Returning to the scene of the crime

[David Emerling]

For the moment, let's say there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination. I think it's fair to say that this conspiracy had two goals
that are inextricably linked together: 1) kill President Kennedy and 2)
don't get caught. The second point is every bit as important as the 1st -
perhaps more so!

Obviously, whoever wanted Kennedy dead had some objective met that served
their needs, whether it was the CIA, the mafia, the Cuban exiles, or
whoever. There was some perceived benefit in having Kennedy removed from
office. But how could this benefit manifest itself if the responsible
party were discovered? How could the mafia benefit if they were known to
have been responsible? How could the CIA benefit if they were proved to be
the responsible party? Any perceived benefit would be instantly lost and,
in fact, their situation would worsen dramatically. Not getting caught is
critical! It's not good enough to kill the president if you get caught
red-handed. Would the "military industrial complex" benefit if it were
discovered that they had a hand in the assassination? Would LBJ have
benefited if it were known that he knew about the assassination in
advance?

All this planting and tampering with evidence, a common theme in all
conspiracy theories, is tantamount to "returning to the scene of the
crime." Everybody knows that is a certain recipe for getting caught.

I've always asked, "What difference would it really make if the
investigators knew that some kind of conspiracy was involved as long as
the investigation could never determine the nature of the conspiracy?"
Let's say 3 gunmen were involved, shooting the president from different
angles. Multiple bullets are discovered from various weapons. A certain
conspiracy! So what? As long as the shooters disappear into the shadows
and the architects of the conspiracy keep their hands off the evidence and
don't try to interject themselves by continuing to get involved - what
difference would it make? They would be accomplishing the two primary
goals - 1) kill President Kennedy and 2) don't get caught.

After the assassination is over ... plant bullets? plant a palmprint?
switch rifles? alter film? coerce witnesses? alter wounds? coerce doctors
into a fraudulent autopsy? Enlist the services of a hit squad to silence
witnesses? WHY? Just step back and let the investigators spin their wheels
no matter how obvious it is that there were multiple shooters. The goals
of the assassination would still be achieved.

One common thread in all these conspiracy theories is that, well after the
last shot was fired in Dealey Plaza, there are mechanisms still at work -
in some cases DECADES later.

Ridiculous!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

Excellent points and to take this argument a little further, what would be
the purpose of setting up Oswald as the patsy. Whether one believes Oswald
was complicit or not, trying to set him up to take the fall is pointless
and it is done so at great risk. Why would the conspirators care if
anybody took the blame as long as it wasn't them. If Oswald was part of
the plot, setting him up would establish a link to the conspirators. If he
was an unwitting patsy, what's the point. It is an unnecessary
complication.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

This point, to me, needs to be underlined. Not only are these mechanisms
supposedly still at work a half century later, the actions are being
undertaken by a completely different generation of actors. The original
actors are for the most part dead; certainly none who are still alive are
in power anywhere at their very advanced ages.

So we are to believe that not only did one generation commit this act but
the followup generation (generations?) continued with the coverup?

Qui bono? For whose benefit? The Cold War is over. If the original claim
made by some was that the coverup was done to prevent World War III then
why is the coverup today continuing? There is no Soviet Union, there is no
chance of a nuclear war.

Even more striking to me is that the conspirators (if there were ones) who
hated JFK for being too liberal (in part) put into place a man, LBJ, who
enacted far more liberal policies than JFK imagined. We're celebrating the
50th anniversary of the voting rights act; that was done by LBJ. All of
the civil rights legislation, the social legislation, undertaken by LBJ
was opposed by the rightwing; the same rightwing that it is claimed put
LBJ in power.

And we can add that these conspirators didn't blame Cuba for the murder.
They blamed Oswald and Oswald alone for the act. Why didn't they blame
Cuba? Didn't they want a war with Castro? But they didn't. A handful of
anti-Castro types tried to; but there is no evidence that the CIA did.

It's all illogical. The conspiracy believers grab pieces of a puzzle and
try to jam them into a picture that simply doesn't exist.

[Mark Florio]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:28:06 AM UTC-6, David Emerling wrote:

Wise words, David. Not from Conspiracyland. From Graceland. Mark
Florio.

[GERALD BOSTOCK]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

laughable, absurd, comical, funny, hilarious, risible, droll,
amusing, farcical, silly, ludicrous

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

David,
Let me try and help you out of your quandary. Choosing a 'patsy' to
take all blame was critical. The reason is that if the public believed
that it was a conspiracy, soon the various things done by government and
other plotters would be found out, and those plotters would be in prison
for life. Even if the perpetrators weren't found right away from steps
they took that stood out, with the murder of a popular president, there
would be NO rest for the killers. The public would demand that the search
go on forever. And the plotters would never have a moment's peace.

Setting up a 'patsy' made perfect sense, and later to spend much effort
in covering up any evidence was also of importance. The reason there is
that any evidence that even in a small way suggested that it was NOT a
'lone nut', would lead to large effects and the search for the plotters
would be on.

Chris

[GERALD BOSTOCK]

I agree. A Patsy is totally unnecessary. People are watching too many
Alfred Hitchcock films.

[Lanny]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:00:26 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

>
> It's all illogical. The conspiracy believers grab pieces of a puzzle and
> try to jam them into a picture that simply doesn't exist.

But....but....CTs believe they have established the existence of a
conspiracy by proving the existence of a "puzzle."

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/21/2015 11:28 AM, David Emerling wrote:
> For the moment, let's say there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy
> assassination. I think it's fair to say that this conspiracy had two goals
> that are inextricably linked together: 1) kill President Kennedy and 2)
> don't get caught. The second point is every bit as important as the 1st -
> perhaps more so!
>

You don't get to say what the motive was and as a WC defender you are
not allowed to speculate about it in public. You are required to say
that there was no motive because Oswald was crazy.

[Anthony Marsh]

The new generation continues the cover-up without even knowing what is
being covered up. Just a couple of year ago the CIA finally declassified
files from WWI which had been kept TOP SECRET NODIS even though they had
been published in a children's magazine 1927.

> So we are to believe that not only did one generation commit this act but
> the followup generation (generations?) continued with the coverup?
>
> Qui bono? For whose benefit? The Cold War is over. If the original claim
> made by some was that the coverup was done to prevent World War III then
> why is the coverup today continuing? There is no Soviet Union, there is no
> chance of a nuclear war.
>

Ever hear of the Cuban Embargo?

> Even more striking to me is that the conspirators (if there were ones) who
> hated JFK for being too liberal (in part) put into place a man, LBJ, who
> enacted far more liberal policies than JFK imagined. We're celebrating the
> 50th anniversary of the voting rights act; that was done by LBJ. All of
> the civil rights legislation, the social legislation, undertaken by LBJ
> was opposed by the rightwing; the same rightwing that it is claimed put
> LBJ in power.
>

I guess you slept through the Vietnam War. JFK was pulling out the US
troops. LBJ reversed than sent more in.

> And we can add that these conspirators didn't blame Cuba for the murder.

Yes, they did. Look at the Cuba hoaxes.

> They blamed Oswald and Oswald alone for the act. Why didn't they blame
> Cuba? Didn't they want a war with Castro? But they didn't. A handful of
> anti-Castro types tried to; but there is no evidence that the CIA did.
>

They did, but LBJ didn't have the stomach to push the button.

[Anthony Marsh]

To blame it on Castro and start WWIII.

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:00:26 PM UTC-5, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:

Glad you asked 'who benefits'. The current government benefits. NO
government can stand disbelief in its words for long. It really means
rebellion coming. The government must convince all of the public that
they are being told the truth all the time, whether they are or not.
Each president has backed up the crimes of the previous administrations in
support of that necessity.

> Even more striking to me is that the conspirators (if there were ones) who
> hated JFK for being too liberal (in part) put into place a man, LBJ, who
> enacted far more liberal policies than JFK imagined. We're celebrating the
> 50th anniversary of the voting rights act; that was done by LBJ. All of
> the civil rights legislation, the social legislation, undertaken by LBJ
> was opposed by the rightwing; the same rightwing that it is claimed put
> LBJ in power.
>

I would suspect that the murder had nothing to do with liberal or
conservative values. That never stopped either side from making plenty of
money while in office. But if certain policies of JFK's were to be
initiated, many would lose a lot of money. The old 'military/industrial
complex' of Eisenhower. JFK was going to stop the oncoming war in
Vietnam, and war is ALWAYS profitable to many corporations and certain
investors, who might not want their investments to be lost.

In my opinion (and others it would seem) LBJ was corrupt from the
beginning in Texas. Including killing anyone that got in his way. He
sued Wallace to handle some of those cases. Why would he hesitate to send
forth the murder of the Kennedy that had embarrassed and ignored him so
much? He made it clear to his mistress that he would make them pay, and
he did.

It was critically necessary to have a sucker to blame, and to kill him
off. That would make the case closed, and all the plotters could go on
about their lives as normal, rather than being chased down for the rest of
their lives.

It all makes sense.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 9:54:42 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

The proof of how wrong that is, is because it worked! The suckers went
for it, hook, line, and sinker! Some still argue for conspiracy, but many
think there wasn't any. The plot to blame Oswald worked like a charm.
The obvious reason was to keep the real plotters from being hounded the
rest of their lives as murderers. Oswald wasn't going to take the blame
voluntarily, and the truth would have come out, so he had to go. I'm sure
the plan included him getting killed, but it didn't work out quite the way
it was planned. He figured that he was the 'patsy' early on and ran. So
they had to put a guy up to killing him before he began opening his mouth
with a lawyer.

Chris

[mainframetech]

So easy to stand back and laugh. But the plan worked! And the suckers
bought it!

Chris

[David Emerling]

There is no doubt, as you say, that had it been clear that SOME kind of
conspiracy was involved, the investigation would probably have doggedly
pursued it. Yet, if "the government" was behind the assassination or
cover-up, as is suggested by many conspiracy theories, couldn't they
control the limits of this dogged pursuit of the conspirators by
declaring, at some point, that they have simply run out of leads?

And that's what often happens in crimes. The investigators simply are at a
loss for how else to continue. They have pursued every possible lead and
continuously end up empty-handed. There is no shortage of crimes
languishing in the "cold case" file in every police department throughout
this country. Why would the assassination of a president be immune from
reaching a similar deadend? You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. They
might have bullets, but no weapons to match them with. They might have
fingerprints, but no suspects for comparison purposes. They may know all
the firing locations - but that doesn't do them any good because they have
no photographs or film footage to identify who these shooters might have
been. They would probably have all kinds of eye and ear witness
statements, but those are going to be conflicting, as they always are.
Which should believed? No organization has stepped forward and claimed
credit for the assassination. Sure - Kennedy had enemies, some political
and some personal, but that's not enough to go on. ANY president would
have such enemies. They'll probably all be investigated in some way,
expending countless hours and money, only to end up with nothing. At some
point, they'll just have to shrug their shoulders. Even the HSCA, which
seemed to be making tremendous progress at the very end of its lifespan,
had to finally call it quits. It was too expensive.

That's the nature of a well executed crime - the responsible party cannot
be determined no matter HOW obvious it might be that it was the systematic
and coordinated effort of multiple individuals.

Again, the only necessary objectives would be 1) kill President Kennedy
and 2) don't get caught. Simple! There would be no need for all the
convoluted "moving parts" - a common theme in all conspiracy theories. I
give these mythical conspirators credit for knowing that basic premise.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[GERALD BOSTOCK]

Don't listen to him David. It's a trap.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
=== PERHAPS YOU WOULD CARE TO DEBATE THE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY WITH
ME ? ? ?

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

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

[tom...@cox.net]

stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 10:28:06 AM UTC-6, David Emerling
> wrote:

> > For the moment, let's say there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy=20

> > assassination. I think it's fair to say that this conspiracy had two

> > goal=
> s=20

> > that are inextricably linked together: 1) kill President Kennedy and

> > 2)=
> =20

> > don't get caught. The second point is every bit as important as the 1st

> > -=
> =20
> > perhaps more so!
> >=20

> > Obviously, whoever wanted Kennedy dead had some objective met that

> > served=
> =20
> > their needs, whether it was the CIA, the mafia, the Cuban exiles, or=20

> > whoever. There was some perceived benefit in having Kennedy removed

> > from=
> =20

> > office. But how could this benefit manifest itself if the

> > responsible=20 party were discovered? How could the mafia benefit if
> > they were known to=
> =20

> > have been responsible? How could the CIA benefit if they were proved to

> > b=
> e=20

> > the responsible party? Any perceived benefit would be instantly lost

> > and,=
> =20

> > in fact, their situation would worsen dramatically. Not getting caught

> > is=
> =20

> > critical! It's not good enough to kill the president if you get

> > caught=20 red-handed. Would the "military industrial complex" benefit
> > if it were=20 discovered that they had a hand in the assassination?
> > Would LBJ have=20 benefited if it were known that he knew about the
> > assassination in=20 advance?
> >=20
> > All this planting and tampering with evidence, a common theme in all=20
> > conspiracy theories, is tantamount to "returning to the scene of the=20

> > crime." Everybody knows that is a certain recipe for getting caught.

> >=20
> > I've always asked, "What difference would it really make if the=20

> > investigators knew that some kind of conspiracy was involved as long

> > as=
> =20

> > the investigation could never determine the nature of the

> > conspiracy?"=20 Let's say 3 gunmen were involved, shooting the
> > president from different=
> =20

> > angles. Multiple bullets are discovered from various weapons. A

> > certain=
> =20

> > conspiracy! So what? As long as the shooters disappear into the

> > shadows=
> =20

> > and the architects of the conspiracy keep their hands off the evidence

> > an=
> d=20

> > don't try to interject themselves by continuing to get involved -

> > what=20 difference would it make? They would be accomplishing the two
> > primary=20 goals - 1) kill President Kennedy and 2) don't get caught.
> >=20

> > After the assassination is over ... plant bullets? plant a

> > palmprint?=20 switch rifles? alter film? coerce witnesses? alter
> > wounds? coerce doctors=
> =20

> > into a fraudulent autopsy? Enlist the services of a hit squad to

> > silence=
> =20

> > witnesses? WHY? Just step back and let the investigators spin their

> > wheel=
> s=20

> > no matter how obvious it is that there were multiple shooters. The

> > goals=
> =20

> > of the assassination would still be achieved.

> >=20

> > One common thread in all these conspiracy theories is that, well after

> > th=
> e=20

> > last shot was fired in Dealey Plaza, there are mechanisms still at work

> > -=
> =20

> > in some cases DECADES later.

> >=20
> > Ridiculous!
> >=20

===========================================================================
===== THE OFFICIAL RECORDS PROVE THAT THE AUTHORITIES REPEATEDLY WITHHELD,
ALTERED,DESTROYED EVIDEMCE. LIED SUBOURNED PERJURY AND, INTIMIDATED
WITNESSE> ALL OF WHH ARE FELONIES CALLED "OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE" ! ! !
===========================================================================

[bigdog]

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:39:17 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 1/21/2015 9:54 PM, bigdog wrote:
> >
> > Excellent points and to take this argument a little further, what would be
> > the purpose of setting up Oswald as the patsy. Whether one believes Oswald
>
> To blame it on Castro and start WWIII.
>

Right. "They" wanted to start WWIII. <snicker>

[bigdog]

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 9:02:43 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> The proof of how wrong that is, is because it worked!

You are assuming there was an it.

> The suckers went
> for it, hook, line, and sinker!

Like you and Horne's nonsense.

> Some still argue for conspiracy, but many
> think there wasn't any. The plot to blame Oswald worked like a charm.

Of course it did because Oswald deserved the blame. All of it.

> The obvious reason was to keep the real plotters from being hounded the
> rest of their lives as murderers. Oswald wasn't going to take the blame
> voluntarily, and the truth would have come out, so he had to go. I'm sure
> the plan included him getting killed, but it didn't work out quite the way
> it was planned. He figured that he was the 'patsy' early on and ran. So
> they had to put a guy up to killing him before he began opening his mouth
> with a lawyer.
>

You are sure of a lot of things that aren't true.

[GERALD BOSTOCK]

This is written according to the rules of logic or formal argument. David
Emerling is an excellent writer.

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you really that naive or just pretending? Could Nixon have
controlled the investigation into Watergate?

>
> And that's what often happens in crimes. The investigators simply are at a
> loss for how else to continue. They have pursued every possible lead and
> continuously end up empty-handed. There is no shortage of crimes

Yes, Judge Sirica was preparing to sentence the Watergate Burglars for a
petty crime with just parole when a whistleblower talked. Gordon Liddy
had offered to have himself assassinated so that they wouldn't worry
that he would talk. It was a different CIA agent who spilled the beans
on orders from Richard Helms.

> languishing in the "cold case" file in every police department throughout
> this country. Why would the assassination of a president be immune from
> reaching a similar deadend? You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. They
> might have bullets, but no weapons to match them with. They might have
> fingerprints, but no suspects for comparison purposes. They may know all
> the firing locations - but that doesn't do them any good because they have
> no photographs or film footage to identify who these shooters might have
> been. They would probably have all kinds of eye and ear witness
> statements, but those are going to be conflicting, as they always are.
> Which should believed? No organization has stepped forward and claimed
> credit for the assassination. Sure - Kennedy had enemies, some political
> and some personal, but that's not enough to go on. ANY president would
> have such enemies. They'll probably all be investigated in some way,
> expending countless hours and money, only to end up with nothing. At some
> point, they'll just have to shrug their shoulders. Even the HSCA, which
> seemed to be making tremendous progress at the very end of its lifespan,
> had to finally call it quits. It was too expensive.
>
> That's the nature of a well executed crime - the responsible party cannot
> be determined no matter HOW obvious it might be that it was the systematic
> and coordinated effort of multiple individuals.
>

No conspiracy is perfect. That's why you guys always need cover-ups.

> Again, the only necessary objectives would be 1) kill President Kennedy
> and 2) don't get caught. Simple! There would be no need for all the
> convoluted "moving parts" - a common theme in all conspiracy theories. I
> give these mythical conspirators credit for knowing that basic premise.
>

Then why do assassins make elaborate plots?

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:22:39 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> You don't get to say what the motive was and as a WC defender you are
> not allowed to speculate about it in public. You are required to say
> that there was no motive because Oswald was crazy.

I didn't say what the specific motive for removing Kennedy from office
would be - only that there would be one. You think that's an unfair piece
of speculation in a situation that I've already defined as hypothetical?
Are you seriously saying that the architects of this conspiracy didn't
think they had anything to gain from Kennedy's removal? They just decided
to take a little target practice in Dealey Plaza?

I know you're not saying that - you're just venting your frustration
because you don't having anything substantive to say on this subject. And
the REASON you do not is because, deep down, you realize that just about
EVERY conspiracy theory is void of basic logic.

That was my point - and that's what bothers you.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe it had to do with billions or not. JFK was pulling out of the war.
Johnson escalated it. Billions of dollars that should have gone to poor
people when to a handful of the very rich.

[mainframetech]

Rad into the ARRB and there will be less puzzles and more truth.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 11:39:42 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

Another basic premise is that the murder of as president would generate
an ongoing search for the conspirators if a conspiracy were allowed to be
accepted by the authorities. They would be forced by public demand to
keep chasing shadows whether there were leads or none at all. Look at the
many panels that were opened to look over the old clues and data of the
crime, even though it had been declared a 'lone nut' crime.

Without a 'patsy' to take the blame, and get killed (that had to be
part of the plan), the authorities would be forced to chase down the
conspirators the rest of their lives. To avoid that, and give themselves
a happy future, the conspirators HAD to have a 'patsy'. It's obvious.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 8:51:22 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 9:02:43 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > The proof of how wrong that is, is because it worked!
>
> You are assuming there was an it.
>

Ah, I see you deleted part of the conversation that explained your
comment.

> > The suckers went
> > for it, hook, line, and sinker!
>
> Like you and Horne's nonsense.
>

Wrong again! So easy to say "nonsense" when you know so little about
what really happened in the case. And it's useful when you need to escape
from a part of the topic that can only make you look bad. You are aware
that what Horne said, and what I'm also saying was from the official
records, so you have to try to discredit it by saying "nonsense" without
letting on that it's from the record. You should know it's too easy for
you to get caught doing that, and here's a case of it right now.

All that Horne and I have said comes from the official record, and you
can't change it or discredit it.

> > Some still argue for conspiracy, but many
> > think there wasn't any. The plot to blame Oswald worked like a charm.
>
> Of course it did because Oswald deserved the blame. All of it.
>

Naah. But then you can't face the truth, since you're now locked into
the WCR.

> > The obvious reason was to keep the real plotters from being hounded the
> > rest of their lives as murderers. Oswald wasn't going to take the blame
> > voluntarily, and the truth would have come out, so he had to go. I'm sure
> > the plan included him getting killed, but it didn't work out quite the way
> > it was planned. He figured that he was the 'patsy' early on and ran. So
> > they had to put a guy up to killing him before he began opening his mouth
> > with a lawyer.
> >
>
> You are sure of a lot of things that aren't true.

Ah, you KNOW certain things aren't true in what I said? Tell us which
ones...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 11:39:42 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

Sorry, that's wrong. The "government" as not a guilty party in the
murder, only certain government people. They couldn't control the public
well enough to limit any investigation that the public demanded. It was
hard enough to feed them baloney as it was, with a killer in jail, and
later dead, they had many panels put together in the effort to shut them
up, and the story still goes on, as we all here know.

If there wasn't a 'patsy' then the demands would for chasing down the
guilty to the ends of the Earth would be loud and furious. A 'patsy'
immediately took many complainers out of the streets, and left only the
more diehard conspirator believers. Each panel they put together might
drop off a few more.

But in the end, they realized they were as much feeding the problem as
solving it. So they left it alone with the comment that they had done all
they could and there were just some people that were too crazy to believe
the facts presented. Of course, at the time, there were more than 51% of
the public that believed in conspiracy!

Chris

[Rashid ad-Din Sinan]

Kennedy's plan to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of
1963 is not pulling out of the Vietnam War. Thanks for playing Marsh.
Pay attention. You know nothing about Vietnam.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I think by "Rad into," you meant "Read into," which is *exactly* what
you do.

Thing is, you can read anything you want to *into* it, if you are
incapable of *reading* it accurately.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
=====Corbett is "really" behind the times he's never heard of veitnam ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====

[tom...@cox.net]

David Emerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 10:56:12 AM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-5, David Emerling

> > wrote=
> :
> > > For the moment, let's say there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy=20

> > > assassination. I think it's fair to say that this conspiracy had two

> > > go=
> als=20

> > > that are inextricably linked together: 1) kill President Kennedy and

> > > 2)=
> =20

> > > don't get caught. The second point is every bit as important as the

> > > 1st=
> -=20
> > > perhaps more so!
> > >=20

> > > Obviously, whoever wanted Kennedy dead had some objective met that

> > > serv=
> ed=20

> > > their needs, whether it was the CIA, the mafia, the Cuban exiles,

> > > or=20 whoever. There was some perceived benefit in having Kennedy
> > > removed fro=
> m=20

> > > office. But how could this benefit manifest itself if the

> > > responsible=
> =20

> > > party were discovered? How could the mafia benefit if they were known

> > > t=
> o=20

> > > have been responsible? How could the CIA benefit if they were proved

> > > to=
> be=20

> > > the responsible party? Any perceived benefit would be instantly lost

> > > an=
> d,=20

> > > in fact, their situation would worsen dramatically. Not getting

> > > caught =
> is=20

> > > critical! It's not good enough to kill the president if you get

> > > caught=
> =20

> > > red-handed. Would the "military industrial complex" benefit if it

> > > were=
> =20

> > > discovered that they had a hand in the assassination? Would LBJ

> > > have=20 benefited if it were known that he knew about the
> > > assassination in=20 advance?
> > >=20

> > > All this planting and tampering with evidence, a common theme in

> > > all=20 conspiracy theories, is tantamount to "returning to the scene
> > > of the=20 crime." Everybody knows that is a certain recipe for
> > >getting caught. =20
> > > I've always asked, "What difference would it really make if the=20

> > > investigators knew that some kind of conspiracy was involved as long

> > > as=
> =20

> > > the investigation could never determine the nature of the

> > > conspiracy?"=
> =20

> > > Let's say 3 gunmen were involved, shooting the president from

> > > different=
> =20

> > > angles. Multiple bullets are discovered from various weapons. A

> > > certain=
> =20

> > > conspiracy! So what? As long as the shooters disappear into the

> > > shadows=
> =20

> > > and the architects of the conspiracy keep their hands off the

> > > evidence =
> and=20

> > > don't try to interject themselves by continuing to get involved -

> > > what=
> =20

> > > difference would it make? They would be accomplishing the two

> > > primary=
> =20

> > > goals - 1) kill President Kennedy and 2) don't get caught.

> > >=20

> > > After the assassination is over ... plant bullets? plant a

> > > palmprint?=
> =20

> > > switch rifles? alter film? coerce witnesses? alter wounds? coerce

> > > docto=
> rs=20

> > > into a fraudulent autopsy? Enlist the services of a hit squad to

> > > silenc=
> e=20

> > > witnesses? WHY? Just step back and let the investigators spin their

> > > whe=
> els=20

> > > no matter how obvious it is that there were multiple shooters. The

> > > goal=
> s=20

> > > of the assassination would still be achieved.

> > >=20

> > > One common thread in all these conspiracy theories is that, well

> > > after =
> the=20

> > > last shot was fired in Dealey Plaza, there are mechanisms still at

> > > work=
> -=20

> > > in some cases DECADES later.

> > >=20
> > > Ridiculous!
> > >=20
> > > David Emerling
> > > Memphis, TN

> >=20
> >=20

> > David,
> > Let me try and help you out of your quandary. Choosing a 'patsy'

> > to=20 take all blame was critical. The reason is that if the public
> > believed=
> =20

> > that it was a conspiracy, soon the various things done by government

> > and=
> =20

> > other plotters would be found out, and those plotters would be in

> > prison=
> =20

> > for life. Even if the perpetrators weren't found right away from

> > steps=
> =20

> > they took that stood out, with the murder of a popular president,

> > there=
> =20

> > would be NO rest for the killers. The public would demand that the

> > searc=
> h=20

> > go on forever. And the plotters would never have a moment's peace.

> >=20

> > Setting up a 'patsy' made perfect sense, and later to spend much

> > effor=
> t=20

> > in covering up any evidence was also of importance. The reason there

> > is=
> =20

> > that any evidence that even in a small way suggested that it was NOT

> > a=20 'lone nut', would lead to large effects and the search for the
> > plotters=
> =20
> > would be on.
> >=20

===========================================================================
===== they never investigated vrichard Nixon ho in dallas that week end
they never investigated the anti castro Cubans who hated kennedy

they never investigated the cia wao was always everywhere
according to warren commission lawyer's howard willens' book "history will
prove us right pg73/74 the commission started with the belief that Oswald
alone was guilty ! ! ! then, proceeded to withhold, altwr, destroy
evidence, subourn perjury and intidate witnesses. ll of which are felonies
called obstruction of justice" ! ! ! welcome to the new America ! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
==== very simple; only one of those suspects had the power to cover it up
! ! !
===========================================================================
=======

[tom...@cox.net]

there isn't a warren supporter on these forums who are smart enough to
debate official evidence/testimony with me ! ! !
===========================================================================

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
========does he know enough about the official evidence/testimony to debate
the issue with me ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====

[tom...@cox.net]

David Emerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 7:22:39 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > You don't get to say what the motive was and as a WC defender you

> > are=20 not allowed to speculate about it in public. You are required to
> > say=20 that there was no motive because Oswald was crazy.

>
> I didn't say what the specific motive for removing Kennedy from office
> would be - only that there would be one. You think that's an unfair piece
> of speculation in a situation that I've already defined as hypothetical?
> Are you seriously saying that the architects of this conspiracy didn't
> think they had anything to gain from Kennedy's removal? They just decided
> to take a little target practice in Dealey Plaza?
>
> I know you're not saying that - you're just venting your frustration
> because you don't having anything substantive to say on this subject. And
> the REASON you do not is because, deep down, you realize that just about
> EVERY conspiracy theory is void of basic logic.
>
> That was my point - and that's what bothers you.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

===========================================================================
===== there isn't a single warren supporter who knows the official
evidence/testimony so, they limit themselves to the charges and commission
illegal "conclusions" of Oswald's sole guilt ! ! !

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, "They." The Cuban Exiles and their CIA supporters.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 5:34:23 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> Wrong again! So easy to say "nonsense" when you know so little about
> what really happened in the case.

It's not even original nonsense. It was nonsense when Lifton first
proposed it and didn't get any better with age when Horne tried to polish
that turd decades later.

And it's useful when you need to escape
> from a part of the topic that can only make you look bad. You are aware
> that what Horne said, and what I'm also saying was from the official
> records, so you have to try to discredit it by saying "nonsense" without
> letting on that it's from the record. You should know it's too easy for
> you to get caught doing that, and here's a case of it right now.
>
> All that Horne and I have said comes from the official record, and you
> can't change it or discredit it.
>

You have done what conspiracy hobbyists have been doing for decades. You
take official records and apply the most nonsensical reasoning to them and
come up with some of the kookiest ideas imagineable. Fortunately, most of
you are pretty harmless.

[tom...@cox.net]

mainframetech <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 11:39:42 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 10:56:12 AM UTC-6, mainframetech
> > wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:28:06 AM UTC-5, David Emerling

> > > wro=
> te:
> > > > For the moment, let's say there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy=20

> > > > assassination. I think it's fair to say that this conspiracy had

> > > > two =
> goals=20

> > > > that are inextricably linked together: 1) kill President Kennedy

> > > > and =
> 2)=20

> > > > don't get caught. The second point is every bit as important as the

> > > > 1=
> st -=20
> > > > perhaps more so!
> > > >=20

> > > > Obviously, whoever wanted Kennedy dead had some objective met that

> > > > se=
> rved=20

> > > > their needs, whether it was the CIA, the mafia, the Cuban exiles,

> > > > or=
> =20

> > > > whoever. There was some perceived benefit in having Kennedy removed

> > > > f=
> rom=20

> > > > office. But how could this benefit manifest itself if the

> > > > responsible=
> =20

> > > > party were discovered? How could the mafia benefit if they were

> > > > known=
> to=20

> > > > have been responsible? How could the CIA benefit if they were

> > > > proved =
> to be=20

> > > > the responsible party? Any perceived benefit would be instantly

> > > > lost =
> and,=20

> > > > in fact, their situation would worsen dramatically. Not getting

> > > > caugh=
> t is=20

> > > > critical! It's not good enough to kill the president if you get

> > > > caugh=
> t=20

> > > > red-handed. Would the "military industrial complex" benefit if it

> > > > wer=
> e=20

> > > > discovered that they had a hand in the assassination? Would LBJ

> > > > have=
> =20

> > > > benefited if it were known that he knew about the assassination

> > > > in=20 advance?
> > > >=20

> > > > All this planting and tampering with evidence, a common theme in

> > > > all=
> =20

> > > > conspiracy theories, is tantamount to "returning to the scene of

> > > > the=
> =20

> > > > crime." Everybody knows that is a certain recipe for getting

> > > >caught. =20
> > > > I've always asked, "What difference would it really make if the=20

> > > > investigators knew that some kind of conspiracy was involved as

> > > > long =
> as=20

> > > > the investigation could never determine the nature of the

> > > > conspiracy?=
> "=20

> > > > Let's say 3 gunmen were involved, shooting the president from

> > > > differe=
> nt=20

> > > > angles. Multiple bullets are discovered from various weapons. A

> > > > certa=
> in=20

> > > > conspiracy! So what? As long as the shooters disappear into the

> > > > shado=
> ws=20

> > > > and the architects of the conspiracy keep their hands off the

> > > > evidenc=
> e and=20

> > > > don't try to interject themselves by continuing to get involved -

> > > > wha=
> t=20

> > > > difference would it make? They would be accomplishing the two

> > > > primary=
> =20

> > > > goals - 1) kill President Kennedy and 2) don't get caught.

> > > >=20

> > > > After the assassination is over ... plant bullets? plant a

> > > > palmprint?=
> =20

> > > > switch rifles? alter film? coerce witnesses? alter wounds? coerce

> > > > doc=
> tors=20

> > > > into a fraudulent autopsy? Enlist the services of a hit squad to

> > > > sile=
> nce=20

> > > > witnesses? WHY? Just step back and let the investigators spin their

> > > > w=
> heels=20

> > > > no matter how obvious it is that there were multiple shooters. The

> > > > go=
> als=20

> > > > of the assassination would still be achieved.

> > > >=20

> > > > One common thread in all these conspiracy theories is that, well

> > > > afte=
> r the=20

> > > > last shot was fired in Dealey Plaza, there are mechanisms still at

> > > > wo=
> rk -=20

> > > > in some cases DECADES later.

> > > >=20
> > > > Ridiculous!
> > > >=20
> > > > David Emerling
> > > > Memphis, TN
> > >=20
> > >=20

> > > David,
> > > Let me try and help you out of your quandary. Choosing a 'patsy'

> > > to=
> =20

> > > take all blame was critical. The reason is that if the public

> > > believed=
> =20

> > > that it was a conspiracy, soon the various things done by government

> > > an=
> d=20

> > > other plotters would be found out, and those plotters would be in

> > > priso=
> n=20

> > > for life. Even if the perpetrators weren't found right away from

> > > steps=
> =20

> > > they took that stood out, with the murder of a popular president,

> > > there=
> =20

> > > would be NO rest for the killers. The public would demand that the

> > > sea=
> rch=20

> > > go on forever. And the plotters would never have a moment's peace.

> > >=20

> > > Setting up a 'patsy' made perfect sense, and later to spend much

> > > eff=
> ort=20

> > > in covering up any evidence was also of importance. The reason there

> > > i=
> s=20

> > > that any evidence that even in a small way suggested that it was NOT

> > > a=
> =20

> > > 'lone nut', would lead to large effects and the search for the

> > > plotters=
> =20
> > > would be on.
> > >=20
> > > Chris

> >=20

> > There is no doubt, as you say, that had it been clear that SOME kind

> > of=
> =20

> > conspiracy was involved, the investigation would probably have

> > doggedly=
> =20
> > pursued it. Yet, if "the government" was behind the assassination or=20
> > cover-up, as is suggested by many conspiracy theories, couldn't they=20
> > control the limits of this dogged pursuit of the conspirators by=20

> > declaring, at some point, that they have simply run out of leads?

> >=20

>
> Sorry, that's wrong. The "government" as not a guilty party in the
> murder, only certain government people. They couldn't control the public
> well enough to limit any investigation that the public demanded. It was
> hard enough to feed them baloney as it was, with a killer in jail, and
> later dead, they had many panels put together in the effort to shut them
> up, and the story still goes on, as we all here know.
>
> If there wasn't a 'patsy' then the demands would for chasing down the
> guilty to the ends of the Earth would be loud and furious. A 'patsy'
> immediately took many complainers out of the streets, and left only the
> more diehard conspirator believers. Each panel they put together might
> drop off a few more.
>
> But in the end, they realized they were as much feeding the problem as
> solving it. So they left it alone with the comment that they had done
> all they could and there were just some people that were too crazy to
> believe the facts presented. Of course, at the time, there were more
> than 51% of the public that believed in conspiracy!
>
> Chris

===========================================================================
==== IF OSWALD WAS DETERMINED TO BE THENLY EMPLOYEE MISSING, WHY WASN'T HIS
NAME INCLUDED IN THE APB ? ? ? ? I HAVE NEVER READ A SINGE TSBD EMPLOYEE
STATE THAT THERE WAS A ROLL CALL ! ! 1

[cmikes]

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 10:59:56 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> there isn't a warren supporter on these forums who are smart enough to
> debate official evidence/testimony with me ! ! !
>

I think it's more that no one can read your posting "style" without
getting a headache. I'm not a grammar National Socialist or anything, but
damn, try to at least put a little effort into making your posts
understandable.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
==== while allof you folks are very ignorant when it comes to the official
evidence/testimony because they show that t commission lied ! ! !
===========================================================================
=====

[Anthony Marsh]

Why was there an APB on Givens? Truly did not make an official roll
call. He just noticed that Oswald was missing.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
=davidavid emerling's writings tell me that he knowd absolutely nothing
abut the official evidence/testimony in the 26 volumes ! ! !

[DR X]

Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater. How did he get there
teleportation? Oswald left the 6th floor. Oswald left the TSBD. Oswald
left the bus. Oswald left the taxi. Oswald left his rooming house. Oswald
left his grey jacket in a parking lot.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 1/25/2015 7:28 PM, cmikes wrote:
> On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 10:59:56 PM UTC-5, tom...@cox.net wrote:
>> there isn't a warren supporter on these forums who are smart enough to
>> debate official evidence/testimony with me ! ! !
>>
>
> I think it's more that no one can read your posting "style" without
> getting a headache. I'm not a grammar National Socialist or anything, but
> damn, try to at least put a little effort into making your posts
> understandable.
>

His goal is not to be understandable. Just to challenge authority.

[David Emerling]

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 9:18:49 AM UTC-6, tom...@cox.net wrote:
===========================================================================
> === PERHAPS YOU WOULD CARE TO DEBATE THE OFFICIAL EVIDENCE/TESTIMONY WITH
> ME ? ? ?

You're always looking for somebody to debate you - aren't you?

When you say OFFICIAL evidence and testimony - are you referring to the
Warren Commission's evidence and testimony? You consider that official
but, I'll bet, you will NOT consider it evidence because you will
undoubtedly make the argument that it is all either planted, altered or
fraudulent.

I've told you before, I do not debate people who will not, at a minimum,
stipulate that Oswald was the 6th floor gunman. The evidence is
overwhelming that Oswald was firing his rifle at the president from the
6th floor sniper's nest. Invariably, debating those who deny this is like
trying to teach a fish how to jump rope. It's a waste of time. I don't
feel like spending hours addressing your laundry list of debunked
factoids. I've heard some your debates. All you are is a JFK assassination
collector.

If you are willing to make that stipulation - that Oswald was the 6th
floor sniper - I *will* debate you!

Go ahead and make any conspiracy argument you want and I will address it.
Maybe there were gunmen in addition to Oswald. Maybe Oswald was acting at
the behest of the CIA, mafia, right-wing extremists, Pro-Castro Cubans, or
WHOEVER. But, I don't waste my time with Anybody-But-Oswald types.

I agree with Vincent Bugliosi's characterization: "I can tell the readers
of this book that if anyone in the future maintains to them that Oswald
was just a patsy and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware
of the evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person. Indeed, any
denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion."

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[tom...@cox.net]

David Emerling <davide...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 9:18:49 AM UTC-6, tom...@cox.net wrote:

> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> 3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> 3D=
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
> > 3D =3D=3D=3D PERHAPS YOU WOULD CARE TO DEBATE THE OFFICIAL
> > EVIDENCE/TESTIMON=

===========================================================================
== THE CIA GAVE THEIR PEOPLE MINOX CAMERAS OSWALD HAD ONE.
THE CIA SENT OSWALD HIS COMMIE NEWSPAPERS WHICH WERE PRINTED IN NEW YORK
CITY THE CIA HAD 2 MILLION ROUNDS OF 6.5 AMMO MANUFACTURED IN 1954.
THE CIA GAVE OSWALD A MILITARY FLIGHT FROM ENGLAND TO HELSINKI ! ! !

[mainframetech]

Anyone with an attitude that THEY know who was behind the rifle at the
6th floor would not be someone I'd bother with. Only to show them the
errors they will make as time goes on.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 4, 2015 at 9:17:20 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> ===========================================================================
> == THE CIA GAVE THEIR PEOPLE MINOX CAMERAS OSWALD HAD ONE.
> THE CIA SENT OSWALD HIS COMMIE NEWSPAPERS WHICH WERE PRINTED IN NEW YORK
> CITY THE CIA HAD 2 MILLION ROUNDS OF 6.5 AMMO MANUFACTURED IN 1954.
> THE CIA GAVE OSWALD A MILITARY FLIGHT FROM ENGLAND TO HELSINKI ! ! !

How did the CIA give Oswald a military flight from England to Helsinki
when Finland was not a part of NATO?

[BOZ]

FINLAND WAS NOT A NATO COUNTRY. OSWALD DID NOT TAKE A MILITARY FLIGHT
FROM ENGLAND TO HELSINKI.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ordinary people could also buy Minox cameras. The Minox camera was not
Oswald's, it was Michael Paine's.



BTW, the CIA had 4 million rounds of 6.5 amm manufactured in 1954, not
just 2 million as you said. Using all CAPs makes you look hysterical.

[claviger]

Show us how the fake Oswald ninja got up to the 6th floor, fired shots at
the motorcade, and back down again without being seen. Did they take the
fire escape ladder or rappel down the outside of the building? Employees
on the ground floor were in position to watch the stairs and elevators
during and after the shooting. None of them mention a stranger coming
down the stairs or getting off the elevator. That means the sniper must
have been an employee of a company in the building. OK, so who was this
employee, male or female? How did they have access to the rifle belonging
to LHO found on the 6th floor? How did that rifle get moved into the
building without being seen?

CTs claim LHO was basically an ignoramus and a klutz who could not walk
and chew gum at the same time. So incompetent TGC had to fix his scores
in the Marine Corps because he could not hit the side of a barn with a
shotgun. Despite his interest in politics since the age of 15 and life
changing decision for a defection to the antithesis of Western Democracy,
he decided to ignore the parade where the charismatic young President and
beautiful First Lady were riding in a limousine convertible passing by the
seven story building where he worked.

No curiosity at all in watching the Leader of the Free World and defender
of the Monroe Doctrine pass under the open window where he had been
filling book orders that morning. All he had to do is glance down as they
passed by and get back to work. The motorcade would take maybe 60 seconds
to drive by and he could go home and brag to Marina he saw the popular
President in person. Nope, LHO could not spare 1 minute of his busy day
to see this well publicized parade. What a dedicated work ethic this
loyal employee had Until a few minutes later when he inexplicably
abandoned his job without permission and grabbed a cab to his rooming
house. Actually he did not take the cab all the way to the front of the
house. Instead got out down the street and walked the rest of the way.
Why did he do that?

He went inside without responding to his landlady who spoke to him, then
took his pistol on a walk to go see a movie. He did not bother to call
his supervisor at work to let him know he was safe and sound, and would
report to work on Monday.

Strange behavior indeed for an innocent employee of the TSBD. All other
employees attended the meeting with Roy Truly except Givens who was locked
out. He waited nearby to report back and was asked to give a statement to
the police which he did before going home. No other TSBD employee acted
like a murderer on the run except LHO.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
=== APPARENTLY YOU ARE NOT AWARE OF THE U. S. MILITARY POWERS ! ! !
===========================================================================
====

[mainframetech]

Let's dispose of the last question first. The rifle was taken into the
building by Oswald in a paper covering he made himself. Your concern is
how did all these folks stationed along the route from the 1st floor to
the 6th floor not see a stranger going up and then down. It's just as
easy to ask why didn't they see Oswald going up or down. Oswald (if he
had been the shooter on the 6th floor) had to come down by the stairs to
the 2nd floor lunchroom where Truly and Baker first saw him.

First, the person that convinced Oswald to take his unused MC rifle and
bring it in to work was probably an employee of the TSBD. As such, they
could go to the 6th floor where the rifle had been hidden by Oswald, and
fire it out the window 3 times, then put the rifle between some book boxes
and walk away. Why was the rifle there? Maybe it was brought in to sell,
or to trade, or just to show an odd Italian carbine. We may never know,
but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to bring it in, and to do so in
a paper wrap and hide it, so that it wouldn't cause any irritation on the
part of management.

Next, there was NO sniper. There was a shooter. If there has been a
'sniper' the whole scenario would have been different, since the sniper
would have hit the target first shot, and there would have been no need
for multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza as insurance that the job would get
done. We also would not have the evidence we have that JFK was killed by
a bullet from in front of the limo.

> CTs claim LHO was basically an ignoramus and a klutz who could not walk
> and chew gum at the same time. So incompetent TGC had to fix his scores
> in the Marine Corps because he could not hit the side of a barn with a
> shotgun. Despite his interest in politics since the age of 15 and life
> changing decision for a defection to the antithesis of Western Democracy,
> he decided to ignore the parade where the charismatic young President and
> beautiful First Lady were riding in a limousine convertible passing by the
> seven story building where he worked.
>

As a proud CT, I do NOT claim that Oswald was a dummy, he was a smart
fellow, so you're wrong once again. His intelligence is shown by his
figuring out that he was a 'patsy' and leaving the TSBD as soon as
possible. I believe that it was not expected that he would do that, and
that they were going to see to it that he got shot in the TSBD and killed
there. I think there was some consternation when he disappeared from the
TSBD. I think that consternation showed itself in the hurrying around and
other things that Tippit was doing in search of Oswald.

> No curiosity at all in watching the Leader of the Free World and defender
> of the Monroe Doctrine pass under the open window where he had been
> filling book orders that morning. All he had to do is glance down as they
> passed by and get back to work. The motorcade would take maybe 60 seconds
> to drive by and he could go home and brag to Marina he saw the popular
> President in person. Nope, LHO could not spare 1 minute of his busy day
> to see this well publicized parade. What a dedicated work ethic this
> loyal employee had Until a few minutes later when he inexplicably
> abandoned his job without permission and grabbed a cab to his rooming
> house. Actually he did not take the cab all the way to the front of the
> house. Instead got out down the street and walked the rest of the way.
> Why did he do that?
>

That's a lot of talk to no purpose. We don't know why Oswald didn't
think JFK's motorcade was important. He may have been putting on a show
of unconcern for others, for all we know. And it was not inexplicable
that he left the TSBD. After being accosted by a cop with a gun in his
belly, and hearing what others had to say about the shooting of the
president, he figured out that the search of the building was going to
find the rifle he had hidden for later sale (or whatever), and he was
going to get the blame and be tied up in legal crap for days. He wisely
got out of there.

> He went inside without responding to his landlady who spoke to him, then
> took his pistol on a walk to go see a movie. He did not bother to call
> his supervisor at work to let him know he was safe and sound, and would
> report to work on Monday.
>

He was stressed knowing that he'd been set up and wasn't thinking of
the standard amenities. He had on his mind what he wanted to do to fix
the situation he felt he was in. Nor wanting to take any credit for such
a crime, he was looking for a way to fix the situation and keep everything
cool.

> Strange behavior indeed for an innocent employee of the TSBD. All other
> employees attended the meeting with Roy Truly except Givens who was locked
> out. He waited nearby to report back and was asked to give a statement to
> the police which he did before going home. No other TSBD employee acted
> like a murderer on the run except LHO.

Wise behavior for a employee of the TSBD that had just been set up for
attempting to kill the president. Get out of the area and look for what
was going to get him out of the trouble he saw that he was in.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Very easy. Pretend to be a reporter or a SS agent. He might have been
waiting all night. That was the first DPD theory.

> fire escape ladder or rappel down the outside of the building? Employees
> on the ground floor were in position to watch the stairs and elevators
> during and after the shooting. None of them mention a stranger coming

No, that is not true. You know they were outside watching the motorcade.
Why do you make up crap like this?

> down the stairs or getting off the elevator. That means the sniper must
> have been an employee of a company in the building. OK, so who was this
> employee, male or female? How did they have access to the rifle belonging
> to LHO found on the 6th floor? How did that rifle get moved into the
> building without being seen?
>

Anyone could have stolen it from the Paines garage. The sort of thing
the CIA does every day.

> CTs claim LHO was basically an ignoramus and a klutz who could not walk
> and chew gum at the same time. So incompetent TGC had to fix his scores

No, no one does. Your only trick here is always straw man arguments.

> in the Marine Corps because he could not hit the side of a barn with a
> shotgun. Despite his interest in politics since the age of 15 and life

What were his scores with the shotgun? Show me the targets. Did Lattimer
buy those?

> changing decision for a defection to the antithesis of Western Democracy,
> he decided to ignore the parade where the charismatic young President and
> beautiful First Lady were riding in a limousine convertible passing by the
> seven story building where he worked.
>

He wasn't the only one. So everyone else who didn't go outside to watch
the motorade was also an assassin?

> No curiosity at all in watching the Leader of the Free World and defender
> of the Monroe Doctrine pass under the open window where he had been
> filling book orders that morning. All he had to do is glance down as they

He wasn't filling orders on that floor at that time. He was relaxing in
the Domino Room. And shame on you for admitting that he had been filling
book orders that morning. A real dedicated WC defender would never admit
that he filled ANY book orders. Didn't you get the memo?

> passed by and get back to work. The motorcade would take maybe 60 seconds
> to drive by and he could go home and brag to Marina he saw the popular
> President in person. Nope, LHO could not spare 1 minute of his busy day
> to see this well publicized parade. What a dedicated work ethic this

So anyone who continued to work instead of watching the motorcade MUST
be an assassin?

> loyal employee had Until a few minutes later when he inexplicably
> abandoned his job without permission and grabbed a cab to his rooming
> house. Actually he did not take the cab all the way to the front of the
> house. Instead got out down the street and walked the rest of the way.
> Why did he do that?
>

You don't say the same things about other people who left.

> He went inside without responding to his landlady who spoke to him, then
> took his pistol on a walk to go see a movie. He did not bother to call

He wad not headed to the theater. He only ducked into the theater to
avoid the shoe clerk who was following him. It's called breaking a trail.

> his supervisor at work to let him know he was safe and sound, and would
> report to work on Monday.

Do you do that every day, Hypocrite?

>
> Strange behavior indeed for an innocent employee of the TSBD. All other
> employees attended the meeting with Roy Truly except Givens who was locked
> out. He waited nearby to report back and was asked to give a statement to
> the police which he did before going home. No other TSBD employee acted
> like a murderer on the run except LHO.
>

Givens. Hypocrite.

>
>

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 8:31:41 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Monday, April 6, 2015 at 9:55:45 PM UTC-4, claviger wrote:
> >
> > Show us how the fake Oswald ninja got up to the 6th floor, fired shots at
> > the motorcade, and back down again without being seen. Did they take the
> > fire escape ladder or rappel down the outside of the building? Employees
> > on the ground floor were in position to watch the stairs and elevators
> > during and after the shooting. None of them mention a stranger coming
> > down the stairs or getting off the elevator. That means the sniper must
> > have been an employee of a company in the building. OK, so who was this
> > employee, male or female? How did they have access to the rifle belonging
> > to LHO found on the 6th floor? How did that rifle get moved into the
> > building without being seen?
> >
>
>
> Let's dispose of the last question first. The rifle was taken into the
> building by Oswald in a paper covering he made himself. Your concern is
> how did all these folks stationed along the route from the 1st floor to
> the 6th floor not see a stranger going up and then down. It's just as
> easy to ask why didn't they see Oswald going up or down. Oswald (if he
> had been the shooter on the 6th floor) had to come down by the stairs to
> the 2nd floor lunchroom where Truly and Baker first saw him.
>
> First, the person that convinced Oswald to take his unused MC rifle and
> bring it in to work was probably an employee of the TSBD.

Well you got that one right. That's one in a row. I'm proud of you.

> As such, they
> could go to the 6th floor where the rifle had been hidden by Oswald, and
> fire it out the window 3 times, then put the rifle between some book boxes
> and walk away.

Oh-oh. We're back to "they". I guess the streak stops at one.

> Why was the rifle there? Maybe it was brought in to sell,
> or to trade, or just to show an odd Italian carbine. We may never know,
> but there are plenty of legitimate reasons to bring it in, and to do so in
> a paper wrap and hide it, so that it wouldn't cause any irritation on the
> part of management.

Why would that irritate managment? Earlier that week somebody else had
brought their rifles to show Roy Truly. There was one reason Oswald
brought the rifle to work. To use it to blow JFK's brains out.

>
> Next, there was NO sniper. There was a shooter.

That distinction is lost on JFK.

> If there has been a
> 'sniper' the whole scenario would have been different, since the sniper
> would have hit the target first shot, and there would have been no need
> for multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza as insurance that the job would get
> done.

That is probably true. So why didn't "they" hire a sniper? Oswald wasn't a
trained sniper nor did he have a top notch rifle. What he had was a
twisted desire to kill the POTUS for reasons we can only guess. He had to
make do with the equipment and the skills he possessed. Those turned out
to be adequate. It took him three shots, but he managed to get the job

done.

> We also would not have the evidence we have that JFK was killed by
> a bullet from in front of the limo.
>

No such evidence exists except in the minds of conspiracy hobbyists.

[Anthony Marsh]

Wise behavior for a black convicted felon drug user who was holding an
ounce of weed on him and needed to stash it away somewhere safe.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

Naah! Your opinion doesn't carry any weight here. And the proof you've
pointed to in the past was not anywhere near to being worth a plugged
nickel.

> >
> > Next, there was NO sniper. There was a shooter.
>
> That distinction is lost on JFK.
>
> > If there has been a
> > 'sniper' the whole scenario would have been different, since the sniper
> > would have hit the target first shot, and there would have been no need
> > for multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza as insurance that the job would get
> > done.
>
> That is probably true. So why didn't "they" hire a sniper? Oswald wasn't a
> trained sniper nor did he have a top notch rifle. What he had was a
> twisted desire to kill the POTUS for reasons we can only guess. He had to
> make do with the equipment and the skills he possessed. Those turned out
> to be adequate. It took him three shots, but he managed to get the job
> done.
>

Please remember that you thought a second shooter was "probably true".
And nope you see some "twisted desire"! More of your fantasies! Can't
leave you alone for a minute! Schooling follows: Not a single bullet
from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone. And you're feeble attempts to prove
otherwise have failed more than once.

> > We also would not have the evidence we have that JFK was killed by
> > a bullet from in front of the limo.
> >
>
> No such evidence exists except in the minds of conspiracy hobbyists.

Such evidence exists and has been pointed to multiple times. Prove
otherwise, since proof of the truth of it has been presented already.
The small (5mm) bullet wound was seen by many witnesses and was
specifically left out of the Autopsy Report, which is an obvious and
glaring intentional error. It was seen by Pierre Finck, the bullet
expert, who thought it was an ENTRY wound.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Stop saying that. You can't quote Finck saying that. That is just your
spin.

> Chris
>

[Anthony Marsh]

They did, for the grassy knoll. Because Oswald kept missing.

[bigdog]

On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:37:47 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:47:26 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 8:31:41 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > If there has been a
> > > 'sniper' the whole scenario would have been different, since the sniper
> > > would have hit the target first shot, and there would have been no need
> > > for multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza as insurance that the job would get
> > > done.
> >
> > That is probably true. So why didn't "they" hire a sniper? Oswald wasn't a
> > trained sniper nor did he have a top notch rifle. What he had was a
> > twisted desire to kill the POTUS for reasons we can only guess. He had to
> > make do with the equipment and the skills he possessed. Those turned out
> > to be adequate. It took him three shots, but he managed to get the job
> > done.
> >
>
>
> Please remember that you thought a second shooter was "probably true".

And then I looked at the evidence and realized how silly I had been. Maybe
someday you will have a revelation like that, but you would probably have
to be blinded on your way to Damascus before that happens.

> And nope you see some "twisted desire"!

You think it was a normal desire?

> More of your fantasies! Can't
> leave you alone for a minute! Schooling follows: Not a single bullet
> from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone. And you're feeble attempts to prove
> otherwise have failed more than once.
>

Zoning out...

[bigdog]

So finally you have admitted that Oswald was the 6th floor shooter. At
long last we have made some progress.

Why did "they" bother with Oswald. Why not just hire one competent sniper?
But you want to argue that "they" hired two shooters firing from different
locations in order to frame a lone gunman. Why did "they" put the
competent sniper out in the open where he would likely be seen. When do
you suppose "they" hired Oswald. After the motorcade route was announced
on Monday? I guess it was a lucky break that they would have a willing
accomplice working right along the route.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Apparently "they" planted bullets that couldn't be traced to the gun of
the guy "they" set up. That's smart.

On second thought, that DOES sound like the US government.

After all they award contracts to the lowest bidder so they probably
contracted this one out to a bunch of incompetents who simply had the low
bid.

[mainframetech]

In the circles they run in to find personnel for these illegal
'projects' they don't find true snipers. Are snipers more loyal to the
USA? I don't know, but they don't seem to go in for too much crime that
I've noticed in the news. I rather think the shooters that were acquired
were from the Mafia, since they had a stake in the result, and had used
shooters before for their own solutions to problems.

I did not say they hired 2 shooters. They had more than that, I'm sure
given the number of bullet strikes in Dealey Plaza that day. And the
various shooter locations weren't to "frame a lone gunman", but to insure
the job got done. The person that got framed was a necessary part of the
plot, since they had to have a 'patsy' to take all the blame so that the
real conspirators wanted to be left alone and not be chased the rest of
their lives.

You comment about a shooter being in a position where he could be seen,
but after all this time, he has been safe hasn't he?

I believe that Oswald was NEVER hired and wasn't part of the conspiracy.
The idea of a conspiracy is to get the target and not have any of the
conspirators get into any trouble.

Oswald wasn't a willing accomplice of any kind. He was unaware that he
had been chosen as 'patsy' until after the shots rang out and they came
into the TSBD looking for the shooter.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 8:40:20 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:37:47 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:47:26 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 8:31:41 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > If there has been a
> > > > 'sniper' the whole scenario would have been different, since the sniper
> > > > would have hit the target first shot, and there would have been no need
> > > > for multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza as insurance that the job would get
> > > > done.
> > >
> > > That is probably true. So why didn't "they" hire a sniper? Oswald wasn't a
> > > trained sniper nor did he have a top notch rifle. What he had was a
> > > twisted desire to kill the POTUS for reasons we can only guess. He had to
> > > make do with the equipment and the skills he possessed. Those turned out
> > > to be adequate. It took him three shots, but he managed to get the job
> > > done.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Please remember that you thought a second shooter was "probably true".
>
> And then I looked at the evidence and realized how silly I had been. Maybe
> someday you will have a revelation like that, but you would probably have
> to be blinded on your way to Damascus before that happens.
>

As you say, you had "been silly", but I don't do that, so I'm not
worried that it'll happen to me. But I'll keep an eye on you and let you
know when you're going to the silly side again!

> > And nope you see some "twisted desire"!
>
> You think it was a normal desire?
>

The phrase was "twisted desire" and it didn't come from me first.

> > More of your fantasies! Can't
> > leave you alone for a minute! Schooling follows: Not a single bullet
> > from the MC rifle hit or hurt anyone. And you're feeble attempts to prove
> > otherwise have failed more than once.
> >
>
> Zoning out...

Yep. Sometimes that happens when someone is schooled and can't take
it. It's an escape reaction.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Saturday, April 11, 2015 at 10:49:38 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Friday, April 10, 2015 at 8:40:20 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 9, 2015 at 11:37:47 AM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at 3:47:26 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 8:31:41 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > > If there has been a
> > > > > 'sniper' the whole scenario would have been different, since the sniper
> > > > > would have hit the target first shot, and there would have been no need
> > > > > for multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza as insurance that the job would get
> > > > > done.
> > > >
> > > > That is probably true. So why didn't "they" hire a sniper? Oswald wasn't a
> > > > trained sniper nor did he have a top notch rifle. What he had was a
> > > > twisted desire to kill the POTUS for reasons we can only guess. He had to
> > > > make do with the equipment and the skills he possessed. Those turned out
> > > > to be adequate. It took him three shots, but he managed to get the job
> > > > done.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please remember that you thought a second shooter was "probably true".
> >
> > And then I looked at the evidence and realized how silly I had been. Maybe
> > someday you will have a revelation like that, but you would probably have
> > to be blinded on your way to Damascus before that happens.
> >
>
>
>
> As you say, you had "been silly", but I don't do that, so I'm not
> worried that it'll happen to me.

That ship already sailed.

> But I'll keep an eye on you and let you
> know when you're going to the silly side again!
>

We'll know that has happened if I ever start to doubt Oswald was the lone
shooter again. I'll probably need assisted living by that point.

>
>
> > > And nope you see some "twisted desire"!
> >
> > You think it was a normal desire?
> >
>
>
> The phrase was "twisted desire" and it didn't come from me first.
>

It came from me. If it wasn't a twisted desire to kill JFK, what kind of
desire do you think it was?

[Anthony Marsh]

Sounds like all the failed Castro plots.

> After all they award contracts to the lowest bidder so they probably
> contracted this one out to a bunch of incompetents who simply had the low
> bid.
>

Typical CIA screw-up. Like buy the wrong model of B-26 bombers for the
Bay of Pigs invasion and the reporters spotted the difference
immediately. Or sending the wrong ammo to the exiles on the beach.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

Nope. I am just making fun of your assumptions. He missed Walker from
only 120 feet.

> Why did "they" bother with Oswald. Why not just hire one competent sniper?

They had to frame Oswald to blame it on Castro. It's called a false flag
operation.

> But you want to argue that "they" hired two shooters firing from different
> locations in order to frame a lone gunman. Why did "they" put the
> competent sniper out in the open where he would likely be seen. When do

The grassy knoll shooter was just for insurance. He was not supposed to
shoot unless JFK was not yet killed. Why didn't the second shooter Oral
Çelik fire at the Pope?

> you suppose "they" hired Oswald. After the motorcade route was announced
> on Monday? I guess it was a lucky break that they would have a willing
> accomplice working right along the route.
>

I never said the CIA hired Oswald. They framed him.

[bigdog]

You said the reasont he GK shooter took the shot was that Oswald kept
missing. That means that Oswald was shooting. According to your earlier
bullshit stories, he missed deliberately. Before you deny this, remember
that all posts are archived.

> > Why did "they" bother with Oswald. Why not just hire one competent sniper?
>
> They had to frame Oswald to blame it on Castro. It's called a false flag
> operation.
>

So they convinced Oswald to fire out the window so they could frame him.
That is one cooperative patsy you've got there.

> > But you want to argue that "they" hired two shooters firing from different
> > locations in order to frame a lone gunman. Why did "they" put the
> > competent sniper out in the open where he would likely be seen. When do
>
> The grassy knoll shooter was just for insurance. He was not supposed to
> shoot unless JFK was not yet killed.

Is that supposed to be an answer for why "they" put him out in the open.
With a rifle. Suppose someone had spotted the guy with the rifle before
the motorcade arrived. Maybe they had another insurance shooter at the
Trade Mart.

> Why didn't the second shooter Oral
> Çelik fire at the Pope?
>

Why do you like to ask irrelevant questions?

> > you suppose "they" hired Oswald. After the motorcade route was announced
> > on Monday? I guess it was a lucky break that they would have a willing
> > accomplice working right along the route.
> >
>
> I never said the CIA hired Oswald. They framed him.

With his full cooperation.

[mainframetech]

SILLY ALERT!!

> >
> >
> > > > And nope you see some "twisted desire"!
> > >
> > > You think it was a normal desire?
> > >
> >
> >
> > The phrase was "twisted desire" and it didn't come from me first.
> >
>
> It came from me. If it wasn't a twisted desire to kill JFK, what kind of
> desire do you think it was?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Similar question. Oswald didn't
act like a person with what generally is called 'twisted desires'. He
showed himself as a non-violent person trying to get by with a communist
philosophy, which can't work, but he had to try it. The only 'twisted
desire' here is the one the LN kooks use to blame Oswald for the whole
murder because of a couple of outmoded theories now proven wrong.

Chris

[Sandy McCroskey]

Chris apparently comes from some odd place where wife-beaters are
considered "non-violent." Not to mention people who shoot at folks whose
politics they abhor or cops who stop them on the sidewalk.

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:02:43 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:

> The proof of how wrong that is, is because it worked! The suckers went
> for it, hook, line, and sinker! Some still argue for conspiracy, but many
> think there wasn't any. The plot to blame Oswald worked like a charm.

This is precious! You are essentially saying, "The evidence that there was
a conspiracy is that there *is* no evidence of a conspiracy. That's how
*effective* the conspiracy was!"

That's hilarious!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Mr. Harris seemingly (I guess; I'm not sure what he says half the time)
uses this logic to prove Oswald was a CIA agent.

That is, the KGB determined that he wasn't an agent - he didn't behave
like one, he didn't have the aptitude, he didn't have the makeup to be
one.

But THAT proves not only that he was an agent but he was so darned good
they couldn't unmask him.

So, if they did find evidence he was an agent that proves he was an agent
and if they didn't find evidence of his spying that too proves he's an
agent.

As a s Yiddish Vlad Putin would say, Oy vey.

[mainframetech]

Yep, yock it up! :)

Then think about the fact that many are not laughing and are trying to
make a case out of the evidence that was left available.

When you have so many people that are against a certain result, then
you have to question the result as well as the people.

The effectiveness worked only for the LNs, who were sucked in. Not the
CTs. So the conspiracy really didn't work for everybody.

Chris

[bigdog]

An old refrain from the legal profession says that when the facts are
against you, argue about the law. When the law is against you, argue about
the facts. When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.
Conspiracy hobbyists have been pounding the table for over 50 years.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/16/2015 10:20 AM, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 14, 2015 at 12:37:20 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 8:02:43 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>> The proof of how wrong that is, is because it worked! The suckers went
>>> for it, hook, line, and sinker! Some still argue for conspiracy, but many
>>> think there wasn't any. The plot to blame Oswald worked like a charm.
>>
>> This is precious! You are essentially saying, "The evidence that there was
>> a conspiracy is that there *is* no evidence of a conspiracy. That's how
>> *effective* the conspiracy was!"
>>
>> That's hilarious!
>>
>> David Emerling
>> Memphis, TN
>
>
> Yep, yock it up! :)
>
> Then think about the fact that many are not laughing and are trying to
> make a case out of the evidence that was left available.
>

That's your problem. You are clutching at straws instead of demanding
that all the evidence be released.

[mainframetech]

WRONG! The CTs have been constructing scenarios looking for the one
that matches all the facts. After the ARRB files, the facts were
available to a much grater degree. Much of the case is solved from that
info. At this point, it's required to have a completely independent
investigation, with subpoena power.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 3:03:45 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >
> > An old refrain from the legal profession says that when the facts are
> > against you, argue about the law. When the law is against you, argue about
> > the facts. When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.
> > Conspiracy hobbyists have been pounding the table for over 50 years.
>
> WRONG! The CTs have been constructing scenarios looking for the one
> that matches all the facts.

What a daunting task. You have hundreds to choose from. Of course there is
one readily available. It is called the Warren Commision Report.

> After the ARRB files, the facts were
> available to a much grater degree.

And almost everyone including the diehard conspiracy hobbyists yawned.
Some like Doug Horne saw opportunity in the disappointment.

> Much of the case is solved from that
> info. At this point, it's required to have a completely independent
> investigation, with subpoena power.
>

Good luck with that. Do you really think a sizeable percentage of the
American people even give a shit anymore? It never comes up in
conversation. It rarely is brought up by any of the network or cable news
channels nor any major newspaper. If there was still any widespread
interest in the assassination, it would still get coverage. Almost nobody
cares anymore. What you have is what you get. Deal with it.

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, April 21, 2015 at 4:53:51 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 3:03:45 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > >
> > > An old refrain from the legal profession says that when the facts are
> > > against you, argue about the law. When the law is against you, argue about
> > > the facts. When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.
> > > Conspiracy hobbyists have been pounding the table for over 50 years.
> >
> > WRONG! The CTs have been constructing scenarios looking for the one
> > that matches all the facts.
>
> What a daunting task. You have hundreds to choose from. Of course there is
> one readily available. It is called the Warren Commision Report.
>

WRONG! There are 2 scenarios. Another one is the truth of what
happened.

> > After the ARRB files, the facts were

> > available to a much greater degree.

>
> And almost everyone including the diehard conspiracy hobbyists yawned.
> Some like Doug Horne saw opportunity in the disappointment.
>

WRONG! You will be unable to prove such an insult, as a diehard
anti-conspiracy hobbyist, of course.

> > Much of the case is solved from that
> > info. At this point, it's required to have a completely independent
> > investigation, with subpoena power.
> >
>
> Good luck with that. Do you really think a sizeable percentage of the
> American people even give a shit anymore? It never comes up in
> conversation. It rarely is brought up by any of the network or cable news
> channels nor any major newspaper. If there was still any widespread
> interest in the assassination, it would still get coverage. Almost nobody
> cares anymore. What you have is what you get. Deal with it.

WRONG! Douglas Horne is making headway in presenting his views form his
experience in the ARRB. He has what few others have. Direct evidence
told to him and his co-workers at the ARRB.

Chris

[Bud]

The conspiracy hobbyists have been playing games for decades, and that
is all they`ve been doing.

[bigdog]

All that information was made publi two decades ago and despite a great
desire on the part of the conspiracy hobbyists to find something of
signficance, there was nothing there. I know it all seems new and exciting
to you. Doug Horne is going nowhere with his theories but really doesn't
need to. He succeeded in relieving a bunch of gullible conspiracy
hobbyists of their money. I have to give him credit. It was a brilliant
move to publish a five volume set. That way he could keep getting more and
more of their money.

Horne is just another in a long line of conspiracy authors who have been
here today and gone tomorrow. Too bad you didn't wait a couple years. You
could have picked up Horne's five volume set at a clearance price.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/21/2015 4:53 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 3:03:45 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>
>>> An old refrain from the legal profession says that when the facts are
>>> against you, argue about the law. When the law is against you, argue about
>>> the facts. When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.
>>> Conspiracy hobbyists have been pounding the table for over 50 years.
>>
>> WRONG! The CTs have been constructing scenarios looking for the one
>> that matches all the facts.
>
> What a daunting task. You have hundreds to choose from. Of course there is
> one readily available. It is called the Warren Commision Report.
>
>> After the ARRB files, the facts were
>> available to a much grater degree.
>
> And almost everyone including the diehard conspiracy hobbyists yawned.
> Some like Doug Horne saw opportunity in the disappointment.
>
>> Much of the case is solved from that
>> info. At this point, it's required to have a completely independent
>> investigation, with subpoena power.
>>
>
> Good luck with that. Do you really think a sizeable percentage of the
> American people even give a shit anymore? It never comes up in

The Nazis don't care. They are happy that JFK was killed.
Some Liberals still care.

> conversation. It rarely is brought up by any of the network or cable news
> channels nor any major newspaper. If there was still any widespread
> interest in the assassination, it would still get coverage. Almost nobody
> cares anymore. What you have is what you get. Deal with it.
>

You want a TV channel devoted to just the JFK assassination? Try the
History Channel or Discovery Channel.

>

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 7:41:13 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 4/21/2015 4:53 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 3:03:45 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> >>>
> >>> An old refrain from the legal profession says that when the facts are
> >>> against you, argue about the law. When the law is against you, argue about
> >>> the facts. When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.
> >>> Conspiracy hobbyists have been pounding the table for over 50 years.
> >>
> >> WRONG! The CTs have been constructing scenarios looking for the one
> >> that matches all the facts.
> >
> > What a daunting task. You have hundreds to choose from. Of course there is
> > one readily available. It is called the Warren Commision Report.
> >
> >> After the ARRB files, the facts were
> >> available to a much grater degree.
> >
> > And almost everyone including the diehard conspiracy hobbyists yawned.
> > Some like Doug Horne saw opportunity in the disappointment.
> >
> >> Much of the case is solved from that
> >> info. At this point, it's required to have a completely independent
> >> investigation, with subpoena power.
> >>
> >
> > Good luck with that. Do you really think a sizeable percentage of the
> > American people even give a shit anymore? It never comes up in
>
> The Nazis don't care. They are happy that JFK was killed.
> Some Liberals still care.
>

So in your simplified view, we are all either Nazis or Liberals.

> > conversation. It rarely is brought up by any of the network or cable news
> > channels nor any major newspaper. If there was still any widespread
> > interest in the assassination, it would still get coverage. Almost nobody
> > cares anymore. What you have is what you get. Deal with it.
> >
>
> You want a TV channel devoted to just the JFK assassination? Try the
> History Channel or Discovery Channel.
>

JFK material is just a fraction of their fare and little of that is
original programming. Just part of a stable of programs that get recycled
regularly to fill air time. That's the beauty of cable channels. They
don't need to appeal to a wide audience. They are narrowcast to to a small
slice of the public with a niche interest in a particular subject. If you
believe a sizeable portion of the American people have any interest in
opening up another investigation into JFK's assassination, you are only
kidding yourself.

[mainframetech]

As a CT, I KNOW that there is something there. Mainly the solution to
all the goings on at Bethesda. Your complete lack of knowledge of what's
there is a lack that I've tried to correct, but you are a denier and
difficult to school. However, I'll keep trying.


Funny how you think all this stuff came out 20 years ago, but can't find
anything of the excuses that were used to put it down. And I'm sure you
would remember those, since you use every gimmick in the book to try to
cover up the truth now.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 4/23/2015 12:43 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 22, 2015 at 7:41:13 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 4/21/2015 4:53 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 3:03:45 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> An old refrain from the legal profession says that when the facts are
>>>>> against you, argue about the law. When the law is against you, argue about
>>>>> the facts. When the facts and the law are against you, pound the table.
>>>>> Conspiracy hobbyists have been pounding the table for over 50 years.
>>>>
>>>> WRONG! The CTs have been constructing scenarios looking for the one
>>>> that matches all the facts.
>>>
>>> What a daunting task. You have hundreds to choose from. Of course there is
>>> one readily available. It is called the Warren Commision Report.
>>>
>>>> After the ARRB files, the facts were
>>>> available to a much grater degree.
>>>
>>> And almost everyone including the diehard conspiracy hobbyists yawned.
>>> Some like Doug Horne saw opportunity in the disappointment.
>>>
>>>> Much of the case is solved from that
>>>> info. At this point, it's required to have a completely independent
>>>> investigation, with subpoena power.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good luck with that. Do you really think a sizeable percentage of the
>>> American people even give a shit anymore? It never comes up in
>>
>> The Nazis don't care. They are happy that JFK was killed.
>> Some Liberals still care.
>>
>
> So in your simplified view, we are all either Nazis or Liberals.
>

Not everywhere. Mainly here.
Because of the subject matter.

>>> conversation. It rarely is brought up by any of the network or cable news
>>> channels nor any major newspaper. If there was still any widespread
>>> interest in the assassination, it would still get coverage. Almost nobody
>>> cares anymore. What you have is what you get. Deal with it.
>>>
>>
>> You want a TV channel devoted to just the JFK assassination? Try the
>> History Channel or Discovery Channel.
>>
>
> JFK material is just a fraction of their fare and little of that is
> original programming. Just part of a stable of programs that get recycled
> regularly to fill air time. That's the beauty of cable channels. They
> don't need to appeal to a wide audience. They are narrowcast to to a small
> slice of the public with a niche interest in a particular subject. If you
> believe a sizeable portion of the American people have any interest in
> opening up another investigation into JFK's assassination, you are only
> kidding yourself.
>

I never said anything like that.

[bigdog]

Nobody needed any excuses when the ARRB files were released. There was
nothing of substance there. No smoking gun. No proof of a conspiracy that
the conspiracy hobbyists had been dreaming about. Just a whole lot of
nothing. If there had been anything to it, it would have been headline
news. It didn't happen. That didn't stop some desperate conspiracy
hobbyists to try to make something out of nothing.

[bigdog]

Of course you didn't. If you ever took a position on anything you would
actually have to defend it. It's much easy just to snipe at what others
write.

[Anthony Marsh]

I took a position on the Zapruder film being authentic and I defend it.
Want to argue that?

[Anthony Marsh]

I seem to remember the same people saying the same things about the HSCA.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Brave position!
And I maintain that the earth is not flat!
Anyone want to contest that?
(Yes, there are a few. Just like the few who think the Z film was altered.)

[mainframetech]

Well naturally to stay true to the WCR you are forced to say that. In
actuality, there was a great deal in the ARRB files and much of it
answered many questions as well as proving there was a conspiracy. Some
of the things done at Bethesda would not have been done if there hadn't
been a conspiracy that needed to be covered up. And some people to this
day are still trying to cover it up and have people forget it.

Chris

[bigdog]

You really went out on a limb there. It would seem you have a firm grasp
of the obvious.

[BOZ]

Kennedy was killed by a liberal you silly goose.