

I must be doing something right, in order to provoke the following idiotic
comments from conspiracy theorists at other forums and websites. One of
the comments came right after the usual CTer bashing of John McAdams when
a conspiracy kook named Albert Doyle made this remark at the Deep Politics
Forum:

"I'm beginning to realize this whole thing occurred because McAdams was
living in a deluded concept of reality that was gotten from his being able
to get away with Kennedy Assassination denial so easily that he thought he
could do it with other subjects. Now can we work on getting Von Pein
legally prohibited from use of the internet?" -- Albert Doyle; February 6,
2015

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14566-The-Lies-of-Colby-New-Spartacus-McAdams&p=97284#post97284

==============================

"I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think
we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. These
persons are just in flagrant denial of the obvious evidence of Oswald's
CIA relationship." -- Ralph Yates; January 2015

==============================

[End Kook Quotes.]

==============================

How about that, folks? My opinions on the JFK case are evidently so vile
and so disturbing to certain conspiracy believers that they now want me
completely *banished* from the entire Internet and/or *prosecuted* for the
dastardly crime of merely believing in something they do not believe in.

It would appear as if the kooks quoted above have reached a new zenith in
"kookdom". They want my basic right of being able to express an OPINION to
be obliterated.

The freedoms of man have been turned completely topsy-turvy by those
conspiracy clowns. I find it hard to believe that even the wackiest of JFK
conspiracists could utter the things that Doyle and Yates uttered in the
quotes presented above.

How would Albert Doyle like it if someone suggested that his OPINIONS
about the JFK case should result in him being prohibited from expressing
that opinion *anywhere* on the Internet? It's nuts. And it's downright
offensive.

And Doyle acts as if I am advocating something that *nobody* else on the
planet has been advocating since 1963--that Lee Oswald killed John Kennedy
and acted alone.

But I've got news for Mr. Doyle -- there are many more "LNers" in the
world than he suspects. I just happen to be one of them who writes a lot
about it on the World Wide Web. Therefore, per Doyle, I should be banned
from the Internet entirely.

But on the other side of the fence, the folks who have been suggesting,
without a stitch of evidence to support such garbage, that Lyndon Johnson
and various other "innocent until proven guilty" people were responsible
for JFK's demise are given a free pass by kooks like Albert Doyle.

According to many conspiracists, those "LBJ Did It" or "Allen Dulles Did
It" (etc.) crackpots are to be praised and congratulated for their
brilliant research and excellent conclusions. But lone-assassin believers
like myself and John McAdams (and many others) are worthy of only scorn
and rancor.

Has the world gone mad? Based on the above comments by Doyle and Yates,
I'm beginning to wonder.

David Von Pein
February 6, 2015

[BOZ]

Has the world gone mad? Has the world become more evil? They know right
from wrong. This is right out of THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO.

[BOZ]

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 11:17:45 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

HAVE YOU READ ABOUT THE GEORGIA GUIDESTONES?

[bigdog]

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 11:17:45 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

If these conspiracy hobbyists are so confident in their positions, one has
to wonder why they feel the need to silence those with opposing
viewpoints. There is no end to the silly conspiracy theories that have
been presented over the years but the thought has never crossed my mind
that these people should not be allowed to present their viewpoints.

[Marcus Hanson]

"I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."

Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
opinion is not well received.

The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.

Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
worry about getting approval from John.

Note to Tony : Please , please spare us the "But McAdams censors posts"
and "Do you know the difference between a forum and a Usenet group?" types
of comment. Thank you , kind sir !

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't give the kooks and alterationists a free pass.
So you attack me for asking you to prove your crazy theories.

> According to many conspiracists, those "LBJ Did It" or "Allen Dulles Did
> It" (etc.) crackpots are to be praised and congratulated for their
> brilliant research and excellent conclusions. But lone-assassin believers
> like myself and John McAdams (and many others) are worthy of only scorn
> and rancor.
>

Yes, but I keep pointing out that we need freedom of speech for
everyone, including the kooks. So that we can see what crazy people
there are out there.
Even crackpots who say that conspiracies do not exist.
And call everyone else paranoid.

[David Von Pein]

Part 2.....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-891.html#The-Attacks-From-The-Kook-Continue

[mainframetech]

Considering the endless efforts you have made to cover up the evidence
brought out by CTs, I'm surprised you would dare to comment publicly that
way! When anyone presents a view point that you don't want to see, you
insult them and their ideas mercilessly, and never let up. It's one of
the reasons I use you for a foil, you're guaranteed to argue and insult
anyone and anything that comes in with a different idea.

Chris

[Lanny]

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 11:17:45 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

> It would appear as if the kooks quoted above have reached a new zenith in
> "kookdom". They want my basic right of being able to express an OPINION to
> be obliterated.
>
> The freedoms of man have been turned completely topsy-turvy by those
> conspiracy clowns. I find it hard to believe that even the wackiest of JFK
> conspiracists could utter the things that Doyle and Yates uttered in the
> quotes presented above.

It's worse than you fear. The same people who argue that JFK was killed
by/or whose murderers were protected by a government conspiracy which has
been in operation for over 50 years are now advocating that that same
government should censor or prosecute you -- a person who has taken the
position that the government is innocent of any wrong doing.

Now is that illogical, or what?

Wouldn't the government have to at least remove you from the payroll
first?

[bigdog]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 12:05:39 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> I don't give the kooks and alterationists a free pass.
> So you attack me for asking you to prove your crazy theories.
>

Maybe someday you will try to prove your crazy theories, although nobody
seems too sure what those are. You are as vague as possible about them.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 6:10:07 AM UTC+1, David Von Pein wrote:
> Part 2.....
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-891.html#The-Attacks-From-The-Kook-Continue

Gee, I hope everybody's gonna be OK after all this is over. 2017?

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Example #23,566,666 of Marsh saying something that no one has said.

Mash: A pyromaniac in a field of strawmen.

Imaginary strawmen too.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:36:37 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> Considering the endless efforts you have made to cover up the evidence
> brought out by CTs,

That doesn't require a very big cover. A thimble should suffice.

> I'm surprised you would dare to comment publicly that
> way! When anyone presents a view point that you don't want to see, you
> insult them and their ideas mercilessly, and never let up. It's one of
> the reasons I use you for a foil, you're guaranteed to argue and insult
> anyone and anything that comes in with a different idea.

The last thing I would want to do is shut the CTs up. They are and endless
source of amusement.

>
> Chris

[Bud]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 3:36:37 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

He *counters* the evidence brought out by CTers, thats what they hate.
They really, really want to believe these silly fantasies and he pops
their bubbles.

[David Von Pein]

Well, Lanny, as I said in another post somewhere, perhaps Mr. Yates is
hoping that a rogue D.A. (like Jim Garrison) will come along and buck the
evil "Government" long enough to pin a bogus charge on me -- maybe this
new criminal charge: "TOO MUCH COMMON SENSE BEING INVOKED RELATING TO THE
JFK ASSASSINATION".

The penalty for THAT horrific crime must be at least 50 years behind bars.

[cmikes]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 12:05:39 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Can you link to a post where ANYONE claims that conspiracies don't exist?
Just because rational people realize that no conspiracy has ever been
proven in the JFK assassination doesn't mean they don't understand that
other conspiracies happen.

For instance, when Mark Lane was being financed by the Soviet Union to
continue his anti-American crusade while the Soviets were forging letters
supposedly from Oswald, that was a conspiracy.

And as far as calling certain people paranoid, if the shoe fits...

[BT George]

Uh-uh. Death by slow torture!

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
>
> Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> opinion is not well received.
>
> The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
>
> Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> worry about getting approval from John.
>

But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
let the conspiracy believers defend themselves. He allows his minions to
call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar. One of your
guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
about something.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's what we say about you WC defenders. Are you trying to turn the
tables on us?

> viewpoints. There is no end to the silly conspiracy theories that have
> been presented over the years but the thought has never crossed my mind
> that these people should not be allowed to present their viewpoints.
>

As long as the cover-up continues there will be no end.
Just stop the cover-up.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

I already have.

[cmikes]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 9:47:28 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> > "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> > where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> >
> > Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> > opinion is not well received.
> >
> > The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> > for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> > posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> >
> > Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> > worry about getting approval from John.
> >
>
> But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
> let the conspiracy believers defend themselves. He allows his minions to
> call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar. One of your
> guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
> about something.

College professors have minions? I think your tin foil hat is screwed on
a little to tight there, Tony.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 2/9/15 9:47 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
>> "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
>> where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
>>
>> Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
>> opinion is not well received.
>>
>> The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
>> for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read
>> his
>> posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
>>
>> Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
>> worry about getting approval from John.
>>
>
> But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does
> not let the conspiracy believers defend themselves. He allows his
> minions to call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.
> One of your guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out
> that he was wrong about something.
>

This is just a paranoid rant. McAdams doesn't "bring in" anybody, and
you call people liars all the time, Marsh, by blatant innuendo.

Now, if you want a level playing field, why don't you "bring in" some CTs
who know how to evaluate evidence, who give proper weight to hard evidence
(as opposed to, say, purported "witness" testimony that is decades old),
and who can recognize when things are physically impossible and when
theories are absolutely preposterous?

Instead, look at whom you've got on your side.

It's not a level playing field at all, I'll grant you that.
But, hey... that ain't the LNs' fault.

[Marcus Hanson]

On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 1:47:28 PM UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> > "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> > where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> >
> > Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> > opinion is not well received.
> >
> > The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> > for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> > posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> >
> > Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> > worry about getting approval from John.
> >
>
> But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
> let the conspiracy believers defend themselves. He allows his minions to
> call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar. One of your
> guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
> about something.

I would never wish to see you banned.And I would never call you a liar,not
because I'm worried about the post getting rejected,but because I do not
think you =are= a liar. Different opinions are not necessarily evidence of
mendacity.

By the way,I do understand your using the term "one of your guys" to refer
to LNs. But,like you,I do not consider myself to be part of a "team" with
a need to cower before the internet "stars" on "my" side.

John,this is a rather unpleasant accusation against you. If-and this might
be a big if-you are not yet exasperated by Tony's criticisms,could you
please give us your "take" on this matter?

[Rozelli Zavier]

I would not take this personally. In fact take it with a pinch of salt.
It's amazing how conspiracy theorists will point the finger of blame at,
or to be more precise, individuals and groups who either as they claim
conspired with Lee Oswald or set him up as the poor "Patsy". Their claims
are without foundation, both in fact and in Law. Their claims are
illogical, irrational, slanderous, scurrilous, and downright dangerous.
And before any individual asks, no, I am not naive enough to think that we
are living in Utopia, and that the world is perfect. It is far from
perfect. Terrible crimes have been committed. There have been cover-ups
and conspiracy's. Government's have lied to the people. If there were any
evidence in the JFK case of a conspiracy, it would undoubtedly have been
laid bare many years ago. There is not a scintilla of evidence, never has
been, and never will be in this case of a conspiracy.

All the common conspiracy theory myths have been completely debunked.
There have been countless crimes committed by lone individuals, and yes
Lee Harvey Oswald is one of those. One man, one gun,(and another for
Tippit) the means, the opportunity, the audacity, the maliciousness, the
malevolence, and a warped sense of morality and motive in order to achieve
a place in history. That is what happened. The evidence is simply
overwhelming. Lee Harvey Oswald was one dangerous individual, do not be
easily fooled, and he proved that on Friday November 22nd 1963, when he
alone assassinated President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.


Regards,
Rozelli Zavier.

[Mark Florio]

I don't agree with anyone who wants to ban you from this newsgroup. I do disagree with your above post.

"McAdams brings in minions . . ." I'm sure I'm one of those "minions." McAdams did not recruit me, and I started posting on the group because of my interest in the assassination.

McAdams " . . . does not let the conspiracy believers defend themselves."
I don't understand. Aren't the hundreds (thousands?) of posts by you
accepted on here in defense of your conspiracy beliefs?

"He allows his minions to call me a liar . . ." He said he accidentally
let one post by one poster, bigdog, to get through that called you a liar.
He apologized. If you don't believe it was by accident, then say so, but
stop the misrepresentation.

Mark Florio.

[Rozelli Zavier]

On Saturday, February 7, 2015 at 4:17:45 AM UTC, David Von Pein wrote:
> I must be doing something right, in order to provoke the following idiotic
> comments from conspiracy theorists at other forums and websites. One of
> the comments came right after the usual CTer bashing of John McAdams when
> a conspiracy kook named Albert Doyle made this remark at the Deep Politics
> Forum:
>
> "I'm beginning to realize this whole thing occurred because McAdams was
> living in a deluded concept of reality that was gotten from his being able
> to get away with Kennedy Assassination denial so easily that he thought he
> could do it with other subjects. Now can we work on getting Von Pein
> legally prohibited from use of the internet?" -- Albert Doyle; February 6,
> 2015
>
> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14566-The-Lies-of-Colby-New-Spartacus-McAdams&p=97284#post97284
>
> ==============================
>

> "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line

Regards.
Rozelli Zavier.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/11/2015 1:09 PM, cmikes wrote:
> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 9:47:28 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
>>> "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
>>> where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
>>>
>>> Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
>>> opinion is not well received.
>>>
>>> The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
>>> for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
>>> posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
>>>
>>> Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
>>> worry about getting approval from John.
>>>
>>
>> But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
>> McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
>> let the conspiracy believers defend themselves. He allows his minions to
>> call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar. One of your
>> guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
>> about something.
>
> College professors have minions? I think your tin foil hat is screwed on
> a little to tight there, Tony.
>

McAdams also has research assistants, but they do not qualify as minions.

[bigdog]

Can you point to a post where a WC defender has wanted to silence a
conspiracy hobbyist or is this another case of you making something up
which you can't back up?

> > viewpoints. There is no end to the silly conspiracy theories that have
> > been presented over the years but the thought has never crossed my mind
> > that these people should not be allowed to present their viewpoints.
> >
>
> As long as the cover-up continues there will be no end.
> Just stop the cover-up.

How can you stop something that was never started?

[bigdog]

Maybe you have proved them to yourself. To the rest of us, not so much.
Most of us don't really know too much about what you do believe. We just
know you don't believe the WCR which is a shame because it is the one and
only truth.

[David Emerling]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 12:24:14 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:

> The last thing I would want to do is shut the CTs up. They are and endless
> source of amusement.

I completely agree.

Over the years, I have developed a diminished interest in discussing the
details of the assassination in this debate. I am confident in what
happened in Dealey Plaza and have grown somewhat weary of making the same
points over and over again. The truth is a funny thing - it's the same all
the time. It's the same today, tomorrow and will be the same 100 years
from now. On the other hand, the conspiracy crowd is always coming up with
new twists. Their beliefs are like an ever-changing, living organism.

I have been involved in this debate long enough to know that those who
feel so strongly about a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination that they
take to the internet to tell anybody who will listen can never be
convinced otherwise. I really don't even try to convince them.

Instead, over the years, my interest in the case has morphed into
something more psychological. I find it fascinating how normally
intelligent people (and least those with the capability of constructing a
intelligible sentence) will check their intelligence at the door and
believe the most outlandish things. Their system of logic is fascinatingly
twisted. The book "Among The Truthers" is a good one that helps in
understanding the psychology of this cult of individuals who prefer to
frame the world in terms that make it easier for them to understand.

Sometimes I like to just listen to them ramble on. I hate interrupting
their irrational, almost psychotic rants about their bizarre
interpretation of the most obvious things. In the back of my mind I'm
wondering, "They can't possibly believe what they're saying." And, deep
down, I don't think they do, but there is something corrupt in their DNA
string that gives this group of people this inexplicable affinity to
ascribe the most outlandish explanations for things that have obvious and
simple explanations. I've come to learn that there really is a
"personality type" that is susceptible to this type of warped thinking.

I look at many of these CTs like specimens in a petri dish.

I find them fascinating.

Go on ... tell us more ... yes ... and the autopsy photos have been
altered? Does that mean the doctors have been lying all these years? Oh -
really? Continue ... Oh, the Zapruder film has *also* been altered? Tell
me about that. Really? And there was a 7.65 Mauser bullet recovered and
never entered into evidence? Tell me more about that. What do you think
that means? Malcolm Wallace's prints were on the boxes in the sniper's
nest? Fascinating! So, you think he was the gunman? You say Capt Fritz was
lying about the things Oswald said during the interrogations? Oh - yes - I
realize they were not tape recorded but isn't that because .... Oh! I'm
sorry, you weren't finished. Go on ... I see - so Capt Fritz was lying
because the Dallas Police were trying to make a case against Oswald
because they didn't have enough evidence - is that it? Oh! You say Lt Day
lied about lifting a print off the rifle. So, it seems the entire DPD was
in on framing Oswald - right? Fascinating! Tell me more. Oh, but not Roger
Craig, you say? Tell me about Roger Craig, I've got time.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

Why don't you use Sarah Palin's argument:

Republicans should reject these “Orwellian” and “disgusting charges from
the left,” Palin said, before calling on conservatives to label liberals
as the real racists and sexists: “Reverse them, for it is they who point
a finger not realizing that they have triple that amount of fingers
pointing right back at them revealing that they are the ones who really
discriminate and divide on color and class and sex. We call them out. We
don’t let them get away with it.”

> or to be more precise, individuals and groups who either as they claim
> conspired with Lee Oswald or set him up as the poor "Patsy". Their claims
> are without foundation, both in fact and in Law. Their claims are
> illogical, irrational, slanderous, scurrilous, and downright dangerous.
> And before any individual asks, no, I am not naive enough to think that we
> are living in Utopia, and that the world is perfect. It is far from
> perfect. Terrible crimes have been committed. There have been cover-ups
> and conspiracy's. Government's have lied to the people. If there were any
> evidence in the JFK case of a conspiracy, it would undoubtedly have been
> laid bare many years ago. There is not a scintilla of evidence, never has
> been, and never will be in this case of a conspiracy.
>
> All the common conspiracy theory myths have been completely debunked.

Bunk.

> There have been countless crimes committed by lone individuals, and yes
> Lee Harvey Oswald is one of those. One man, one gun,(and another for
> Tippit) the means, the opportunity, the audacity, the maliciousness, the
> malevolence, and a warped sense of morality and motive in order to achieve
> a place in history. That is what happened. The evidence is simply
> overwhelming. Lee Harvey Oswald was one dangerous individual, do not be
> easily fooled, and he proved that on Friday November 22nd 1963, when he
> alone assassinated President John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
>

Explain how Oswald shoots from the TSBD and the grassy knoll
simultaneously. Teleportation? Time Machine? Psychic control? Remote
control of the second rifle?

> Regards.
> Rozelli Zavier.
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

You never get to see the hundreds of my posts which are rejected.

> "He allows his minions to call me a liar . . ." He said he accidentally
> let one post by one poster, bigdog, to get through that called you a liar.
> He apologized. If you don't believe it was by accident, then say so, but
> stop the misrepresentation.
>

That was not the only one. There have been others. Such as Barb.

> Mark Florio.
>

[Anthony Marsh]

It's amazing how the WC defenders will attack conspiracy believers for
asking for the files to be released.

> or to be more precise, individuals and groups who either as they claim
> conspired with Lee Oswald or set him up as the poor "Patsy". Their claims
> are without foundation, both in fact and in Law. Their claims are
> illogical, irrational, slanderous, scurrilous, and downright dangerous.
> And before any individual asks, no, I am not naive enough to think that we
> are living in Utopia, and that the world is perfect. It is far from
> perfect. Terrible crimes have been committed. There have been cover-ups
> and conspiracy's. Government's have lied to the people. If there were any
> evidence in the JFK case of a conspiracy, it would undoubtedly have been
> laid bare many years ago. There is not a scintilla of evidence, never has
> been, and never will be in this case of a conspiracy.
>

It has been laid bare. You refuse to look at it.

> All the common conspiracy theory myths have been completely debunked.

Bunk.

[Anthony Marsh]

In case you never realized it, McAdams is always exasperated with me.
But that is the nature of a forum.

>

[BOZ]

Were you describing Tom Rossley?

[bigdog]

On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 8:16:29 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

I pretty much agree with everything you wrote. I too gave up a long time
ago thinking I was going to make any converts to the side of reason
although there was one notable exception about 20 years ago. I also have
no illusions that we are doing anything of consequence here. There are
maybe a few dozen regular contributors, maybe a few dozen occassional
ones, and probably no more than a few dozen lurkers, many who got here
through a google search, read a few threads, and then moved on. I can't
imagine we are moving the needle of public opinion to any significant
degree.

I've stated a number of times I do this for amusement only. The fun part
is pointing out the logical fallacies in the CT's theories and seeing them
come up with something even more ridiculous and amusing. Rather than
walking back from something that clearly makes no sense, they will come up
with something even more outlandish to try to save it. It never works.

I know I spend way too much time in this forum on what is essentially a
futile exercise, but I just can't help myself. I did step away for a while
and would only occassionally lurk but I couldn't help responding to some
of the ridiculous nonsense I was reading. As Michael Corleone stated in
The Godfather III, "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back
in."

While I recognize that this particular forum has little impact on public
opinion, I think it is important for those who care about historical
accuracy to continue to fight for the truth in whatever small way they
can. For two many years, only one side of the story was being told and
that is one of the reasons belief in a conspiracy became so widespread.
Nobody was speaking up for the truth. That has changed in recent decades
and it seems to be having some positive effect. While a majority of
Americans still believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK, that
percentage has dwindled to around 60% in the most recent polls I have
seen. I am confident that number will continue to decline as a generation
that is too emotionally involved in the assassination passes on and is
replaced by younger generations who will look at the assassination more
objectively and see that the case against Oswald is overwhelming and the
case for conspiracy, any conspiracy, is pretty flimsy. I may not live long
enough to see that the lone assassin theory becomes the majority
viewpoint, but I firmly believe that 100 years from now people will accept
Oswald's guilt as readily as we accept Booth's guilt and those who still
believe there was a conspiracy will be the outliers.

[Anthony Marsh]

Correct. That is the definition of a Troll.

[bigdog]

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 3:32:19 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> You never get to see the hundreds of my posts which are rejected.
>

The ones that make it through are bad enough.

[bigdog]

On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 7:41:01 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> It's amazing how the WC defenders will attack conspiracy believers for
> asking for the files to be released.
>

Funny, I don't recall seeing one of those attacks. Maybe you can point me
to it.

[Ace Kefford]

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 11:17:45 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> I must be doing something right, in order to provoke the following idiotic
> comments from conspiracy theorists at other forums and websites. One of
> the comments came right after the usual CTer bashing of John McAdams when
> a conspiracy kook named Albert Doyle made this remark at the Deep Politics
> Forum:
>
> "I'm beginning to realize this whole thing occurred because McAdams was
> living in a deluded concept of reality that was gotten from his being able
> to get away with Kennedy Assassination denial so easily that he thought he
> could do it with other subjects. Now can we work on getting Von Pein
> legally prohibited from use of the internet?" -- Albert Doyle; February 6,
> 2015
>
> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14566-The-Lies-of-Colby-New-Spartacus-McAdams&p=97284#post97284
>
> ==============================
>

> "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line

As Tears For Fears said so well, "World go crazy it's a woman in chains."

[Mark Florio]

It's amazing what a short memory you have. We talked about this not many
months ago. I think I speak for all LN's on here: Release the files, all
of them. The sooner the better. Mark Florio.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
========especially the ones from folks who don't know what they're talking
about ! ! !
===========================================================================
===

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

[Pamela Brown]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:47:28 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:

> > "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> > where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> >

> > Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> > opinion is not well received.
> >
> > The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> > for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> > posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> >
> > Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> > worry about getting approval from John.
> >
>
> But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
> let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.

In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
how to bully dissenters.

> He allows his minions to
> call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.

Well, the WC defenders are the 'more equal animals'. The dissenters have
to live with that.

>One of your
> guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
> about something.

Sometimes it can be frustrating keeping those WC defender blinders firmly
in place.

The irony, to me, is that is should not matter if one is a WC defender or
dissenter. What matters is that one is able to posit a cogent argument
about their position. The slant McAdams imposes on this field seems to
preclude that. As a result, it is tough for a discussion to move forward.
The emphasis is on discrediting the dissenter.

Of course, anyone who has no choice but to resort to fallacy is
demonstrating a very weak position. So, we can infer that McAdams has had
to create a slanted field on aaj because he knows LHO did not act alone,
if at all, in the assassination.

If there is a silver lining, perhaps this is it.

Pamela Brown
mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com

[Pamela Brown]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 5:04:45 PM UTC-6, cmikes wrote:
> On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 12:05:39 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> > On 2/6/2015 11:17 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > I must be doing something right, in order to provoke the following idiotic
> > > comments from conspiracy theorists at other forums and websites. One of
> > > the comments came right after the usual CTer bashing of John McAdams when
> > > a conspiracy kook named Albert Doyle made this remark at the Deep Politics
> > > Forum:
> > >
> > > "I'm beginning to realize this whole thing occurred because McAdams was
> > > living in a deluded concept of reality that was gotten from his being able
> > > to get away with Kennedy Assassination denial so easily that he thought he
> > > could do it with other subjects. Now can we work on getting Von Pein
> > > legally prohibited from use of the internet?" -- Albert Doyle; February 6,
> > > 2015
> > >
> > > https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14566-The-Lies-of-Colby-New-Spartacus-McAdams&p=97284#post97284
> > >
> > > ==============================
> > >

> > > "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line

> > I don't give the kooks and alterationists a free pass.
> > So you attack me for asking you to prove your crazy theories.
> >

> > > According to many conspiracists, those "LBJ Did It" or "Allen Dulles Did
> > > It" (etc.) crackpots are to be praised and congratulated for their
> > > brilliant research and excellent conclusions. But lone-assassin believers
> > > like myself and John McAdams (and many others) are worthy of only scorn
> > > and rancor.
> > >
> >

> > Yes, but I keep pointing out that we need freedom of speech for
> > everyone, including the kooks. So that we can see what crazy people
> > there are out there.
> > Even crackpots who say that conspiracies do not exist.
> > And call everyone else paranoid.
>
> Can you link to a post where ANYONE claims that conspiracies don't exist?

And discern between the theories created by the WC defenders for the
dissidents v those actually created by the dissidents themselves?

> Just because rational people realize that no conspiracy has ever been
> proven in the JFK assassination

Only on a slanted field where dissidents are bullied into submission would
anyone make a statement like that and expect that it be acceptable.

>doesn't mean they don't understand that
> other conspiracies happen.
>
> For instance, when Mark Lane was being financed by the Soviet Union to
> continue his anti-American crusade

What cite are you using for that claim? Or is that just your opinion?

while the Soviets were forging letters
> supposedly from Oswald, that was a conspiracy.

Agreed.

>
> And as far as calling certain people paranoid, if the shoe fits...[...]
>

When people who don't believe the party line are denied access to the
information they need in order to demonstrate the truth, what is actually
frustration can at times look like 'paranoia'.

Pamela Brown
mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com

[Pamela Brown]

On Sunday, February 8, 2015 at 5:53:52 PM UTC-6, Lanny wrote:
> On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 11:17:45 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>

> > It would appear as if the kooks quoted above have reached a new zenith in
> > "kookdom". They want my basic right of being able to express an OPINION to
> > be obliterated.
> >
> > The freedoms of man have been turned completely topsy-turvy by those
> > conspiracy clowns. I find it hard to believe that even the wackiest of JFK
> > conspiracists could utter the things that Doyle and Yates uttered in the
> > quotes presented above.
>

> It's worse than you fear. The same people who argue that JFK was killed
> by/or whose murderers were protected by a government conspiracy which has
> been in operation for over 50 years are now advocating that that same
> government should censor or prosecute you -- a person who has taken the
> position that the government is innocent of any wrong doing.

Not exactly so. McAdams seems to have created a slanted field where
dissenters are bullied. The WC defenders are protected. It is imo those
who encourage people to *believe* them instead of reasoning things through
for themselves are attempting to *censor* actual research.

>
> Now is that illogical, or what?

You just knocked down your own strawman. You probably thought you made a
cogent argument. If McAdams had taught everyone critical thinking instead
of how to use fallacies you might know that.

Pamela Brown
mcadamsexperment.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

No, you don't. Most WC defenders do not want all the files released.
You've never filed an FOIA request.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ned Dolan, CIA disinformation specialist.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/17/2015 9:06 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:47:28 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
>>> "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
>>> where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
>>>
>>> Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
>>> opinion is not well received.
>>>
>>> The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
>>> for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
>>> posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
>>>
>>> Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
>>> worry about getting approval from John.
>>>
>>
>> But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
>> McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
>> let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.
>
> In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
> how to bully dissenters.
>

Maybe it is just a CIA training exercise.

[Pamela Brown]

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 10:27:16 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/17/2015 9:06 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:47:28 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> >>> "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> >>> where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> >>>
> >>> Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> >>> opinion is not well received.
> >>>
> >>> The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> >>> for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> >>> posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> >>>
> >>> Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> >>> worry about getting approval from John.
> >>>
> >>
> >> But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> >> McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
> >> let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.
> >
> > In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
> > how to bully dissenters.
> >
>

> Maybe it is just a CIA training exercise.[...]

To what end? Simply to deny a truly open forum for the discussion of the
JFK assassination or something more complex, such as trying to train
people to think that if they question authority they are a loonie?

And how does research on Judyth fit into this? What if McAdams had
allowed her a really level field? Would she then hoist herself
onto/by/with her own petard? If McAdams, with his influence here, had
treated her with the utmost respect, and she turned on him with nothing
tangible to complain about (no pilfered manuscript, no photo used without
her permission, etc...) how persuasive would that have been for everyone?
Would that have helped or hurt his cause?

Pamela Brown
mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com

[John McAdams]

On 18 Feb 2015 13:41:49 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 10:27:16 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/17/2015 9:06 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
>> >>
>> >> But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
>> >> McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
>> >> let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.
>> >
>> > In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
>> > how to bully dissenters.
>> >
>>
>> Maybe it is just a CIA training exercise.[...]
>
>To what end? Simply to deny a truly open forum for the discussion of the
>JFK assassination or something more complex, such as trying to train
>people to think that if they question authority they are a loonie?
>
>And how does research on Judyth fit into this? What if McAdams had
>allowed her a really level field? Would she then hoist herself
>onto/by/with her own petard?

A "level playing field" means that everybody gets to express their
opinion freely.

You couldn't accept that. You tried to shut up and shout down people
who didn't believe Judyth.

*You* got to express your carping and complaining about Judyth
skeptics quite freely.

You need to learn to be tolerant of other people expressing their
opinions.

You seem to want to shut up people you disagree with.

>If McAdams, with his influence here, had
>treated her with the utmost respect, and she turned on him with nothing
>tangible to complain about (no pilfered manuscript, no photo used without
>her permission, etc...) how persuasive would that have been for everyone?
>Would that have helped or hurt his cause?
>

There was no pilfered manuscript, and not photo that needed any
permission.

You are reciting Judyth talking points, still.

You were a slow learner where Judyth was concerned.

You should have the good grace not to attack people who figured her
out way before you did.

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

[Bud]

On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:47:28 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> > > "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> > > where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> > >
> > > Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> > > opinion is not well received.
> > >
> > > The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> > > for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> > > posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> > >
> > > Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> > > worry about getting approval from John.
> > >
> >
> > But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> > McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
> > let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.
>
> In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
> how to bully dissenters.

If one were inclined to spin information to suit themselves.

> > He allows his minions to
> > call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.
>
> Well, the WC defenders are the 'more equal animals'. The dissenters have
> to live with that.

Our ideas are superior to yours, we have what we need to support Oswald`s
guilt, you have nothing to contest it.

> >One of your
> > guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
> > about something.
>
> Sometimes it can be frustrating keeping those WC defender blinders firmly
> in place.

I`ve never seen anything presented by a conspiracy believer that
challenges the WC conclusions. You have to have something to offer besides
blanks.

> The irony, to me, is that is should not matter if one is a WC defender or
> dissenter. What matters is that one is able to posit a cogent argument
> about their position.

Make one, I dare you.

> The slant McAdams imposes on this field seems to
> preclude that. As a result, it is tough for a discussion to move forward.

You assume the destination has not been reached. Thats your mistake. The
real reason conspiracy hobbyist go nowhere is because there really is
nowhere for them to go. Their article of faith is that Oswald was a patsy
and that is what keeps them from making progress.

> The emphasis is on discrediting the dissenter.

The bad arguments are known. The people who make the bad arguments are
known. They might put a new spin on the same weak offerings but it`s just
a different cut off the same dead horse.

> Of course, anyone who has no choice but to resort to fallacy is
> demonstrating a very weak position. So, we can infer that McAdams has had
> to create a slanted field on aaj because he knows LHO did not act alone,
> if at all, in the assassination.

Put a plausible scenario on the table that explains what is in evidence
but Oswald is innocent. I haven`t seen one.

> If there is a silver lining, perhaps this is it.

You see things in a way you are comfortable with, reality be damned.


> Pamela Brown
> mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com

[BOZ]

Please release them. Let them go
For I don't love them anymore
To waste our lifes would be a sin

[Pamela Brown]

> Ned Dolan, CIA disinformation specialist. [...]

How do you know that is not disinformation?

I heard the same thing from Ken Rahn.

It seems a bit too 'convenient' for the govt to try to label Mark Lane a
commie. I recall in NYC when the anti-WCR meetings began in 1964 it
seemed quite obvious that anyone who went to them or became involved as a
dissident would be also labeled a commie. That just seemed such a
convenient part of the cover-up. Not very imaginative...

[Sandy McCroskey]

I believe that is the farthest thing from the truth.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/18/2015 1:41 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 10:27:16 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/17/2015 9:06 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:47:28 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
>>>>> "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
>>>>> where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
>>>>>
>>>>> Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
>>>>> opinion is not well received.
>>>>>
>>>>> The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
>>>>> for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
>>>>> posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
>>>>> worry about getting approval from John.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
>>>> McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
>>>> let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.
>>>
>>> In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
>>> how to bully dissenters.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe it is just a CIA training exercise.[...]
>
> To what end? Simply to deny a truly open forum for the discussion of the
> JFK assassination or something more complex, such as trying to train
> people to think that if they question authority they are a loonie?
>

I am not allowed to tell you the name of the program, but you can find it
on the Internet if you know where to look. The CIA developed a program to
send disinformation agents into Usenet newsgroups to "guide" the
discussions and deny CIA activities.

> And how does research on Judyth fit into this? What if McAdams had
> allowed her a really level field? Would she then hoist herself

Please tell us exactly what research McAdams has ever done on Judyth. Did
HE find her letter to President Kennedy? Did HE get her college records
under cover of her trying to transfer credits to his college?

> onto/by/with her own petard? If McAdams, with his influence here, had
> treated her with the utmost respect, and she turned on him with nothing
> tangible to complain about (no pilfered manuscript, no photo used without
> her permission, etc...) how persuasive would that have been for everyone?
> Would that have helped or hurt his cause?
>

Why should anyone have treated her with ANY respect?

Is that the old proverb about catching more flies with honey than with
vinegar?

No thanks, I don't want her flies.

> Pamela Brown
> mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com
>

[cmikes]

[Citation needed] And never forthcoming. I'm on record supporting the
release of all the files purely for historical value.

That it wold also shut up a lot of the conspiracy theorists is purely a
secondary consideration.

[Pamela Brown]

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015 at 2:30:10 PM UTC-6, Sandy McCroskey wrote:

> On 2/9/15 9:47 PM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> >> "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> >> where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> >>
> >> Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> >> opinion is not well received.
> >>
> >> The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> >> for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read
> >> his
> >> posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> >>
> >> Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> >> worry about getting approval from John.
> >>
> >
> > But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> > McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does

> > not let the conspiracy believers defend themselves. He allows his

> > minions to call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.

> > One of your guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out
> > that he was wrong about something.
> >
>

> This is just a paranoid rant.

Only in Sandy's world...to the rest of the world it is called 'another
opinion.'

>McAdams doesn't "bring in" anybody, and
> you call people liars all the time, Marsh, by blatant innuendo.

Really? Marsh has to be careful what he says or his posts are rejected.
Those of the WC defenders who call CTs 'liars' are not. In addition,
doesn't trying to dump strawmen on CTs and make them stick eerily equate
to calling them 'liars' by 'blatant innuendo'? If so, wouldn't that be
the pot calling the kettle black?

>
> Now, if you want a level playing field, why don't you "bring in" some CTs
> who know how to evaluate evidence, who give proper weight to hard evidence
> (as opposed to, say, purported "witness" testimony that is decades old),
> and who can recognize when things are physically impossible and when
> theories are absolutely preposterous?

That is hilarious, from one who seems to have a challenge playing on a
level field. And also somewhat inappropriate from one who seems to have a
penchant for developing complicated strawmen and then making demands that
CTs answer from them...LOL...

>
> Instead, look at whom you've got on your side.

Well, reason, for one.

>
> It's not a level playing field at all, I'll grant you that.
> But, hey... that ain't the LNs' fault.
>

No it isn't. LN's are trained to be 'sheeple'. It is, however, the fault
of anyone who understands critical thinking who then uses their influence
to train people to be sheeple.

Pamela Brown
mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com

[Pamela Brown]

On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:48:41 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 2/7/2015 5:24 PM, bigdog wrote:

> > On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 11:17:45 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> >> I must be doing something right, in order to provoke the following idiotic
> >> comments from conspiracy theorists at other forums and websites. One of
> >> the comments came right after the usual CTer bashing of John McAdams when
> >> a conspiracy kook named Albert Doyle made this remark at the Deep Politics
> >> Forum:
> >>
> >> "I'm beginning to realize this whole thing occurred because McAdams was
> >> living in a deluded concept of reality that was gotten from his being able
> >> to get away with Kennedy Assassination denial so easily that he thought he
> >> could do it with other subjects. Now can we work on getting Von Pein
> >> legally prohibited from use of the internet?" -- Albert Doyle; February 6,
> >> 2015
> >>
> >> https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?14566-The-Lies-of-Colby-New-Spartacus-McAdams&p=97284#post97284
> >>
> >> ==============================
> >>

> >> "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line

> >> According to many conspiracists, those "LBJ Did It" or "Allen Dulles Did
> >> It" (etc.) crackpots are to be praised and congratulated for their
> >> brilliant research and excellent conclusions. But lone-assassin believers
> >> like myself and John McAdams (and many others) are worthy of only scorn
> >> and rancor.
> >>

> >> Has the world gone mad? Based on the above comments by Doyle and Yates,
> >> I'm beginning to wonder.
> >>
> >> David Von Pein
> >> February 6, 2015
> >

> > If these conspiracy hobbyists are so confident in their positions, one has
> > to wonder why they feel the need to silence those with opposing
>
> That's what we say about you WC defenders. Are you trying to turn the
> tables on us?

Face it, Marsh. They have no shame...

>
> > viewpoints. There is no end to the silly conspiracy theories that have
> > been presented over the years but the thought has never crossed my mind
> > that these people should not be allowed to present their viewpoints.
> >
>
> As long as the cover-up continues there will be no end.
> Just stop the cover-up.

There could be an unmasking...then all could see the cover-up for what it
is...

[Pamela Brown]

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 3:00:54 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:47:28 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> > > > "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> > > > where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> > > >
> > > > Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> > > > opinion is not well received.
> > > >
> > > > The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> > > > for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> > > > posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> > > >
> > > > Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> > > > worry about getting approval from John.
> > > >
> > >
> > > But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> > > McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
> > > let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.
> >
> > In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
> > how to bully dissenters.
>
> If one were inclined to spin information to suit themselves.

Or if one did not realize that they had been trained to do so...

>
>
> > > He allows his minions to
> > > call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.
> >
> > Well, the WC defenders are the 'more equal animals'. The dissenters have
> > to live with that.
>
> Our ideas are superior to yours, we have what we need to support Oswald`s
> guilt, you have nothing to contest it.
>
>
> > >One of your
> > > guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
> > > about something.
> >
> > Sometimes it can be frustrating keeping those WC defender blinders firmly
> > in place.
>
> I`ve never seen anything presented by a conspiracy believer that
> challenges the WC conclusions. You have to have something to offer besides
> blanks.

This statement proves my point for me. Thanks.

>
>
> > The irony, to me, is that is should not matter if one is a WC defender or
> > dissenter. What matters is that one is able to posit a cogent argument
> > about their position.
>
> Make one, I dare you.

LHO was not seen with the M-C after he put it in Ruth Paine's station
wagon for the trip from NOLA to Dallas. Based on the information
available, I don't think you can connect him to it at the TSBD.

Your turn.

> > The slant McAdams imposes on this field seems to
> > preclude that. As a result, it is tough for a discussion to move forward.
>
> You assume the destination has not been reached. Thats your mistake.

I disagree. I don't see how anyone can believe the WCR. Even Marina,
their star witness, recanted once she read the 26 vol H+E. So, start from
scratch without using it and then tell us what your 'destination' is.

The
> real reason conspiracy hobbyist go nowhere is because there really is
> nowhere for them to go.

The WCR begins and ends with the idea that LHO acted alone. That is
called circular reasoning. That is a fallacy. That is a good example of
a dead end.

>Their article of faith is that Oswald was a patsy
> and that is what keeps them from making progress.

Untrue. I start with the question, 'what part, if any, did LHO play?'

>
>
> > The emphasis is on discrediting the dissenter.
>
> The bad arguments are known. The people who make the bad arguments are
> known. They might put a new spin on the same weak offerings but it`s just
> a different cut off the same dead horse.

That statement more accurately describes the WC defender position.

>
> > Of course, anyone who has no choice but to resort to fallacy is
> > demonstrating a very weak position. So, we can infer that McAdams has had
> > to create a slanted field on aaj because he knows LHO did not act alone,
> > if at all, in the assassination.
>
> Put a plausible scenario on the table that explains what is in evidence
> but Oswald is innocent. I haven`t seen one.
>

I don't have to. All I need to do is demonstrate that LHO did not act
alone. He set off alarms in the intelligence agencies of three countries
-- the US, USSR and Cuba. That is all documented. That destroys the
thesis of the WCR.

>
> > If there is a silver lining, perhaps this is it.
>
> You see things in a way you are comfortable with, reality be damned.

That's how I see the corner the WC defenders back themselves into. They
just don't realize it because they are not being trained to think for
themselves imo.

>
>
> > Pamela Brown
> > mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com

[bigdog]

Nobody on this forum gets straight to the point more concisely than Bud.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

He cannot cite any evidence - even on his own site - to support that
claim.

There's nothing there; why should we care if nothing is released?

Nothing to support any of these fantasies people many in the CT crowd
believe in.

[Mark Florio]

Nothing there I would disagree with, cmikes. Let me combine your post with
bigdog's to ask a question of Marsh. (This is really getting old. When we
discussed this a few months ago, we all agreed the files should be
released. Someone, bigdog?, you cmikes?, claivger? someone else?
predicted, despite what we said, that Marsh would in the future say we are
against releasing the files. Whoever said that, Bingo, you were
absolutely right.) Marsh, per bigdog and cmikes, can you show us evidence
that backs up your contention that "Most WC defenders do not want all the
files released"? Or, to narrow it down for you, can you find such a post
on this newsgroup? Mark Florio.

[Sandy McCroskey]

The government didn't label Lane a commie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Lane_%28author%29
<quote>
According to former KGB officer Vasili Mitrokhin in his 1999 book The
Sword and the Shield, the KGB helped finance Lane's research on Rush to
Judgement without the author's knowledge. The Soviet agency allegedly
use an intermediary--a friend of Lane who was a KGB contact--to provide
Lane with $2000 for research and travel in 1964.
</quote>


Lane denies taking any money from the KGB. But he wasn't supposed to
know where the money came from.

/sm

[Marcus Hanson]

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 1:01:27 PM UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> I am not allowed to tell you the name of the program, but you can find it
> on the Internet if you know where to look. The CIA developed a program to
> send disinformation agents into Usenet newsgroups to "guide" the
> discussions and deny CIA activities.
>

Mockingbird ? A monstrous project - or maybe , a "Munsterous" one.

You're "not allowed" to tell us? Why not? Have you signed a promise to CIA?
Are you scared? Do you have fewer rights than others on the 'net?
Or,are you just talking b-llocks ?

Do tell. As the elephant said - I'm all ears.

[bigdog]

I've already given my permission to release the files. It will be ARRB II.
In other words, a non-event. I am looking forward to 2017 for another
reason. We will have the first total solar eclipse in the lower 48 states
in over 30 years and it will pass just a few hours drive from where I
live. Seeing one is the #1 item left on my bucket list.

[Pamela Brown]

Thanks. I may have tracked it down.

>The CIA developed a program to
> send disinformation agents into Usenet newsgroups to "guide" the
> discussions and deny CIA activities.

If that could be *proven*, which of course it cannot, as all-things-CIA
are secret, doing such a thing would put them smack in the middle of not
only the cover-up, but the assassination.

>
> > And how does research on Judyth fit into this? What if McAdams had
> > allowed her a really level field? Would she then hoist herself
>
> Please tell us exactly what research McAdams has ever done on Judyth.

I did not intend to imply that McAdams has himself done research on
Judyth. I meant that if he knew to his own satisfaction that she was
indeed a fraud and a liar and wanted to make sure he allowed her to
demonstrate that to everyone else, it would behoove him to treat her with
the utmost respect, because then she would have nothing to complain about
and would effectively hoist herself with her own petard in front of the
research community. McAdams would come off smelling like a rose.

> Did
> HE find her letter to President Kennedy? Did HE get her college records
> under cover of her trying to transfer credits to his college?

No, you did that.

>
> > onto/by/with her own petard? If McAdams, with his influence here, had
> > treated her with the utmost respect, and she turned on him with nothing
> > tangible to complain about (no pilfered manuscript, no photo used without
> > her permission, etc...) how persuasive would that have been for everyone?
> > Would that have helped or hurt his cause?
> >
>
> Why should anyone have treated her with ANY respect?

It's called unmasking Marsh.

Besides, if you know Judyth, you realize that she takes advantage of every
single misstep she can trick anyone into making. If someone does
something in the LEAST unethical, she screams and yells at high volume.
The only alternative is to make sure you treat her with the utmost
respect, so that when she tries to complain about you, you can remind her
of that. That gives less power to her imo. She is just waving in the
wind with nobody to blame but herself.

>
> Is that the old proverb about catching more flies with honey than with
> vinegar?

No, it's a matter of waging war, Marsh. Its a strategy for dealing with
your worst enemies.

[John McAdams]

On 19 Feb 2015 17:18:37 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 8:01:27 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 2/18/2015 1:41 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
>>
>> > And how does research on Judyth fit into this? What if McAdams had
>> > allowed her a really level field? Would she then hoist herself
>>
>> Please tell us exactly what research McAdams has ever done on Judyth.
>
>I did not intend to imply that McAdams has himself done research on
>Judyth. I meant that if he knew to his own satisfaction that she was
>indeed a fraud and a liar and wanted to make sure he allowed her to
>demonstrate that to everyone else,

But she *had* demonstrated it everybody else, Pamela.

Except you wouldn't accept that.

You you hectored and hounded and tried to shut down discussion of
Judyth until *you* decided she was a fraud.

You couldn't accept that people had the right to express opinions that
*you* didn't like.

Who do you think you are?

>it would behoove him to treat her with
>the utmost respect, because then she would have nothing to complain about
>and would effectively hoist herself with her own petard in front of the
>research community. McAdams would come off smelling like a rose.
>

It was obvious from almost the first that she was a fraud.

The fact that you took a long time to realize that is not my fault,
nor the fault of any of her critics.

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

[Bud]

Thats why he said it, he tries to keep a safe distance.

[Sandy McCroskey]

By "complicated strawmen," I think you must mean my suggestion that if you
are going to propose that the government assured that the security would
be lax at the jail during Oswald's transfer, you should offer a concrete,
plausible scenario as to how that was done. I also pointed out that the
fact that Officer Curry was in charge at the jail poses a problem in
devising such a scenario, although you alleged that Curry allowed Oswald
to be killed.

If this seems "complicated" to you, you must be very easily confused.

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 10:22:23 AM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 3:00:54 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > > On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:47:28 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > > On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> > > > > "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> > > > > where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> > > > >
> > > > > Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> > > > > opinion is not well received.
> > > > >
> > > > > The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> > > > > for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> > > > > posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> > > > > worry about getting approval from John.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> > > > McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
> > > > let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.
> > >
> > > In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
> > > how to bully dissenters.
> >
> > If one were inclined to spin information to suit themselves.
>
> Or if one did not realize that they had been trained to do so...

You flatter yourself that you are clever enough to see through such things. That alone should tell you something.

> >
> >
> > > > He allows his minions to
> > > > call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.
> > >
> > > Well, the WC defenders are the 'more equal animals'. The dissenters have
> > > to live with that.
> >
> > Our ideas are superior to yours, we have what we need to support Oswald`s
> > guilt, you have nothing to contest it.
> >
> >
> > > >One of your
> > > > guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
> > > > about something.
> > >
> > > Sometimes it can be frustrating keeping those WC defender blinders firmly
> > > in place.
> >
> > I`ve never seen anything presented by a conspiracy believer that
> > challenges the WC conclusions. You have to have something to offer besides
> > blanks.
>
> This statement proves my point for me. Thanks.

You seemed to be struggling, thought you could use the help.

> >
> >
> > > The irony, to me, is that is should not matter if one is a WC defender or
> > > dissenter. What matters is that one is able to posit a cogent argument
> > > about their position.
> >
> > Make one, I dare you.
>
> LHO was not seen with the M-C after he put it in Ruth Paine's station
> wagon for the trip from NOLA to Dallas.

OJ was *never* seen with the knife he almost decapitated his wife with.

> Based on the information
> available, I don't think you can connect him to it at the TSBD.
>
> Your turn.

You mean I can`t connect Oswald`s rifle to Oswald`s work? On the day he
happened to carry a long paper covered object to work, an act he denied?
You`ll offer a mix of denial and weak excuses, so I`ll save you from your
turn.

And so you know, you didn`t offer a cogent argument, you offered
hobbyist trading card number 3,792. Hobbyists have been churning these
things out for decades trying to muster support for the terrible idea that
Oswald was a patsy. This is just one of the blanks I was referring to, the
only thing you are establishing is your own desperation, nothing about
what occurred.

> > > The slant McAdams imposes on this field seems to
> > > preclude that. As a result, it is tough for a discussion to move forward.
> >
> > You assume the destination has not been reached. Thats your mistake.
>
>
> I disagree. I don't see how anyone can believe the WCR. Even Marina,
> their star witness, recanted once she read the 26 vol H+E.

What does that even mean?

> So, start from
> scratch without using it and then tell us what your 'destination' is.

Yes, the hobbyist approach, throw out relevant information and then
proceed.

> The
> > real reason conspiracy hobbyist go nowhere is because there really is
> > nowhere for them to go.
>
> The WCR begins and ends with the idea that LHO acted alone. That is
> called circular reasoning. That is a fallacy. That is a good example of
> a dead end.

Thinking doesn`t occur in a vacuum, it never starts at zero. The Dallas
police knew they had the right man day one, how could they not? How could
anyone not?

> >Their article of faith is that Oswald was a patsy
> > and that is what keeps them from making progress.
>
> Untrue. I start with the question, 'what part, if any, did LHO play?'

And there is where you will stay until the end of your days. And that is
what you want.

> >
> >
> > > The emphasis is on discrediting the dissenter.
> >
> > The bad arguments are known. The people who make the bad arguments are
> > known. They might put a new spin on the same weak offerings but it`s just
> > a different cut off the same dead horse.
>
> That statement more accurately describes the WC defender position.

Not at all. We haven`t sat around trying to figure out how what is in
evidence can exist and Oswald be innocent, that is game played solely by
conspiracy hobbyists. But you can`t put a compelling "Oswald was innocent"
scenario on the table despite these efforts.

> >
> > > Of course, anyone who has no choice but to resort to fallacy is
> > > demonstrating a very weak position. So, we can infer that McAdams has had
> > > to create a slanted field on aaj because he knows LHO did not act alone,
> > > if at all, in the assassination.
> >
> > Put a plausible scenario on the table that explains what is in evidence
> > but Oswald is innocent. I haven`t seen one.
> >
>
> I don't have to.

Nor can you.

> All I need to do is demonstrate that LHO did not act
> alone. He set off alarms in the intelligence agencies of three countries
> -- the US, USSR and Cuba. That is all documented. That destroys the
> thesis of the WCR.

No, these blanks have no impact at all on the WC`s findings. There are
just noise produced by hobbyists when they are challenged to produce
something tangible. "alarms" mean nothing.

> >
> > > If there is a silver lining, perhaps this is it.
> >
> > You see things in a way you are comfortable with, reality be damned.
>
> That's how I see the corner the WC defenders back themselves into. They
> just don't realize it because they are not being trained to think for
> themselves imo.

I didn`t need the WC at all, I would have figured out the guilty party
had that body never been formed. It`s a simple crime actually, as long as
you don`t cling in desperation to the idea that Oswald was a patsy.

[Pamela Brown]

And what is 'the point' Bud gets to? That Bud thinks LHO acted alone and
needs no further discussion about it? If so, then why bother to post at
all? Why not sit back in an easy chair and watch reality tv instead?
Why not let those who have questions explore them without his having to
comment, especially since he seems to think he has all the answers?

[Pamela Brown]

On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 11:20:22 PM UTC-6, cmikes wrote:

Have you ever been to NARA? Have you ever been vetted for trying to get to information they don't want you to have? In the case of the JFK assassination, history is alive. It is not over yet.

>
> That it wold also shut up a lot of the conspiracy theorists is purely a
> secondary consideration.

Getting to the truth would definitely help everyone. With so much
withheld and redacted, that is not easy to do. CTs tend to stumble
because they don't have all the facts. They did so in the timeline of what
happened to the limousine after the assassination until I published the
Vaughn Ferguson memo, which NARA had sent to me by mistake. When Marsh
asked for a copy of it, they told him it was still being suppressed.
Marsh showed them my copy and they went 'whoops' and released it without
the date, so that nobody would know just when the memo was written.

I, for one, would not even be on this quest if LHO had been allowed to
live to stand trial. If he had been proven guilty through due process I
would have accepted that, just as I accept the guilt of Timothy McVeigh in
the Oklahoma City bombings. I have sat on a jury in a criminal case. I
know how the system works. It does work. We were denied that with LHO.
Therefore, I have a lot of questions.

Pamela Brown
themcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com

[Bud]

Thanks for that, and of course you are no slouch. I think maybe Pamela
here deserves most of the credit for lobbing these straight lines
underhanded.

[BOZ]

Oswald was not attracted to Judyth. He was only attracted to Japanese
women with gonorrhea or Russian women with missing teeth.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not sure what your question means.

> I heard the same thing from Ken Rahn.
>

Just because Ken Rahn heard the same story from Ned Dolan does not mean
it wasn't just CIA disinformation.

> It seems a bit too 'convenient' for the govt to try to label Mark Lane a
> commie. I recall in NYC when the anti-WCR meetings began in 1964 it

When in those days that was SOP. They couldn't very well call him an
Islamic terrorist.

> seemed quite obvious that anyone who went to them or became involved as a
> dissident would be also labeled a commie. That just seemed such a
> convenient part of the cover-up. Not very imaginative...

That's the CIA for ya. The old tricks are the best tricks.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

But they think they were doing it out of patriotism, not to protect the
assassins.

[Anthony Marsh]

So maybe you are hoping the eclipse will erase all the files.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/19/2015 5:13 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 1:01:27 PM UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> I am not allowed to tell you the name of the program, but you can find it
>> on the Internet if you know where to look. The CIA developed a program to
>> send disinformation agents into Usenet newsgroups to "guide" the
>> discussions and deny CIA activities.
>>
>
> Mockingbird ? A monstrous project - or maybe , a "Munsterous" one.
>
> You're "not allowed" to tell us? Why not? Have you signed a promise to CIA?

Promise? What are you drinking?

Ever hear of the National Security Act of 1947? My father was a section
chief at NSA and the liaison to the CIA. He was part of MK/NAOMI. He
retire long before the InterNet was invented by Al Gore.

> Are you scared? Do you have fewer rights than others on the 'net?
> Or,are you just talking b-llocks ?
>
> Do tell. As the elephant said - I'm all ears.
>

In 2000 the FBI tried to shut down my Web site and 2 SS agents came out to
interview me about assassination because an informant here in this
newsgroup told the FBI that I was planning to assassinate the President
Elect. I was writing an article about the Zero Factor.

[cmikes]

That's true as far as it goes, but did Lane really not know where the
money was coming from? I can see it now, "Huh, some foreign concern is
giving me funding to continue my anti-American crusade, I wonder who it
could be?"

What, did Lane have the IQ of a potato?

[David Von Pein]

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 11:49:30 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

Amen to that. I've said the same thing in the past about Bud.

Here are seven of Bud's concise gems from the past....

-----------------------

"When kooks look at the evidence, anything involving Oz's culpability is
"almost, but not quite". He can almost make this shot, but not quite. He
can almost make it downstairs from the 6th floor in time to encounter
Baker, but not quite. He can almost make it to 10th & Patton from the
boardinghouse in time to shoot Tippit, but not quite. So close, but yet so
far, as kooks judge things." -- Bud; June 18, 2006

---------------------

"Way too much attention has been given to conspiracy theorists and Warren
Commission critics. CTer [web] sites aren't worth reading because they
have nothing to say. Once you question that Oswald shot Kennedy, you've
identified yourself as someone not worth listening to." -- Bud; July 16,
2010

---------------------

"Correcting kooks is a full time job that not many are willing to take on.
I'm not, that's for sure. .... Ultimately, kooks will believe what they
want to believe." -- Bud; January 15, 2006

---------------------

"Obsessing about conspiracy, and seeing evidence of conspiracies
everywhere, has become a major part of many people's lives. .... None of
these things have anything to do with whether Oz took his rifle to work
and shot JFK. I could give far more examples of unstable human beings
doing unstable things than you could ever produce examples of
conspiracies." -- Bud; August 23, 2004

----------------------

"If there is a suspicious fire, the kooks would investigate the firemen
who respond, and ignore the guy with the wicked grin that smells of
gasoline." -- Bud; November 22, 2007

----------------------

"Keep heaping those witnesses on. A cast of thousands, cutting across all
walks of life, all working against the poor patsy, all quiet to this day.
Just because it can't happen won't stop kooks from insisting it did." --
Bud; August 11, 2007

----------------------

"There is almost as much evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy as there is
evidence that Kennedy got shot." -- Bud; July 21, 2010

----------------------

17 more from Bud here.....

http://Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

[Bud]

That you folks are playing silly games because you can`t bring
yourselves to admit Oswald`s guilt. I don`t know how I can make it any
plainer.

> That Bud thinks LHO acted alone and
> needs no further discussion about it?

Do whatever you like. I am just characterizing your efforts accurately.

> If so, then why bother to post at
> all? Why not sit back in an easy chair and watch reality tv instead?

How is this different?

> Why not let those who have questions explore them without his having to
> comment, especially since he seems to think he has all the answers?

If you had an abundance of water and I was dying of thirst I expect you
would give me a drink. I`m only returning the favor.

[Pamela Brown]

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 4:25:41 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2015 17:18:37 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 8:01:27 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 2/18/2015 1:41 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> > And how does research on Judyth fit into this? What if McAdams had
> >> > allowed her a really level field? Would she then hoist herself
> >>
> >> Please tell us exactly what research McAdams has ever done on Judyth.
> >
> >I did not intend to imply that McAdams has himself done research on
> >Judyth. I meant that if he knew to his own satisfaction that she was
> >indeed a fraud and a liar and wanted to make sure he allowed her to
> >demonstrate that to everyone else,
>
>
> But she *had* demonstrated it everybody else, Pamela.

To whom had she demonstrated this? To the choir at aaj? What about the
rest of the world?

If you did not consider Judyth a threat, why maintain a website using a
draft of a manuscript acquired under the table? Why use a photo without
her permission after she complained? Why not update it with information
from sources she has authorized, such as her current books? Why not treat
her with respect and let her hang herself, as the false Anastasia, Anna
Anderson, did?

>
> Except you wouldn't accept that.

What I wouldn't accept was that that dogpiling was sufficient.

>ctored and hounded and tried to shut down discussion of
> Judyth until *you* decided she was a fraud.

False. I had an agreement with Judyth to keep an open mind until her book
came out. I still do not label Judyth a fraud. I share my experiences at
my Finding Judyth blog and ask that others think things through for
themselves.

>
> You couldn't accept that people had the right to express opinions that
> *you* didn't like.

Attempting to use a position of influence to turn aaj posters into attack
dogs does not to me equate to *expressing opinions*, imo. If anything, it
seems to equate more to intellectual oppression.

>
> Who do you think you are?

An historian testing a process.

>
> >it would behoove him to treat her with
> >the utmost respect, because then she would have nothing to complain about
> >and would effectively hoist herself with her own petard in front of the
> >research community. McAdams would come off smelling like a rose.
> >
>
> It was obvious from almost the first that she was a fraud.

Simply labeling Judyth a liar and a fraud did not stop her moving forward
or finding new *believers*. Dogpiling was not an effective strategy imo.
Something different was needed. A Wolffschanze, so to speak.

>
> The fact that you took a long time to realize that is not my fault,
> nor the fault of any of her critics.

I kept an open mind from 2003 to 2010 when Judyth's book was published.
That was my agreement with her.


Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com

[Pamela Brown]

What have I done that you consider 'underhanded'? Is the idea of an
alternate opinion not ok?

[Pamela Brown]

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 9:32:28 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 10:22:23 AM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 3:00:54 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 9:06:19 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> > > > On Monday, February 9, 2015 at 8:47:28 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > > > On 2/7/2015 5:25 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> > > > > > "I'm against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line
> > > > > > where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typical lefty comment - not in favour of censorship....UNLESS a contrary
> > > > > > opinion is not well received.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The poster Albert Doyle was - IMO - "brought into line" by an ex-DPF-er
> > > > > > for straying from the CT orthodoxy. It's been a long time since I read his
> > > > > > posts,but after reproval,IIRC,he toed the line like a good boy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here,we don't all have to agree on every point(even on the LN side) or
> > > > > > worry about getting approval from John.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > But there is a big difference. There is no level playing field here.
> > > > > McAdams brings in minions to attack conspiracy believers and then does not
> > > > > let the conspiracy believers defend themselves.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, it might be said that aaj is an experimental training ground for
> > > > how to bully dissenters.
> > >
> > > If one were inclined to spin information to suit themselves.
> >
> > Or if one did not realize that they had been trained to do so...
>
> You flatter yourself that you are clever enough to see through such things.

It's not a matter of 'seeing through such things'. It is a matter of looking at all information objectively. Anyone can do that.

>That alone should tell you something.

Tell me what? That I have a different opinion than you do?

>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > He allows his minions to
> > > > > call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.
> > > >
> > > > Well, the WC defenders are the 'more equal animals'. The dissenters have
> > > > to live with that.
> > >
> > > Our ideas are superior to yours, we have what we need to support Oswald`s
> > > guilt, you have nothing to contest it.
> > >
> > >
> > > > >One of your
> > > > > guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
> > > > > about something.
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes it can be frustrating keeping those WC defender blinders firmly
> > > > in place.
> > >
> > > I`ve never seen anything presented by a conspiracy believer that
> > > challenges the WC conclusions. You have to have something to offer besides
> > > blanks.
> >
> > This statement proves my point for me. Thanks.
>
> You seemed to be struggling, thought you could use the help.

How can anyone *believe* the "WC conclusions* when even their star
witness, Marina Oswald, recanted after reading the 26 vols of H+E?

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > The irony, to me, is that is should not matter if one is a WC defender or
> > > > dissenter. What matters is that one is able to posit a cogent argument
> > > > about their position.
> > >
> > > Make one, I dare you.
> >
> > LHO was not seen with the M-C after he put it in Ruth Paine's station
> > wagon for the trip from NOLA to Dallas.
>
> OJ was *never* seen with the knife he almost decapitated his wife with.

Your opinion. You are entitled. That OJ was guilty was not what the
criminal trial found. Does that mean you are not in agreement with due
process?

>
> > Based on the information
> > available, I don't think you can connect him to it at the TSBD.
> >
> > Your turn.
>
> You mean I can`t connect Oswald`s rifle to Oswald`s work? On the day he
> happened to carry a long paper covered object to work, an act he denied?

No, an act Frazier denied by his statement about the size of the bag.
The size of the paper bag was inconsistent with that of the M-C even
broken down. So how did LHO get the M-C into the TSBD?

> You`ll offer a mix of denial and weak excuses, so I`ll save you from your
> turn.
>

I did not...

> And so you know, you didn`t offer a cogent argument, you offered
> hobbyist trading card number 3,792. Hobbyists have been churning these
> things out for decades trying to muster support for the terrible idea that
> Oswald was a patsy.

LHO SAID he was a patsy. Do you deny that?

>This is just one of the blanks I was referring to, the
> only thing you are establishing is your own desperation, nothing about
> what occurred.
>
>
> > > > The slant McAdams imposes on this field seems to
> > > > preclude that. As a result, it is tough for a discussion to move forward.
> > >
> > > You assume the destination has not been reached. Thats your mistake.
> >
> >
> > I disagree. I don't see how anyone can believe the WCR. Even Marina,
> > their star witness, recanted once she read the 26 vol H+E.
>
> What does that even mean?

Marina Oswald, was sequestered by the SS until after she gave her
testimony to the WC. At that time, she said she thought Lee was guilty.
Years later she read the 26 vol. H+E and changed her mind. Based on all
the information available, she felt that he was innocent. She has
maintained that position.

>
> > So, start from
> > scratch without using it and then tell us what your 'destination' is.
>
> Yes, the hobbyist approach, throw out relevant information and then
> proceed.

I am including information that perhaps you were unaware of.

>
>
> > The
> > > real reason conspiracy hobbyist go nowhere is because there really is
> > > nowhere for them to go.
> >
> > The WCR begins and ends with the idea that LHO acted alone. That is
> > called circular reasoning. That is a fallacy. That is a good example of
> > a dead end.
>
> Thinking doesn`t occur in a vacuum, it never starts at zero. The Dallas
> police knew they had the right man day one, how could they not? How could
> anyone not?

I remember the hours after the assassination and the tumult over LHO.
Everyone wanted an answer. Most everyone thought he was guilty, even if
just from the raised-fist salute at the Texas Theater and the ever present
smirk. But a lynchmob mentality was Un-American, or so it seemed at the
time. He would go to trial and everything would be sorted out there.

But then he was shot before our eyes. LHO did not live to stand trial in a
court of law. If he had, he would have been technically innocent until
proven guilty by a jury of his peers. Unless he pled guilty, evidence from
both sides would have been presented. Had that happened and he had been
found guilty, I would not be having this conversation with you. I accept
the verdict of Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City Bombing. I would have
done the same with LHO. I ask questions about LHO because he was killed
before trial.

>
>
> > >Their article of faith is that Oswald was a patsy
> > > and that is what keeps them from making progress.
> >
> > Untrue. I start with the question, 'what part, if any, did LHO play?'
>
> And there is where you will stay until the end of your days. And that is
> what you want.
>

I want the whole truth. And I don't want anyone to do my thinking for me.
I have to discover it for myself.

> > >
> > > > The emphasis is on discrediting the dissenter.
> > >
> > > The bad arguments are known. The people who make the bad arguments are
> > > known. They might put a new spin on the same weak offerings but it`s just
> > > a different cut off the same dead horse.
> >
> > That statement more accurately describes the WC defender position.
>
> Not at all. We haven`t sat around trying to figure out how what is in
> evidence can exist and Oswald be innocent, that is game played solely by
> conspiracy hobbyists.

Not entirely accurate. There are WC defenders, such as Sandy M, who
regularly make up conspiracy theories for the CTs and try to get them to
answer to them. So that can complicate things.

>But you can`t put a compelling "Oswald was innocent"
> scenario on the table despite these efforts.
>

LHO was, by his own words, a traitor. He was a marked man when he
returned to the US. His Marines discharge had been downgraded. He
probably fired at Gen. Walker and moved to NOLA so the FBI couldn't find
him.

I do not think LHO was an innocent. I don't see how he fired the shots
with an old rifle he had not used since NOLA while doing so little damage
to the limo. That speaks volumes to me. That is just my opinion.

Because LHO set of alarms in the intelligence agencies of three countries
during the last months of his life (USSR, US and Cuba) whatever he did or
did not do, I do not think he acted alone, if for no other reason than
that so many people let him slip through the cracks.

>
> > >
> > > > Of course, anyone who has no choice but to resort to fallacy is
> > > > demonstrating a very weak position. So, we can infer that McAdams has had
> > > > to create a slanted field on aaj because he knows LHO did not act alone,
> > > > if at all, in the assassination.
> > >
> > > Put a plausible scenario on the table that explains what is in evidence
> > > but Oswald is innocent. I haven`t seen one.
> > >
> >
> > I don't have to.
>
> Nor can you.

He was not found guilty in a court of law. You have your opinion and I
have mine.

>
> > All I need to do is demonstrate that LHO did not act
> > alone. He set off alarms in the intelligence agencies of three countries
> > -- the US, USSR and Cuba. That is all documented. That destroys the
> > thesis of the WCR.
>
> No, these blanks have no impact at all on the WC`s findings.

The WC created a comfortable myth for the citizens at the time. It did
not use due process. So you agree with their opinions. I am not
persuaded.

>There are
> just noise produced by hobbyists when they are challenged to produce
> something tangible. "alarms" mean nothing.
>

The WCR was a pragmatic document for its time. The HSCA came to a
different conclusion. Neither used due process, so it is all a matter of
opinion. You are persuaded. I am not.

> > >
> > > > If there is a silver lining, perhaps this is it.
> > >
> > > You see things in a way you are comfortable with, reality be damned.
> >
> > That's how I see the corner the WC defenders back themselves into. They
> > just don't realize it because they are not being trained to think for
> > themselves imo.
>
> I didn`t need the WC at all, I would have figured out the guilty party
> had that body never been formed. It`s a simple crime actually, as long as
> you don`t cling in desperation to the idea that Oswald was a patsy.

LHO said he thought he was used as a patsy because everyone knew he had
defected to USSR.

Whether he was or not, he did make a good candidate for a fall guy imo.

Pamela Brown
mcadamsexperiment.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/19/2015 10:41 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 11:20:22 PM UTC-6, cmikes wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 11:24:09 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>> On 2/16/2015 8:53 PM, Mark Florio wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 11:00:21 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 7:41:01 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>> It's amazing how the WC defenders will attack conspiracy believers for
>>>>>> asking for the files to be released.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Funny, I don't recall seeing one of those attacks. Maybe you can point me
>>>>> to it.
>>>>
>>>> It's amazing what a short memory you have. We talked about this not many
>>>> months ago. I think I speak for all LN's on here: Release the files, all
>>>> of them. The sooner the better. Mark Florio.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, you don't. Most WC defenders do not want all the files released.
>>> You've never filed an FOIA request.
>>
>> [Citation needed] And never forthcoming. I'm on record supporting the
>> release of all the files purely for historical value.
>
> Have you ever been to NARA? Have you ever been vetted for trying to get to information they don't want you to have? In the case of the JFK assassination, history is alive. It is not over yet.

First you have to remember that you are talking to a WC defender. They
don't need to do research. They already have their Bible and that's all
they need. And stop using big words like NARA and vet.
You are only confusing him. How can you be so cruel?

>>
>> That it wold also shut up a lot of the conspiracy theorists is purely a
>> secondary consideration.
>
> Getting to the truth would definitely help everyone. With so much
> withheld and redacted, that is not easy to do. CTs tend to stumble
> because they don't have all the facts. They did so in the timeline of what
> happened to the limousine after the assassination until I published the
> Vaughn Ferguson memo, which NARA had sent to me by mistake. When Marsh
> asked for a copy of it, they told him it was still being suppressed.
> Marsh showed them my copy and they went 'whoops' and released it without
> the date, so that nobody would know just when the memo was written.
>

Something like that. They release things without knowing they are not
supposed to release them.
The accidentally let me see the ORIGINALS of the HSCA exhibits list and
I was able to read the whited out text from the back of the page.

[bigdog]

That makes about as much sense as anything else you have offered us
lately.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Hmm... If he didn't know that the ostensible source of the money was
actually passing it along from the KGB, why would he think he was being
funded by "some foreign concern"?

I don't think Lane saw, or sees, himself as being on an "anti-American
crusade." I'm not saying he had the highest motives. Maybe he did guess
where the money came from and he didn't care. On the other hand, the
committee giving it to him didn't want its role to be exposed, and I have
no trouble thinking it might have succeeded in maintaining cover.

But in any case, taking the money didn't make Lane a communist. I'd say
just a rank opportunist.

[Bud]

On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 10:41:01 PM UTC-5, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 11:20:22 PM UTC-6, cmikes wrote:
> > On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 11:24:09 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > On 2/16/2015 8:53 PM, Mark Florio wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 11:00:21 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:
> > > >> On Friday, February 13, 2015 at 7:41:01 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > > >>> It's amazing how the WC defenders will attack conspiracy believers for
> > > >>> asking for the files to be released.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> Funny, I don't recall seeing one of those attacks. Maybe you can point me
> > > >> to it.
> > > >
> > > > It's amazing what a short memory you have. We talked about this not many
> > > > months ago. I think I speak for all LN's on here: Release the files, all
> > > > of them. The sooner the better. Mark Florio.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No, you don't. Most WC defenders do not want all the files released.
> > > You've never filed an FOIA request.
> >
> > [Citation needed] And never forthcoming. I'm on record supporting the
> > release of all the files purely for historical value.
>
> Have you ever been to NARA? Have you ever been vetted for trying to get to information they don't want you to have? In the case of the JFK assassination, history is alive. It is not over yet.
> >
> > That it wold also shut up a lot of the conspiracy theorists is purely a
> > secondary consideration.
>
> Getting to the truth would definitely help everyone. With so much
> withheld and redacted, that is not easy to do. CTs tend to stumble
> because they don't have all the facts.

They stumble because the facts trip them up from getting to where they
are desperate to get to.

> They did so in the timeline of what
> happened to the limousine after the assassination until I published the
> Vaughn Ferguson memo, which NARA had sent to me by mistake. When Marsh
> asked for a copy of it, they told him it was still being suppressed.
> Marsh showed them my copy and they went 'whoops' and released it without
> the date, so that nobody would know just when the memo was written.
>
> I, for one, would not even be on this quest if LHO had been allowed to
> live to stand trial.

And if Oswald didn`t kill Kennedy he wouldn`t have had to stand trial.
And if Oswald hadn`t have killed Kennedy Ruby probably wouldn`t have
killed him.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Amazing.

What is the rationale: that a psychotic, who believes her hallucinatory
reality, is not a deliberate liar?

Baker is 100 percent fraudulent, though, whether she realizes it or not.

She has never been convincing for even five minutes.

[David Von Pein]

Pamela must not be a baseball fan. Bud meant "underhanded" as opposed to
serving up an unhittable 98-MPH fastball "overhanded".

But CTers specialize in tossing LNers underhanded softballs. They usually
make it quite easy to hit their silly ideas out of the park. Even if the
park is The Astrodome.

[David Von Pein]

PAMELA BROWN SAID:

The WC created a comfortable myth for the citizens at the time.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How can presenting the raw facts be considered a "myth"?

Even if the Warren Commission had never existed, the evidence would still
be there. The WC didn't collect or invent the evidence. They merely
evaluated it. And that evidence supports Oswald's guilt. Nobody can
possibly deny that fact. (Do you deny that, Pam?)

Nothing's changed since 1963 as far as the core physical evidence in this
case goes. If you watch or listen to any of the real-time television or
radio coverage from the weekend of the assassination, it's plainly evident
as of the evening of 11/22/63 that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of killing
both President Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.

Or do you, Pam, think the Dallas Police Department had a routine habit of
charging people with **TWO MURDERS** within 12 hours of the crimes being
committed without a stitch of evidence to back up those serious charges?

And the "Everything Was Fake" mantra used by conspiracy promoters is just
a cop-out, and always has been. It's a sign of pure desperation on a
CTer's behalf.

In reality, it's the conspiracists, in a sense, who are constantly
attempting to "alter" the evidence and pretend it adds up to something it
most certainly does not add up to. And nobody has created any "myths"
other than the conspiracy theorists. But in the "CT" world, a myth can
easily (and quickly) become a hardened fact. Fortunately, however, the
"CT" world has no relationship to this "Real" world that most people
reside in.

It's just too bad more people can't see through the parlor games engaged
in by the conspiracy theorists for what they truly are---games being
played by people who evidently have a strong desire to disbelieve every
single piece of evidence that's on the table in the JFK and Tippit murder
cases.

Pamela, answer this for me if you would....

Do you **truly** think that even ONE piece of the evidence in the JFK
and/or Tippit cases has been **PROVEN** by anyone to be fake,
manufactured, altered, substituted, or otherwise tampered with by the
authorities in an effort to frame a man named Lee H. Oswald?

If your answer is "Yes" to my above inquiry, please tell me what pieces of
evidence you feel have been PROVEN to be fraudulent.

Thank you.

[Bud]

Your bias prevents you from doing that. You lean heavily towards the
idea that there is more to this event than meets the eye.

> >That alone should tell you something.
>
> Tell me what? That I have a different opinion than you do?

No, that you should be more skeptical of ideas that appeal to you.

> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > He allows his minions to
> > > > > > call me a liar, but forbids me from calling anyone a liar.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, the WC defenders are the 'more equal animals'. The dissenters have
> > > > > to live with that.
> > > >
> > > > Our ideas are superior to yours, we have what we need to support Oswald`s
> > > > guilt, you have nothing to contest it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > >One of your
> > > > > > guys wanted to have McAdams BAN me because I pointed out that he was wrong
> > > > > > about something.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sometimes it can be frustrating keeping those WC defender blinders firmly
> > > > > in place.
> > > >
> > > > I`ve never seen anything presented by a conspiracy believer that
> > > > challenges the WC conclusions. You have to have something to offer besides
> > > > blanks.
> > >
> > > This statement proves my point for me. Thanks.
> >
> > You seemed to be struggling, thought you could use the help.
>
> How can anyone *believe* the "WC conclusions* when even their star
> witness, Marina Oswald, recanted after reading the 26 vols of H+E?

You are shooting blanks again. "recanted" how, "recanted" what? Did she
say she was lying when she told the WC that she was married to Oswald? You
see, information is useless unless you view in the correct context. Just
saying things is meaningless.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > The irony, to me, is that is should not matter if one is a WC defender or
> > > > > dissenter. What matters is that one is able to posit a cogent argument
> > > > > about their position.
> > > >
> > > > Make one, I dare you.
> > >
> > > LHO was not seen with the M-C after he put it in Ruth Paine's station
> > > wagon for the trip from NOLA to Dallas.
> >
> > OJ was *never* seen with the knife he almost decapitated his wife with.
>
> Your opinion. You are entitled. That OJ was guilty was not what the
> criminal trial found. Does that mean you are not in agreement with due
> process?

I understand that juries are comprised of human beings.

> >
> > > Based on the information
> > > available, I don't think you can connect him to it at the TSBD.
> > >
> > > Your turn.
> >
> > You mean I can`t connect Oswald`s rifle to Oswald`s work? On the day he
> > happened to carry a long paper covered object to work, an act he denied?
>
> No, an act Frazier denied by his statement about the size of the bag.
> The size of the paper bag was inconsistent with that of the M-C even
> broken down. So how did LHO get the M-C into the TSBD?

In the bag that Frazier only glanced at and never measured.

> > You`ll offer a mix of denial and weak excuses, so I`ll save you from your
> > turn.
> >
> I did not...

Yes, you did exactly as I expected. Another blank, and as what you
offered does nothing to rule out the rifle was in the bag.

> > And so you know, you didn`t offer a cogent argument, you offered
> > hobbyist trading card number 3,792. Hobbyists have been churning these
> > things out for decades trying to muster support for the terrible idea that
> > Oswald was a patsy.
>
> LHO SAID he was a patsy. Do you deny that?

Hobbyists have spent decades desperately trying to muster support for
that statement, do you deny that?

> >This is just one of the blanks I was referring to, the
> > only thing you are establishing is your own desperation, nothing about
> > what occurred.
> >
> >
> > > > > The slant McAdams imposes on this field seems to
> > > > > preclude that. As a result, it is tough for a discussion to move forward.
> > > >
> > > > You assume the destination has not been reached. Thats your mistake.
> > >
> > >
> > > I disagree. I don't see how anyone can believe the WCR. Even Marina,
> > > their star witness, recanted once she read the 26 vol H+E.
> >
> > What does that even mean?
>
> Marina Oswald, was sequestered by the SS until after she gave her
> testimony to the WC. At that time, she said she thought Lee was guilty.
> Years later she read the 26 vol. H+E and changed her mind. Based on all
> the information available, she felt that he was innocent. She has
> maintained that position.

So she looked into the case against her husband and came to the opinion
that her husband was innocent, what does that have to do with anything? I
imagine it`s better for your daughters to be thought of as the children of
a patsy rather than the assassin of a popular President.


I asked what it meant because it might be relevant if she recanted the
information she gave to the committiees investigating the assassination.
She could explain if and why she lied about Oswald attempting political
assassination previously.

> >
> > > So, start from
> > > scratch without using it and then tell us what your 'destination' is.
> >
> > Yes, the hobbyist approach, throw out relevant information and then
> > proceed.
>
> I am including information that perhaps you were unaware of.

You shot off another blank. I know enough trivia about this case already.

> >
> >
> > > The
> > > > real reason conspiracy hobbyist go nowhere is because there really is
> > > > nowhere for them to go.
> > >
> > > The WCR begins and ends with the idea that LHO acted alone. That is
> > > called circular reasoning. That is a fallacy. That is a good example of
> > > a dead end.
> >
> > Thinking doesn`t occur in a vacuum, it never starts at zero. The Dallas
> > police knew they had the right man day one, how could they not? How could
> > anyone not?
>
> I remember the hours after the assassination and the tumult over LHO.
> Everyone wanted an answer. Most everyone thought he was guilty, even if
> just from the raised-fist salute at the Texas Theater

I believe that was in the hallway at the police station.

>and the ever present
> smirk. But a lynchmob mentality was Un-American, or so it seemed at the
> time. He would go to trial and everything would be sorted out there.
>
> But then he was shot before our eyes. LHO did not live to stand trial in a
> court of law. If he had, he would have been technically innocent until
> proven guilty by a jury of his peers. Unless he pled guilty, evidence from
> both sides would have been presented. Had that happened and he had been
> found guilty, I would not be having this conversation with you. I accept
> the verdict of Timothy McVeigh in the Oklahoma City Bombing. I would have
> done the same with LHO. I ask questions about LHO because he was killed
> before trial.

Nonsense, Oswald`s guilt is easily determined. You can`t bring yourself
to admit that guilt. You belittle those that can make that simple
deduction as "sheeple", "trained",ect. That you can`t determine Oswald`s
guilt speaks to deficiencies in *your* thinking. You want to portray LNers
as blindly following the WC, but it wasn`t the WC that made Oswald order a
rifle, carry a long package to work the day of the assassination, flee the
scene of the crime, go home and get a gun, use it to kill a cop, resist
arrest and much, much more. That the WC concluded what these things
clearly indicate to anyone willing to accept reality.

> >
> >
> > > >Their article of faith is that Oswald was a patsy
> > > > and that is what keeps them from making progress.
> > >
> > > Untrue. I start with the question, 'what part, if any, did LHO play?'
> >
> > And there is where you will stay until the end of your days. And that is
> > what you want.
> >
>
> I want the whole truth. And I don't want anyone to do my thinking for me.
> I have to discover it for myself.

But to your mind Oswald can never be found guilty since he didn`t see
his day in court. So if he is guilty you can never reach the whole truth,
since you`ve set up a criteria that precludes coming to that truth.

> > > >
> > > > > The emphasis is on discrediting the dissenter.
> > > >
> > > > The bad arguments are known. The people who make the bad arguments are
> > > > known. They might put a new spin on the same weak offerings but it`s just
> > > > a different cut off the same dead horse.
> > >
> > > That statement more accurately describes the WC defender position.
> >
> > Not at all. We haven`t sat around trying to figure out how what is in
> > evidence can exist and Oswald be innocent, that is game played solely by
> > conspiracy hobbyists.
>
> Not entirely accurate. There are WC defenders, such as Sandy M, who
> regularly make up conspiracy theories for the CTs and try to get them to
> answer to them. So that can complicate things.

Perhaps it would be easier if the hobbyists would put their ideas of
what they think occurred on the table for scrutiny. The only CTer I`ve
seen do that is Bob Harris. His ideas don`t fare very well out in the
open, but he doesn`t seem to recognize this.

> >But you can`t put a compelling "Oswald was innocent"
> > scenario on the table despite these efforts.
> >
>
> LHO was, by his own words, a traitor. He was a marked man when he
> returned to the US. His Marines discharge had been downgraded. He
> probably fired at Gen. Walker and moved to NOLA so the FBI couldn't find
> him.

You accept that Oswald tried to assassinate a political figure before?
How many people do something like that? Speaks incredibly loudly to a
person willing to risk everything for his own ideas. Then a President goes
past his work, shot by his rifle and he is innocent? No matter how you
slice it these kinds of ideas really show you to be someone who is
unlikely to get to any correct conclusions at all.

> I do not think LHO was an innocent. I don't see how he fired the shots
> with an old rifle he had not used since NOLA while doing so little damage
> to the limo. That speaks volumes to me. That is just my opinion.

Kennedy was shot. The damage to the limo was what it was. That is the
reality of the event, the damage to both Kennedy and the limo is known.
What is there to contest?

> Because LHO set of alarms in the intelligence agencies of three countries
> during the last months of his life (USSR, US and Cuba) whatever he did or
> did not do, I do not think he acted alone, if for no other reason than
> that so many people let him slip through the cracks.

You find it hard to believe that organisations that are essentially
bureaucracies could drop the ball? Have you ever dealt with a bureaucracy?

Right now there are probably red flags or "alarms" on tens of thousands
of people. The vast majority will never do anything. A handful will act
out violently. When that few do act out, you will be able to go back and
say "they should have gotten more attention". That means giving all the
tens of thousand more attention. There isn`t unlimited resources to do
this kind of scrutiny.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > Of course, anyone who has no choice but to resort to fallacy is
> > > > > demonstrating a very weak position. So, we can infer that McAdams has had
> > > > > to create a slanted field on aaj because he knows LHO did not act alone,
> > > > > if at all, in the assassination.
> > > >
> > > > Put a plausible scenario on the table that explains what is in evidence
> > > > but Oswald is innocent. I haven`t seen one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't have to.
> >
> > Nor can you.
>
> He was not found guilty in a court of law. You have your opinion and I
> have mine.

My opinion is supportable.

> >
> > > All I need to do is demonstrate that LHO did not act
> > > alone. He set off alarms in the intelligence agencies of three countries
> > > -- the US, USSR and Cuba. That is all documented. That destroys the
> > > thesis of the WCR.
> >
> > No, these blanks have no impact at all on the WC`s findings.
>
> The WC created a comfortable myth for the citizens at the time. It did
> not use due process.

You are right, the WC did not have the power to raise the dead. Is that
what you see as their failing?

> So you agree with their opinions. I am not
> persuaded.

Only because you are very comfortable with the idea that there is more
to this event than meets the eye. So comfortable that you will never leave
that position.

> >There are
> > just noise produced by hobbyists when they are challenged to produce
> > something tangible. "alarms" mean nothing.
> >
>
> The WCR was a pragmatic document for its time. The HSCA came to a
> different conclusion.

Actually the same, that Oswald shot and killed JFK.

> Neither used due process, so it is all a matter of
> opinion. You are persuaded. I am not.

Reality is not a flavor of ice cream that you get to choose.

> > > >
> > > > > If there is a silver lining, perhaps this is it.
> > > >
> > > > You see things in a way you are comfortable with, reality be damned.
> > >
> > > That's how I see the corner the WC defenders back themselves into. They
> > > just don't realize it because they are not being trained to think for
> > > themselves imo.
> >
> > I didn`t need the WC at all, I would have figured out the guilty party
> > had that body never been formed. It`s a simple crime actually, as long as
> > you don`t cling in desperation to the idea that Oswald was a patsy.
>
> LHO said he thought he was used as a patsy because everyone knew he had
> defected to USSR.

No, that isn`t what he said. Hobbyists have been misrepresenting it
forever. What he said was...

"They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union."

Which was just a lie, he was taken in because he killed a Dallas police
officer.

> Whether he was or not, he did make a good candidate for a fall guy imo.

A duck is a good candidate for being a duck, since it has all the
characteristics of a duck.

[Bud]

It was a baseball reference. It meant that the reason it might appear
that I was hitting them out of the park could be on account of the easy
pitches you were throwing to me.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/20/2015 11:15 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 4:25:41 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 19 Feb 2015 17:18:37 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamel...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 8:01:27 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2015 1:41 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And how does research on Judyth fit into this? What if McAdams had
>>>>> allowed her a really level field? Would she then hoist herself
>>>>
>>>> Please tell us exactly what research McAdams has ever done on Judyth.
>>>
>>> I did not intend to imply that McAdams has himself done research on
>>> Judyth. I meant that if he knew to his own satisfaction that she was
>>> indeed a fraud and a liar and wanted to make sure he allowed her to
>>> demonstrate that to everyone else,
>>
>>
>> But she *had* demonstrated it everybody else, Pamela.
>
> To whom had she demonstrated this? To the choir at aaj? What about the
> rest of the world?
>
> If you did not consider Judyth a threat, why maintain a website using a
> draft of a manuscript acquired under the table? Why use a photo without

Did McAdams ever admit HOW and WHEN he got that leaked draft of her
manuscript? McAdams was quick to name the graduate student who received
death threats from his minions, but not the student who taped the
conversation and made the complaint. We see his double standard at work
here every day.

> her permission after she complained? Why not update it with information
> from sources she has authorized, such as her current books? Why not treat
> her with respect and let her hang herself, as the false Anastasia, Anna
> Anderson, did?
>

Why should he treat anyone fairly. He sees himself as a Warrior in the
Culture Wars. Take no prisoners, show no mercy, kill all.

>>
>> Except you wouldn't accept that.
>
> What I wouldn't accept was that that dogpiling was sufficient.
>
>> ctored and hounded and tried to shut down discussion of
>> Judyth until *you* decided she was a fraud.
>
> False. I had an agreement with Judyth to keep an open mind until her book
> came out. I still do not label Judyth a fraud. I share my experiences at
> my Finding Judyth blog and ask that others think things through for
> themselves.
>
>>
>> You couldn't accept that people had the right to express opinions that
>> *you* didn't like.
>
> Attempting to use a position of influence to turn aaj posters into attack
> dogs does not to me equate to *expressing opinions*, imo. If anything, it
> seems to equate more to intellectual oppression.
>

Minions.

>>
>> Who do you think you are?
>
> An historian testing a process.
>
>>
>>> it would behoove him to treat her with
>>> the utmost respect, because then she would have nothing to complain about
>>> and would effectively hoist herself with her own petard in front of the
>>> research community. McAdams would come off smelling like a rose.
>>>
>>
>> It was obvious from almost the first that she was a fraud.
>
> Simply labeling Judyth a liar and a fraud did not stop her moving forward
> or finding new *believers*. Dogpiling was not an effective strategy imo.
> Something different was needed. A Wolffschanze, so to speak.

Even a liar can stumble on evidence.
The guard at the Watergate may have been a lazy punk, but he noticed the
tape on the door placed the wrong way.

[cmikes]

On that, we completely agree.

[Bud]

As uncomfortable as I am with praise I suppose that it is true that one
thing I picked up doing this for over ten years has been to try to present
my ideas clearly and concisely (I think coming across Joe Zircon`s posts
in the archives had a lot to do with it). I`ve found that if you don`t hit
CTers directly between the eyes with an idea they are likely to miss your
point. Of course there are those like Tony Marsh who will almost always
deliberately miss your point no matter how you phrase it. Thats what makes
Pamela such a good opponent, there is no guile or deceit, she doesn`t hide
her terrible ideas because she doesn`t realize how bad they are.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

No. He initially noticed the tape over a lock on a door and removed it.

But the burglars put it back to prevent the door from re-locking when it
was closed. The guard came back later and discovered the new tape over the
lock and then called the police.

There, I "Marshed" you.

"To Marsh": Correcting small, minor errors while missing the larger point.

[Mark Florio]

So spot on. So true. Mark Florio.

[Anthony Marsh]

It's the fact that they put it on the WRONG way so it was visible.