Pat Speer Fusses About PBS NOVA special

[John McAdams]

Check this:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21434&p=291286

Interesting passage:

> If you've read my blog on the 50th, you might remember that Tink
> Thompson was outraged by the NOVA program in which he made an
> appearance. I spoke to Tink about this afterward. He was under
> the impression he was one of several "experts" whose input was
> appreciated, and was disappointed to find the program so biased
> against conspiracy. It all came together, then, when I told him
> what John McAdams had admitted on aaj--that he--beyond the other
> "experts" on the program--had been consulted on the actual script
> and direction of the program.

Admitted? Hell, bragged about.

But I was listed in the credits as an "historical consultant." So
it's not a secret they talked to me.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html

Of course, if I had really been able to tell them what to say, they
would have avoided the "low head wound" nonsense, which I tried to
warn them off of.

But the simple fact is that among mainstream media people, people like
me have more credibility than conspiracy types.

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

[CHARLES LEITER]

Did you expect Oliver Stone to write the script?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/11/2014 9:58 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> Check this:
>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21434&p=291286
>
> Interesting passage:
>
>> If you've read my blog on the 50th, you might remember that Tink
>> Thompson was outraged by the NOVA program in which he made an
>> appearance. I spoke to Tink about this afterward. He was under
>> the impression he was one of several "experts" whose input was
>> appreciated, and was disappointed to find the program so biased
>> against conspiracy. It all came together, then, when I told him
>> what John McAdams had admitted on aaj--that he--beyond the other
>> "experts" on the program--had been consulted on the actual script
>> and direction of the program.
>
> Admitted? Hell, bragged about.
>
> But I was listed in the credits as an "historical consultant." So
> it's not a secret they talked to me.
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html
>
> Of course, if I had really been able to tell them what to say, they
> would have avoided the "low head wound" nonsense, which I tried to
> warn them off of.
>

Need I remind all WC defenders for the billionth time that they have an
obligation to shoot down kooky theories from the autopsy doctors, WC and
other WC defenders. If they go unchecked it gives all WC defenders a bad
name. Ice bullet, really? Who does that?

> But the simple fact is that among mainstream media people, people like
> me have more credibility than conspiracy types.
>

Because the mainstream media is controlled by the CIA.

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

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

The leading conspiracy advocates, in my view, are people (I won't give
names) with little track record of serious research.

No responsible news organization is going to have people with that
background on giving their views on anything.

The conspiracy researchers can make some good points and raise some
legitimate issues to be sure; but they are incapable as a group of keeping
things reasonable. The more outrageous claims seem to get the most
attention and support.

All of this, frankly, nonsense (sorry, no other word for it in my opinion)
about the body being switched and the film being altered isn't helping the
credibility of those who do raise legitimate questions.

[Marcus Hanson]

Bragged ? Have you forgotten Proverbs 16:18 , John ?!

I would've thought Pat would be more fussed about the same role in the
program going to Gerald Posner ! He's more controversial than you. No ,
really - he is.

Why do you think you have more credibility in the MSM than CTs have?

It would be reasonable for me to infer it is because of your standing in
academia.That's fair enough - it must require exemplary dedication to
become a Professor.And you have done a fine job with the website.

It would be unreasonable for me - or anyone else , including you - to
infer that it's because the MSM are qualified to assess your knowledge of
the case. Or anybody else's. For the most part, they are not.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh, you mean like the guy who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic?

> No responsible news organization is going to have people with that
> background on giving their views on anything.
>

Exactly. Because the CIA controls the mainstream media.

> The conspiracy researchers can make some good points and raise some
> legitimate issues to be sure; but they are incapable as a group of keeping
> things reasonable. The more outrageous claims seem to get the most
> attention and support.
>

Funny how that works with regular news. Man bites dog.

[Anthony Marsh]

Do you understand hat Posner chose Mark Lane to be his lawyer?

> Why do you think you have more credibility in the MSM than CTs have?
>

CIA.

> It would be reasonable for me to infer it is because of your standing in
> academia.That's fair enough - it must require exemplary dedication to
> become a Professor.And you have done a fine job with the website.
>

Standing?
Are you joking?
Read Cloak and Dagger.

> It would be unreasonable for me - or anyone else , including you - to
> infer that it's because the MSM are qualified to assess your knowledge of
> the case. Or anybody else's. For the most part, they are not.
>

We get to see his lack of knowledge here every day. That's what
qualifies one as a WC defender.

[CHARLES LEITER]

What was your motivation in proving that the Zapruder film was authentic?
Did you have doubts or were you agnostic?

[Marcus Hanson]

On Friday, November 14, 2014 1:32:18 PM UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Do you understand that Posner chose Mark Lane to be his lawyer?
>

That's knowledge , not "understanding".
"Understanding" is about =why= Posner,per his own words,hired Lane.

My favourite Gerald is not Posner , but the talking gorilla from the great
old British show , "Not The Nine O'clock News" :

Take it away,Gerald:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beCYGm1vMJ0

[Anthony Marsh]

No, I never doubted that it was authentic. My motivation was to shut up
the alterations who were sidetracking serious research with nonsense.

[mainframetech]

he 'authenticity' of the Z-film is even more in doubt now. We have the
interviews of Dino Brugione BEFORE the alteration of the Z-film, and the
interview of Homer McMahon AFTER the alteration. Both senior film
specialists worked on separate teams (unknown to each other) and made
briefing boards from the film they were given. In those interviews, it
become obvious that alteration was done on the Z-film:

http://vimeo.com/102327635
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/NPIC-DougHorne/HomerMcMahonTranscript.pdf

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/14/2014 1:03 PM, Marcus Hanson wrote:
> On Friday, November 14, 2014 1:32:18 PM UTC+11, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Do you understand that Posner chose Mark Lane to be his lawyer?
>>
>
> That's knowledge , not "understanding".
> "Understanding" is about =why= Posner,per his own words,hired Lane.
>

I didn't say understand why. I said understand that.

[bigdog]

How can we tell the difference?

[cmikes]

On Friday, November 14, 2014 1:07:09 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

Huh, kind of like the people that debunked the acoustic evidence.

[Marcus Hanson]

You are straying from the main focus of the thread.
Which is : did you like Gerald the Talking Gorilla ?
I know you must like talking cats,because you are a fan of Red Dwarf.
But what about anthropomorphic apes ?

[Anthony Marsh]

By reading my web site, which has an entire page devoted to debuking the
alterationists. You know, the one you couldn't find:

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/etcetera.htm
Etc.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe the COPIES they saw. I am talking about the original.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nope. They were tasked by the cover-up.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

Gorrilas can talk. It's called Sign Language. See Koko.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

"The CIA controls the mainstream media."

This is a textbook example of why it's difficult, increasingly so, to take
the conspiracy advocates seriously.

He's not saying they manipulate it or have influence over it; he's
claiming they "control" it.

I assume evidence for this can be found at your site?

[cmikes]

So add another couple of names to the cast of thousands that conspired to
kill JFK and cover up who really killed him without ever breathing a word
about it or making any missteps or mistakes that would give them away.

Or is finally to a cast of millions yet?

[Elwood P. Dowd]

KOKO HAS A HIGHER VOCABULARY THAN AL SHARPTON.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

I don't believe this is true, John. You are not an historian. You are a
poli-sci teacher with an attraction to the Tea Party. And you are not a
scientist; you are a global-warming denier.

Don't you see how weird it is that a global-warming denier would be
brought on as a consultant to a science program? Someone's personal bias
led them to bring you on as an official consultant. I, and I suspect Tink,
have no problems with your being on the show to offer your two cents, but
the program's giving you a special spot ahead of the other talking heads
on the show is an embarrassment, IMO, akin to their giving such a spot to
a CT with a CV, but little credibility, a la you know who.

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

[John McAdams]

On 18 Nov 2014 00:06:19 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 6:59:03 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>> Check this:
>>
>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21434&p=291286
>>
>> Interesting passage:
>>
>> > If you've read my blog on the 50th, you might remember that Tink
>> > Thompson was outraged by the NOVA program in which he made an
>> > appearance. I spoke to Tink about this afterward. He was under
>> > the impression he was one of several "experts" whose input was
>> > appreciated, and was disappointed to find the program so biased
>> > against conspiracy. It all came together, then, when I told him
>> > what John McAdams had admitted on aaj--that he--beyond the other
>> > "experts" on the program--had been consulted on the actual script
>> > and direction of the program.
>>
>> Admitted? Hell, bragged about.
>>
>> But I was listed in the credits as an "historical consultant." So
>> it's not a secret they talked to me.
>>
>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html
>>
>> Of course, if I had really been able to tell them what to say, they
>> would have avoided the "low head wound" nonsense, which I tried to
>> warn them off of.
>>
>> But the simple fact is that among mainstream media people, people like
>> me have more credibility than conspiracy types.
>
>I don't believe this is true, John. You are not an historian. You are a
>poli-sci teacher with an attraction to the Tea Party.

And you are a leftie.

So what?

>And you are not a
>scientist; you are a global-warming denier.
>

"Denier" is a really sleazy tactic, Pat, and attempt to equate those
of us who are skeptical of global warming with holocaust deniers.

After 17 years of no global warming, don't you think a bit of
skepticism is in order?

And why is it OK to be skeptical of what government tells people where
the JFK assassination is concerned, but not where global warming is
concerned?

You choose to be skeptical about some things, but you are dogmatic
about global warming.

>Don't you see how weird it is that a global-warming denier would be
>brought on as a consultant to a science program?

The science people they had were the Haigs, well-established
ballistics experts.

People like me are a lot better qualified to evaluate the actions of
government panels and government bureaucrats than people in other
disciplines.

>Someone's personal bias
>led them to bring you on as an official consultant. I, and I suspect Tink,
>have no problems with your being on the show to offer your two cents, but
>the program's giving you a special spot ahead of the other talking heads
>on the show is an embarrassment, IMO, akin to their giving such a spot to
>a CT with a CV, but little credibility, a la you know who.
>

By you own admission, 50th anniversary shows tilted in a lone assassin
direction.

Why don't you post the link to your list? That was actually a very
useful piece of work.

The mainstream media are simply skeptical about conspiracy theories.
And that gives people like me more credibility that conspiracists.

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

[bigdog]

Oh, so you can cite articles that actually exist. Too bad you can't cite
the one in which you claim to have explained Connally's leftward turn
after he heard the first shot. But of course we all know you made that one
up. You can't explain that because it makes no sense. And you know it.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Maybe. I've never been registered as a Dem or a Repub. My first vote for
Pres. was for a Repub. Since then I've mostly voted for moderate Dems.

>
> So what?
>
> >And you are not a
> >scientist; you are a global-warming denier.
> >
>
> "Denier" is a really sleazy tactic, Pat, and attempt to equate those
> of us who are skeptical of global warming with holocaust deniers.

What? Honestly, that had never occurred to me. When people deny something
that seems obvious to others they get called deniers. You are a conspiracy
denier, are you not?

>
> After 17 years of no global warming, don't you think a bit of
> skepticism is in order?
>
> And why is it OK to be skeptical of what government tells people where
> the JFK assassination is concerned, but not where global warming is
> concerned?
>
> You choose to be skeptical about some things, but you are dogmatic
> about global warming.

Not at all, My point is that NOVA is a mainstream science show, and that
normally they'd have nothing to do with someone who questions global
warming. To mainstream scientists, people like you might as well be
Christian Scientists, or the flat-earth society.

>
>
> >Don't you see how weird it is that a global-warming denier would be
> >brought on as a consultant to a science program?
>
> The science people they had were the Haigs, well-established
> ballistics experts.
>
> People like me are a lot better qualified to evaluate the actions of
> government panels and government bureaucrats than people in other
> disciplines.

Now, we're talking. So WHY have you never, at least as far as I can tell,
written about what is obvious to anyone who studies politics--that the
Warren Commission primarily served a political purpose?

>
>
> >Someone's personal bias
> >led them to bring you on as an official consultant. I, and I suspect Tink,
> >have no problems with your being on the show to offer your two cents, but
> >the program's giving you a special spot ahead of the other talking heads
> >on the show is an embarrassment, IMO, akin to their giving such a spot to
> >a CT with a CV, but little credibility, a la you know who.
> >
>
> By you own admission, 50th anniversary shows tilted in a lone assassin
> direction.
>
> Why don't you post the link to your list? That was actually a very
> useful piece of work.
>
> The mainstream media are simply skeptical about conspiracy theories.
> And that gives people like me more credibility that conspiracists.

What I'm trying to get at is the "people like me" part. You are not Robert
Caro. or Dallek, or any other mainstream historian that the media tends to
trust. Your views on politics and global warming are a giant red flag, in
fact, that usually leads them to run the other way. So what makes them
trust you when it comes to the assassination? It doesn't follow.

[John McAdams]

On 18 Nov 2014 11:51:35 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Monday, November 17, 2014 9:14:36 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 2014 00:06:19 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:

>>=20

>> >On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 6:59:03 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>> >> Check this:

>> >>=20
>> >> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3D21434&p=3D2912=
>86
>> >>=20
>> >> Interesting passage:
>> >>=20
>> >> > If you've read my blog on the 50th, you might remember that Tink=20
>> >> > Thompson was outraged by the NOVA program in which he made an=20
>> >> > appearance. I spoke to Tink about this afterward. He was under=20
>> >> > the impression he was one of several "experts" whose input was=20
>> >> > appreciated, and was disappointed to find the program so biased=20
>> >> > against conspiracy. It all came together, then, when I told him=20
>> >> > what John McAdams had admitted on aaj--that he--beyond the other=20
>> >> > "experts" on the program--had been consulted on the actual script=20

>> >> > and direction of the program.

>> >>=20
>> >> Admitted? Hell, bragged about.
>> >>=20

>> >> But I was listed in the credits as an "historical consultant." So
>> >> it's not a secret they talked to me.

>> >>=20
>> >> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/cold-case-jfk.html
>> >>=20

>> >> Of course, if I had really been able to tell them what to say, they
>> >> would have avoided the "low head wound" nonsense, which I tried to
>> >> warn them off of.

>> >>=20

>> >> But the simple fact is that among mainstream media people, people like
>> >> me have more credibility than conspiracy types.
>> >

>> >I don't believe this is true, John. You are not an historian. You are a=
>=20
>> >poli-sci teacher with an attraction to the Tea Party.=20
>>=20

>> And you are a leftie.
>
>Maybe. I've never been registered as a Dem or a Repub. My first vote for
>Pres. was for a Repub. Since then I've mostly voted for moderate Dems.
>

Did you vote for Obama?

>>=20
>> So what?
>>=20
>> >And you are not a=20

>> >scientist; you are a global-warming denier.
>> >

>>=20

>> "Denier" is a really sleazy tactic, Pat, and attempt to equate those
>> of us who are skeptical of global warming with holocaust deniers.
>
>What? Honestly, that had never occurred to me. When people deny something
>that seems obvious to others they get called deniers. You are a conspiracy
>denier, are you not?
>

You are an Oswald guilt denier, are you not?

But now that you know how nasty and incendiary the term is, I hope
you'll stop using it.


>>=20

>> After 17 years of no global warming, don't you think a bit of
>> skepticism is in order?

>>=20

>> And why is it OK to be skeptical of what government tells people where
>> the JFK assassination is concerned, but not where global warming is
>> concerned?

>>=20

>> You choose to be skeptical about some things, but you are dogmatic
>> about global warming.
>
>Not at all, My point is that NOVA is a mainstream science show, and that
>normally they'd have nothing to do with someone who questions global
>warming.

If they are a "mainstream science" show, normally they would have
nothing to do with someone who questions the experts' assessment of
the medical evidence in the JFK case.

Why do you think *you* have a right to question "science," and I
don't?

>To mainstream scientists, people like you might as well be
>Christian Scientists, or the flat-earth society.
>

If so, mainstream scientists are bigots.

And how about questioning the top forensic pathologists in the
country? Which is what you do.


>>=20
>>=20
>> >Don't you see how weird it is that a global-warming denier would be=20
>> >brought on as a consultant to a science program?=20
>>=20

>> The science people they had were the Haigs, well-established
>> ballistics experts.

>>=20

>> People like me are a lot better qualified to evaluate the actions of
>> government panels and government bureaucrats than people in other
>> disciplines.
>
>Now, we're talking. So WHY have you never, at least as far as I can tell,
>written about what is obvious to anyone who studies politics--that the
>Warren Commission primarily served a political purpose?
>

Because it was really an honest investigation, regardless of what you
folks say.

I *could* write about all the politics surrounding the WC, but that
would be irrelevant to the evidence for or against a conspiracy.

I could attack Earl Warren for being too timid on some fronts: see
Shenon. But that would be irrelevant to the evidence in the case.


>>=20
>>=20
>> >Someone's personal bias=20
>> >led them to bring you on as an official consultant. I, and I suspect Tin=
>k,=20
>> >have no problems with your being on the show to offer your two cents, bu=
>t=20
>> >the program's giving you a special spot ahead of the other talking heads=
>=20
>> >on the show is an embarrassment, IMO, akin to their giving such a spot t=
>o=20

>> >a CT with a CV, but little credibility, a la you know who.
>> >

>>=20

>> By you own admission, 50th anniversary shows tilted in a lone assassin
>> direction.

>>=20

>> Why don't you post the link to your list? That was actually a very
>> useful piece of work.

>>=20

>> The mainstream media are simply skeptical about conspiracy theories.
>> And that gives people like me more credibility that conspiracists.
>
>What I'm trying to get at is the "people like me" part. You are not Robert
>Caro. or Dallek, or any other mainstream historian that the media tends to
>trust. Your views on politics and global warming are a giant red flag,

Your leftist views on politics and your denial of the forensic
evidence in the JFK case are a red flag if they should ever decide to
contact you.

Is global warming a rigid matter of faith with you? Not to be
questioned or examined?

Don't you think you should be tolerant of heterodoxy, just as us LNs
should be tolerant of your heterodoxy with regard to a consiracy.

>in
>fact, that usually leads them to run the other way. So what makes them
>trust you when it comes to the assassination? It doesn't follow.
>

Becaus they see me as sensible and well-informed. They think of
conspiracy theories as a bit "fringe."

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Elwood P. Dowd]

Are you talking about the global warming that ended in 1998?

[Sandy McCroskey]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:51:36 AM UTC-5, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>
> What I'm trying to get at is the "people like me" part. You are not Robert
> Caro. or Dallek, or any other mainstream historian that the media tends to
> trust. Your views on politics and global warming are a giant red flag, in
> fact, that usually leads them to run the other way. So what makes them
> trust you when it comes to the assassination? It doesn't follow.

I've asked this question in other newsgroups and have yet to have anyone
step up and answer it. Since the earth's climate has been constantly
changing for the past 4.5 billion years, why is the prospect of further
climate change such a catastrophe. Most of that past climate change has
occurred without any contribution from humans.

I am not a climate change denier. I accept that the climate is changing.
It would be amazing if suddely it quit changing. I am skeptical of those
who act as if they can predict future climate change based on short term
data and computer models. Back in the late 1970s after several brutally
cold winters, some in the scientific community were wondering if we were
at the dawn of the next ice age. That was right at the end of a 40 year
period of global cooling that reversed itself and produced a warming trend
that lasted no more than 20 years. Recent data shows no warming since. Who
knows what the next trend will bring. We cannot predict what the forces of
nature are going to throw at us. We can adapt to what it does.

[Anthony Marsh]

Unfortunately the Republicans can not nominate a candidate far enough to
the right for you. So you keep writing in Goldwater and wondering why he
didn't win.

>>> =20
>>> So what?
>>> =20
>>>> And you are not a=20
>>>> scientist; you are a global-warming denier.
>>>>
>>> =20
>>> "Denier" is a really sleazy tactic, Pat, and attempt to equate those
>>> of us who are skeptical of global warming with holocaust deniers.
>>
>> What? Honestly, that had never occurred to me. When people deny something
>> that seems obvious to others they get called deniers. You are a conspiracy
>> denier, are you not?
>>
>
> You are an Oswald guilt denier, are you not?
>
> But now that you know how nasty and incendiary the term is, I hope
> you'll stop using it.
>

Why are deniers always Nazis? Why don't you use the term to attack
Liberals, like Trickle Down Deniers?

>
>>> =20
>>> After 17 years of no global warming, don't you think a bit of
>>> skepticism is in order?
>>> =20
>>> And why is it OK to be skeptical of what government tells people where
>>> the JFK assassination is concerned, but not where global warming is
>>> concerned?
>>> =20
>>> You choose to be skeptical about some things, but you are dogmatic
>>> about global warming.
>>
>> Not at all, My point is that NOVA is a mainstream science show, and that
>> normally they'd have nothing to do with someone who questions global
>> warming.
>
> If they are a "mainstream science" show, normally they would have
> nothing to do with someone who questions the experts' assessment of
> the medical evidence in the JFK case.
>

Which medical experts? Do you mean the WC liars or the HSCA liars?

> Why do you think *you* have a right to question "science," and I
> don't?
>

It's one thing to question a scientific theory as another scientist like
peer review, and quite another thing to attack all science as a
religious zealot who wants to go back to the Dark Ages.

>> To mainstream scientists, people like you might as well be
>> Christian Scientists, or the flat-earth society.
>>
>
> If so, mainstream scientists are bigots.

Some area. So are religious zealots.

>
> And how about questioning the top forensic pathologists in the
> country? Which is what you do.

I do. I have spoken to them. You haven't.

>
>
>>> =20
>>> =20
>>>> Don't you see how weird it is that a global-warming denier would be=20
>>>> brought on as a consultant to a science program?=20
>>> =20
>>> The science people they had were the Haigs, well-established
>>> ballistics experts.
>>> =20
>>> People like me are a lot better qualified to evaluate the actions of
>>> government panels and government bureaucrats than people in other
>>> disciplines.
>>
>> Now, we're talking. So WHY have you never, at least as far as I can tell,
>> written about what is obvious to anyone who studies politics--that the
>> Warren Commission primarily served a political purpose?
>>
>
> Because it was really an honest investigation, regardless of what you
> folks say.
>

Not the WC. It was created and mandated to be a cover-up.

> I *could* write about all the politics surrounding the WC, but that
> would be irrelevant to the evidence for or against a conspiracy.
>
> I could attack Earl Warren for being too timid on some fronts: see
> Shenon. But that would be irrelevant to the evidence in the case.

Hard to reach an honest conclusion when you destroy and hide evidence
instead of examining it.

You say that as if one proves the other. Only Liberals can question the
evidence and conservatives never do.

> Is global warming a rigid matter of faith with you? Not to be
> questioned or examined?
>

Science is not faith.

> Don't you think you should be tolerant of heterodoxy, just as us LNs
> should be tolerant of your heterodoxy with regard to a consiracy.
>

Neither should be tolerant of ignorance. Yet you praise ignorance on
your side.

>
>> in
>> fact, that usually leads them to run the other way. So what makes them
>> trust you when it comes to the assassination? It doesn't follow.
>>
>
> Becaus they see me as sensible and well-informed. They think of
> conspiracy theories as a bit "fringe."
>

No, they see you as establishment.

[Anthony Marsh]

I have to keep changing my registration after each election as the
parties change.

>>
>> So what?
>>
>>> And you are not a
>>> scientist; you are a global-warming denier.
>>>
>>
>> "Denier" is a really sleazy tactic, Pat, and attempt to equate those
>> of us who are skeptical of global warming with holocaust deniers.
>
> What? Honestly, that had never occurred to me. When people deny something
> that seems obvious to others they get called deniers. You are a conspiracy
> denier, are you not?
>
>>
>> After 17 years of no global warming, don't you think a bit of
>> skepticism is in order?
>>
>> And why is it OK to be skeptical of what government tells people where
>> the JFK assassination is concerned, but not where global warming is
>> concerned?
>>
>> You choose to be skeptical about some things, but you are dogmatic
>> about global warming.
>
> Not at all, My point is that NOVA is a mainstream science show, and that
> normally they'd have nothing to do with someone who questions global
> warming. To mainstream scientists, people like you might as well be
> Christian Scientists, or the flat-earth society.
>

But they do, to pretend to be open minded.

>>
>>
>>> Don't you see how weird it is that a global-warming denier would be
>>> brought on as a consultant to a science program?
>>
>> The science people they had were the Haigs, well-established
>> ballistics experts.
>>
>> People like me are a lot better qualified to evaluate the actions of
>> government panels and government bureaucrats than people in other
>> disciplines.
>
> Now, we're talking. So WHY have you never, at least as far as I can tell,
> written about what is obvious to anyone who studies politics--that the
> Warren Commission primarily served a political purpose?

Because he's a Denier.

>
>>
>>
>>> Someone's personal bias
>>> led them to bring you on as an official consultant. I, and I suspect Tink,
>>> have no problems with your being on the show to offer your two cents, but
>>> the program's giving you a special spot ahead of the other talking heads
>>> on the show is an embarrassment, IMO, akin to their giving such a spot to
>>> a CT with a CV, but little credibility, a la you know who.
>>>
>>
>> By you own admission, 50th anniversary shows tilted in a lone assassin
>> direction.
>>
>> Why don't you post the link to your list? That was actually a very
>> useful piece of work.
>>
>> The mainstream media are simply skeptical about conspiracy theories.

The mainstream media are controlled by the CIA.

>> And that gives people like me more credibility that conspiracists.
>
> What I'm trying to get at is the "people like me" part. You are not Robert
> Caro. or Dallek, or any other mainstream historian that the media tends to
> trust. Your views on politics and global warming are a giant red flag, in
> fact, that usually leads them to run the other way. So what makes them
> trust you when it comes to the assassination? It doesn't follow.
>

Which puts me in an awkward position where I have to remind you that even
the most rightwing wackos believe in conspiracy. And in particular I had
to go to the John Birch Society store to buy the pamphlet with the
interesting article about the ballistics which contained unique photos and
information.

[Anthony Marsh]

That was not an article. That is the Web page containing several article
including the one about Connally turning. But you don't know how to use a
browser so you have to find a kindergartener to help you.

> the one in which you claim to have explained Connally's leftward turn
> after he heard the first shot. But of course we all know you made that one

I didn't say after hearing the first shot. Stop putting words in my mouth
and learn to debate honestly. You give all WC defenders a bad name and it
starts with L.

[John McAdams]

On 18 Nov 2014 16:15:00 -0500, Sandy McCroskey

<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 11/18/14, 12:17 PM, Elwood P. Dowd wrote:
>> On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:06:20 AM UTC-5, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 6:59:03 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>>>
>>> Don't you see how weird it is that a global-warming denier would be
>>> brought on as a consultant to a science program? Someone's personal bias
>>> led them to bring you on as an official consultant. I, and I suspect Tink,
>>> have no problems with your being on the show to offer your two cents, but
>>> the program's giving you a special spot ahead of the other talking heads
>>> on the show is an embarrassment, IMO, akin to their giving such a spot to
>>> a CT with a CV, but little credibility, a la you know who.
>>>
>>

>> Are you talking about the global warming that ended in 1998?
>>
>
>
>
>http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
>
>http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

A blown up larger version:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

And here is a different series (sea ice) from a site you won't like:
:-)

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/may-5-global-sea-ice-area-second-highest-on-record/

And here is another that doesn't show any year since 1997 having been
any warmer than that year:

http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html


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

[Anthony Marsh]

False premise.

> And why is it OK to be skeptical of what government tells people where
> the JFK assassination is concerned, but not where global warming is
> concerned?
>

The scientists do not have the power that the government does.

> You choose to be skeptical about some things, but you are dogmatic
> about global warming.
>
>
>> Don't you see how weird it is that a global-warming denier would be
>> brought on as a consultant to a science program?
>
> The science people they had were the Haigs, well-established
> ballistics experts.
>

Not really.

> People like me are a lot better qualified to evaluate the actions of
> government panels and government bureaucrats than people in other
> disciplines.
>

Nope. You are only good for rubberstamping government cover-ups.

>
>> Someone's personal bias
>> led them to bring you on as an official consultant. I, and I suspect Tink,
>> have no problems with your being on the show to offer your two cents, but
>> the program's giving you a special spot ahead of the other talking heads
>> on the show is an embarrassment, IMO, akin to their giving such a spot to
>> a CT with a CV, but little credibility, a la you know who.
>>
>
> By you own admission, 50th anniversary shows tilted in a lone assassin
> direction.
>
> Why don't you post the link to your list? That was actually a very
> useful piece of work.
>
> The mainstream media are simply skeptical about conspiracy theories.

No, they accept them, but they don't want the people to accept them.

> And that gives people like me more credibility that conspiracists.

False sense of importance.

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

[Elwood P. Dowd]

The mainstream media are heavily influenced by the Council on Foreign
Relations:


Roger Ailes (Chairman and CEO of Fox News)
Madeleine Albright (64th United States Secretary of State, 20th United States Ambassador to the United Nations under Bill Clinton)
Lamar Alexander (45th Governor of Tennessee, United States Republican Senator, 5th United States Secretary of Education under George H.W. Bush)
Eliot Abrams (international lawyer, former state department official under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush)
Morton I. Abramowitz (diplomat)
John Abizaid (U.S Army General, former head of CENTCOM)
Michael F. Adams (President of University of Georgia)
John B. Anderson (former Republican/Independent congressman from Illinois)
Anthony Clark Arend (international lawyer, and academic)
Fouad Ajami (academic, middle east analyst)
Bruce Babbitt {16th Governor of Arizona, 47th United States Secretary of the Interior under Clinton}
Howard Baker (13th Senate Majority Leader of the United States Senate, 12th White House Chief of Staff under Ronald Reagan, husband of Nancy Kassebaum Baker)
James Baker (61st Secretary of State of the United States under Bush-41, and 67th Secretary of the Treasury of the United States under Ronald Reagan, 10th & 16th White House chief of staff to President's Reagan and George H.W. Bush)
Thurbert Baker (former Democratic Party attorney-general of the state of Georgia)
Michael D. Barnes (former United States Democratic congressman from Maryland, and president of the Brady Campaign)
Charlene Barshefsky (former United States Trade Representative)
Evan Bayh (former Democratic U.S senator and 46th Governor from Indiana)
Peter Bergen (journalist, national security analyst for CNN)
Joe Biden (47th Vice-President of the United States)
Josh Bolten (22nd White House chief-of-staff under George W. Bush)
Rudy Boschwitz (former Republican United States Senator from Minnesota)
Sandy Berger (19th United States National Security Advisor under President Bill Clinton)
Warren Beatty (actor, film producer, director)
Jeffrey Bewkes (president of Time Warner)
Stephen Biddle (theorist setting U.S. counter-insurgency policy)
Michael R. Bloomberg (108th Mayor of New York City, founder of Bloomberg L.P.)
Max Boot (military historian, and foreign policy expert)
Bill Bradley (former Democratic senator from New Jersey, NBA hall of fame basketball player)
Ian Bremmer (Eurasia Group founder and president)
Lael Brainard (Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, wife of Kurt M. Campbell)
Bill Brock (50th chairman of the Republican Party, 8th U.S. trade ambassador and 18th United States Secretary of Labor under Ronald Reagan, former Republican United States Senator from Tennessee)
Dan Burton (former republican party United States congressman from Indiana)
Erin Burnett (journalist, CNN anchor)
George H.W. Bush (41st President of the United States)
Tom Brokaw (NBC journalist)
Howard Berman (former Democratic Party United States Congressman from California)
Peter Beinart (academic, columnist)
Richard Branson (founder of Virgin Group)
L. Paul Bremer (diplomat)
Edgar Bronfman, Sr. (a member of the Bronfman dynasty, president of the World Jewish Congress)
Ethan Bronner (deputy foreign editor of The New York Times)
Zbigniew Brzezinski (10th United States National Security Advisor under President Jimmy Carter)
Stephen Gerald Breyer (United States Supreme Court justice)
Jonathan S. Bush (healthcare CEO, son of Jonathan Bush, brother of NBC entertainment reporter Billy Bush)
Sanford Bishop (Democratic Party United States congressman from Georgia)
David Boren (former Democrat U.S. senator from Oklahoma and president of the University of Oklahoma)
Kurt M. Campbell {Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, husband of Lael Brainard}
Jimmy Carter (39th President of the United States)
Frank Carlucci (16th Secretary of Defense and 15th U.S. national security adviser under Ronald Reagan, 13th deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Jimmy Carter)
Dick Cheney (46th Vice-President of the United States)
Juju Chang (journalist, reporter for ABC News)
Henry Cisneros (10th United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Bill Clinton)
Bill Clinton (42nd President of the United States)
Hillary Rodham Clinton(former First Lady of the United States, former United States Senator from New York, 67th United States Secretary of State under Barack Obama)
George Clooney (actor, director, screenwriter, producer, United Nations Messenger of Peace)
Mario Cuomo (Democratic politician, 52nd Governor of New York)
Michael Crow (president of Arizona State University)
Katie Couric (former CBS and NBC journalist, talk show host)
Stephen F. Cohen (professor of Russian studies at NYU, husband of Katrina vanden Heuvel)
Edward F. Cox (international attorney, chairman of the New York Republican party, son-in-law of Richard Nixon)
William M. Daley (24th White House chief of staff under Obama, 32nd secretary of commerce under Bill Clinton)
Kathryn Wasserman Davis {American philanthropist}
Kenneth Duberstein (13th chief of staff under Ronald Reagan)
Peggy Dulany (fourth child of David Rockefeller)
Joseph Duffey (academic, educator)
Chris Dodd (Former United States Senator from Connecticut)
Thomas R. Donahue {former Secretary-Treasurer of the AFL-CIO}
William H. Donaldson (former chairman of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission)
Michael Dukakis (65th and 67th governor of Massachusetts, 1988 Democratic Party nominee for the Presidency)
Mervyn M. Dymally (former Democratic congressman from California)
James S. Doyle (journalist & activist)
Jesse Dylan {film director}
Esther Dyson {philanthropist, technology analyst, daughter of Freeman Dyson}
John Edwards (former Democratic U.S. senator from North Carolina, 2004 Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee)
Karl Eikenberry (United States Army General, former ambassador to Afghanistan)
Ari Emanuel (head of Endeavor Agency)
Luigi R. Einaudi {former secretary-general of the Organization of American States}
Mallory Factor {academic, banker, conservative activist,}
Roger W. Ferguson, Jr. (former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve)
Noah Feldman (academic and author)
Dianne Feinstein (United States Democratic Party Senator from California)
Bernard T. Ferrari (dean, Johns Hopkins University Carey Business School)
John B. Fitzgibbons, an American businessman and philanthropist
Donald M. Fraser (former Democratic United States congressman from Minnesota)
Bill Frist (Republican politician, former United States Senate Majority Leader of the United States Senate)
Mikhail Fridman (Russian oligarch, International Advisory Board member)
Thomas Friedman (columnist for The New York Times)
Martin Feldstein (economist, Harvard professor)
Tom Foley (57th speaker of the United States House of Representatives)
Francis Fukuyama (political scientist, for state department official)
Pamela Gann (President of Claremont McKenna College, former dean of Duke University School of Law).
Robert M. Gates (22nd United States Secretary of Defense under Bush & Obama, 15th Director of Central Intelligence under George H.W. Bush)
Robert P. George (Academic, professor at Princeton University, theologian, philosopher)
David Geffen (president of Universal Music Group)
Leslie Gelb (former journalist for the New York Times)
Dick Gephardt (22nd Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives)
Sam Gejdenson (former Democratic Party United States Congressman from Connecticut)
Jim Gilmore (68th Governor of Virginia)
Alan Greenspan (13th Chairman of the Federal Reserve)
Maurice R. Greenberg (former chairman and CEO of AIG)
Bob Graham (Democratic Party 38th governor of Florida and United States Senator)
Janet G. Mullins Grissom (Republican lobbyist,former state department official)
Timothy Geithner {75th secretary of the treasury under Obama, 9th president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York}
David Gergen (advisor to Richard Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, commentator for CNN)
Peter C. Goldmark, Jr. (former CEO of New York Port Authority, president of Rockefeller Foundation, publisher of International Herald Tribune)
Mikhail Gorbachev (former President of the USSR)
Roy M. Goodman (former Republican member of the New York State Senate)
Porter Goss {former Republican congressman from Florida, 19th Director of Central Intelligence Agency under George W. Bush}
Newt Gingrich (58th Speaker of the United States House of Representatives)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (United States Supreme Court justice)
Tenzin Gyatso (14th Dalai Lama)
Richard N. Haass (former State Department official)
David A. Harris (director of the American Jewish Committee (AJC))
Lee H. Hamilton (former United States Democratic congressman from Indiana)
Michael Hayden (United States Air Force general, 15th director of the National Security Agency under Bill Clinton, and 20th director of the CIA under George W. Bush)
Gary Hart (former Democratic U.S. Senator from Colorado, Council for a Livable World chairman, advisory board member for the Partnership for a Secure America)
Heather Higgins (women's advocate, chairman of the Independent Women's Forum, president of the Randolph Foundation)
Chris Heinz (heir to the H. J. Heinz Company ketchup fortune)
Leo Hindery {businessman, philanthropist}
Carla Anderson Hills (5th United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Gerald Ford, 10th United States Trade Representative to George H.W. Bush)
Deane R. Hinton {former diplomat}
Kim Holmes (foreign policy and defense expert)
Douglas Holtz-Eakin (economist)
Auren Hoffman (investor/entrepreneur)
Warren Hoge (American journalist, formerly of the New York Times)
Malcolm Hoenlein (vice-chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations)
Katrina vanden Heuvel (editor of The Nation, wife of Stephen F. Cohen, daughter of William vanden Heuvell}
William vanden Heuvel (diplomat and international lawyer, father of Katrina vanden Heuvell)
Frederick Iseman (businessman, inventor)
Angelina Jolie (actress, UN Goodwill Ambassador)[6]
Vernon Jordan (advisor to President Bill Clinton)
Nancy Johnson (former Republican United States congresswoman from Connecticut)
Woody Johnson (investor, owner of the New York Jets, heir to Johnson & Johnson)
Sheila Johnson (businesswoman, president of the Washington Mystics)
Walter H. Kansteiner, III (American diplomat)
Peter J. Katzenstein (political scientist, academic)
Robert Kagan (cofounded Project for the New American Century)
Nancy Kassebaum (former Republican Senator from Kansas, daughter of Alf Landon, and wife of Howard Baker)
Thomas Kean, Sr. (Republican politician, 48th Governor of New Jersey)
John Kerry(former United States Senator from Massachusetts, 68th United States Secretary of State under Barack Obama, 2004 Democratic Party nominee for the Presidency)
Vanessa Kerry (doctor of medicine, liberal activist, daughter of John Kerry)
Raymond Kelly {former police commissioner of the NYPD}
Henry Kissinger (8th National Security Advisor under Richard Nixon and 56th United States Secretary of State under President's Nixon and Ford)
Joe Klein (Time Magazine columnist)
Richard Kogan (former CEO of Schering-Plough from 1996 to 2003, board member of Colgate-Palmolive and The Bank of New York Mellon)
Paul R. Krugman (economist, columnist for the New York Times)
Anil Kumar (businessman, former senior partner at McKinsey)
Charles Krauthammer (columnist for the Washington Post and political commentator at Fox News)
Zalmay Khalilzad (26th ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush)
Philip Lader (diplomat, chairman of WPP Group)
Richard W. Lariviere (Scholar, President of the University of Oregon)
Jim Leach (former Republican United States congressman from Iowa, chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities under Obama)
John Robert Lewis (Democratic United States congressman from the state of Georgia, famed civil-rights leader)
Jim Lehrer (journalist, former anchor for PBS)
Joe Lieberman (former United States Independent Senator from Connecticut)
Lewis Libby (attorney, former chief-of-staff to Vice-President Dick Cheney)
Herbert London {academic, conservative activist, former dean of Gallatin School of Individualized Study}
Nigel Lythgoe (television producer)
Fred Malek (businessman, former President of Marriott Hotels and Northwest Airlines)
David Malpass (economist, Republican Party politician)
John McCain (United States Republican Senator from Arizona, 2008 Republican Party nominee for the Presidency)
Bud McFarlane (13th national security advisor to Ronald Reagan)
William Green Miller (United States Ambassador to Ukraine under Bill Clinton)
George J. Mitchell (17th Senate Majority Leader of the United States Senate}
Walter Mondale (42nd Vice-President of the United States)
Robert Mosbacher, Jr. (businessman, son of Robert Mosbacher)
Les Moonves (President and Chief Executive Officer of CBS)
Bill Moyers (former press-secretary to Lyndon Johnson, public commentator for PBS)
Langhorne A. Motley {former diplomat} and state department official}
David Mulford (former United States Ambassador to India and current Vice-Chairman International of Credit Suisse)
Rupert Murdoch (founder/chairman/CEO of News Corp and Fox News)
Heather Nauert (journalist and anchor for Fox News)
Janet Napolitano (3rd United States Secretary of Homeland Security under Obama, 21st Governor of Arizona)
John D. Negroponte (former United States Deputy Secretary of State and former Director of National Intelligence under George W. Bush)
Joseph Nye (academic)
Sandra Day O'Connor (former United States Supreme Court justice)
Stan O'Neal (former Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Merrill Lynch)
George Pataki (Republican politician, 53rd Governor of New York)
Henry Paulson (74th United States Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush)
Robert Pastor (national security adviser, son-in-law to Robert McNamara)
David Petraeus (United States Army General, former head of CENTCOM, 22nd director of the CIA)
Peter G. Peterson (20th United States Secretary of Commerce under Nixon)
Steve Pieczenik (former state department official, 911 conspiracy theorist)
Kitty Pilgrim (journalist and anchor on CNN)
Richard Pipes (academic, father of founder/director of Middle East Forum Daniel Pipes)
Daniel Pipes (academic, writer, historian, son of Richard Pipes)
Norman Podhoretz (former editor-in-chief of "Commentary", senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) signatory)
Steve Poizner (California businessman and Republican politician)
Roman Popadiuk (former United States Ambassador to Ukraine, Executive Director of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation)
Arturo C. Porzecanski (Wall Street economist and university professor)
Colin Powell (65th United States Secretary of State under Bush-43, 16th National Security Advisor under Reagan, 12th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Bush-41)
Tom Petri (Republican United States congressman from Wisconsin)
Priscilla Presley (actress and former chairwoman of the board of Elvis Presley Enterprises)
Charles Prince (former chief executive officer of Citigroup)
Jennifer Raab {President of Hunter College}
Janet Reno (78th United States Attorney General under Clinton)
Condoleezza Rice (66th United States Secretary of State under Bush-43)
Dan Rather (journalist, formerly anchor at CBS)
Charles Rangel (United States Democratic Congressman from New York City)
Alice Rivlin (economist, former U.S. cabinet member)
David Rockefeller, Jr.
John D. Rockefeller, IV (United States Democratic Party Senator of West Virginia, 29th Governor of West Virginia)
Charlie Rose (PBS journalist and The Early Show anchor)
Liz Rosenberg (novelist, poet, columnist for The Boston Globe)
Chuck Robb (64th Governor of Virginia, former Democratic Party U.S. Senator from Virginia, son-in-law of Lyndon B. Johnson)
Edward Regan (former state comptroller of New york)
Robert Rubin (70th Secretary of the Treasury under Bill Clinton)
Haim Saban (founder of Saban Capital Group)
Jeffrey D. Sachs (American economist)
Diane Sawyer (ABC News journalist)
Stephen M. Schwebel (jurist, former judge on the International Court of Justice)
Michael Shifter (academic, president of the Inter-American Dialogue)
Dan Senor (former foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush, former Fox News foreign policy analyst)
Amity Shlaes (Bloomberg News columnist, and historian)
Timothy Shriver (chairman & CEO of the Special Olympics)
David Stern (commissioner of the NBA)
John Spratt (former Democratic United States congressman from South Carolina)
Karenna Gore Schiff (daughter of Al Gore)
Olympia J. Snowe (former Republican United States Senator from Maine)
Brent Scowcroft (9th & 17th United States National Security Advisor under Presidents Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush)
George Shultz (60th United States Secretary of State under Reagan, 62nd United States Secretary of the Treasury and 11th United States Secretary of Labor under Richard Nixon}
Frederick W. Smith (CEO and founder of FedEx)
Andrew Ross Sorkin (business journalist for New York Times and CNBC)
Walter B. Slocombe (former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy)
George Soros (currency speculator, investor, businessman)
Lesley Stahl (CBS News journalist)
Donna Shalala (18th United States Secretary of Health and Human Services under Bill Clinton, President of the University of Miami)
Eduard Shevardnadze (2nd President of Georgia)
Eric Shinseki (7th United States Secretary of Veterans Affairs under Obama, 34th Chief of Staff of the United States Army under Clinton & Bush)
Adlai Stevenson III (former Democratic United States Senator from Illinois, son of Adlai Stevenson II)
George Stephanopoulos (former White House press-secretary under Bill Clinton, Good Morning America anchor, This Week with George Stephanopoulos host)
Laurence H. Silberman (United States federal judge)
Robert Silvers (editor of New York Review of Books)
Stansfield Turner (United States Navy Admiral, 12th director of the CIA under Jimmy Carter)
Doug Turner (Republican party operative/Politician, public relations operative)
Richard Thornburgh (76th Attorney-General of the United States of America under Reagan & Bush, 76th Governor of Pennsylvania)
John L. Thornton (chairman of Brookings Institution, academic, former president of Goldman Sachs}
Fred Thompson (attorney, actor, radio talk-show host, former Republican United States Senator from Tennessee,)
Frances Townsend {former United States Homeland Security Advisor}
Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (Former Democratic Lieutenant Governor of Maryland, member of the Kennedy family)
Tom Vilsack (30th United States Secretary of Agriculture under Obama, 40th Governor of Iowa)
Paul Volcker (12th Chairman of the Federal Reserve)
Peter J. Wallison (20th White House Counsel to Ronald Reagan, former lawyer to Nelson Rockefeller)
Barbara Walters (ABC News journalist)
Vin Weber (former United States Republican Congressman from Minnesota)
Steven Weinberg (American physicist)
Juleanna Glover Weiss {American lobbyist}
John C. Whitehead (chairman of the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, former United States Deputy Secretary of State under Ronald Reagan, former Goldman Sachs chairman)
Christine Todd Whitman (50th Governor of New Jersey, 9th administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under George W. Bush)
Shirley Williams, Baroness Williams of Crosby (British member of parliament, International Advisory Board member)
Richard S. Williamson (diplomat, lawyer, former chairman of the Republican Party of Illinois)
Oprah Winfrey (media mogul, actress, founder of Harpo Inc.)
James D. Wolfensohn (former president of the World Bank)
Paul Wolfowitz (10th President of the World Bank, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense under Bush-43)
James Woolsey (16th Director of Central Intelligence under Bill Clinton)
Dov S. Zakheim (academic and Department of Defense official under Reagan and George W. Bush)
Paula Zahn (journalist, former anchor at Fox News and CNN)
James Zogby (academic, political commentator and pollster)
Robert Zoellick (11th President of the World Bank)

Current Emeritus and Honorary Officers and Directors

Leslie H. Gelb (President Emeritus)
Maurice R. Greenberg (Honorary Vice Chairman)
Peter G. Peterson (Chairman Emeritus)
David Rockefeller (Honorary Chairman)

Notable historical members

Herbert Agar {writer, editor of The Courier-Journal}
Harold Agnew {physicist, director of Los Alamos National Laboratory}
Umberto Agnelli {Italian industrialist, ceo of Fiat}
Les Aspin {democrat congressman from Wisconsin, 18th United States Secretary of Defense under Bill Clinton}
Kenneth Bacon (American journalist)
Conrad Black (International Advisory Board member)
Tom Braden (former CIA agent and liberal journalist)
George Wildman Ball (American diplomat)
Spruille Braden (American diplomat, businessman)
McGeorge Bundy (National Security advisor for Presidents John F. Kennedy & Lyndon B. Johnson)
William Bundy (Central Intelligence Agency agent, historian)
William F. Buckley, Jr (commentator, publisher, founder of the National Review)
Jonathan Bingham (Democratic congressman from New York, diplomat)
Paul Cravath (lawyer, one of the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations)
Heidi Nelson Cruz (investment banker, wife of Texas Senator Ted Cruz}
Monica Crowley (former Richard Nixon aide, radio host, and columnist)
John Chafee (former Secretary of the Navy, and Republican senator from Rhode Island)
Warren Christopher (former United States Secretary of State)
Thomas E. Dewey (47th governor of New York, former Republican nominee for President in 1944 and 1948)
Michael Raoul Duval (attorney for Richard Nixon & Gerald Ford)
C. Douglas Dillon (57th Secretary of the Treasury of the United States under John F. Kennedy & Lyndon Johnson, under-secretary of state under Dwight D. Eisenhower)
Allen Dulles (former Director of the CIA)
John Foster Dulles (52nd Secretary of State of the United States under Ike Eisenhower)
Fred Dutton {lawyer, lobbyist, democrat party operative}
Paul A. Dyster {mayor of Niagara Falls, New York}
Lawrence Eagleburger (former United States Secretary of State under President George H. W. Bush)
Jeffrey E. Epstein (financier)[7]
Rowland Evans {journalist}
John Exter {economist}
Gerald Ford (38th President of the United States of America)
Geraldine Ferraro (former Democratic New York congresswoman, first woman on a major party presidential ticket in 1984)
Alexander Haig (United States Army General, 59th Secretary of State of the United States under Ronald Reagan)
Sidney Harman (businessman, owner of Newsweek)
Armand Hammer (businessman, investor)
W. Averell Harriman (48th Governor of New York, diplomat, 11th United States Secretary of Commerce under Harry S Truman)
H. John Heinz III (former Republican United States Senator from Pennsylvania)
Richard Holbrooke {diplomat, investment banker, 22nd United States UN Ambassador}
Herbert Hoover (31st President of the United States)
Henry Hyde (former Republican congressman from Illinois)
Sergei Karaganov (International Advisory Board member)
Irving Kristol (journalist, writer, dubbed "The godfather of neoconservatism, father of Bill Kristol)
Jack Kemp (Hall of Fame quarterback, Republican congressman from New York, 9th United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Bush-41, 1996 Republican Vice-Presidential nominee)
George Kennan (diplomat, historian)
Jeane Kirkpatrick (diplomat, 16th United States Ambassador to the United Nations)
Ivy Lee (founding father of public relations)
Robert A. Lovett (4th Secretary of Defense of the United States under Truman)
Robert Matsui (former Democratic Party congressman from California)
John J. McCloy (lawyer, banker)
Charles Peter McColough (businessman)
George McGovern (former Democratic senator from South Dakota, 1972 Democratic Party nominee for President)
Robert McNamara (8th Secretary of Defense under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, 5th President of the World Bank)
Daniel Patrick Moynihan (diplomat, former Democratic Senator from New York)
Edmund Muskie (58th Secretary of State of the United States)
Richard M. Nixon (37th President of the United States)
Paul Nitze (Secretary of the Navy under Lyndon Johnson)
David Rockefeller
Nelson Rockefeller (41st Vice-President of the United States, and Governor of New York)
John D. Rockefeller 3rd
Felix Rohatyn (investment banker)
Mark B. Rosenberg (President of Florida International University)
Eugene Rostow (former dean of Yale law, legal scholar)
Walt Rostow (7th National Security advisor to Lyndon Johnson)
Dean Rusk (54th Secretary of State of the United States under Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson)
Abraham A. Ribicoff (former Democratic United States Senator from Connecticut)
William V. Roth, Jr. (former Republican United States Senator of Delaware).
Carl Sagan (American scientist)
Arthur Schlesinger (historian, academic)
Raymond P. Shafer (former Republican governor of Pennsylvania)
Tony Snow (former press secretary to George W. Bush, journalist, radio talk-show host)
Ron Silver (actor, director, producer, co-founded One Jerusalem)
Strobe Talbott (diplomat, chairman of Brookings Institution, journalist)
Shirley Temple (actress, diplomat)
Cyrus Vance (57th Secretary of State of the United States under Jimmy Carter)
Rick Warren (American Christian leader, Senior Pastor of the Saddleback Church)
Vernon A. Walters (United States Army General, 17th U.S. ambassador of the U.N.)
John Wheeler III (Vietnam veteran, military consultant, presidential aide; found murdered on Dec. 31, 2010)
Paul Warburg (banker)
Caspar Weinberger (15th Secretary of Defense for the United States under Ronald Reagan)
Albert Wohlstetter
Roberta Wohlstetter

List of Chairmen

Russell Cornell Leffingwell 1946-53
John J. McCloy 1953-70
David Rockefeller 1970-85
Peter G. Peterson 1985-2007
Carla A. Hills (co-chairman) 2007-
Robert E. Rubin (co-chairman) 2007-

List of presidents

John W. Davis 1921-33
George W. Wickersham 1933-36
Norman H. Davis 1936-44
Russell Cornell Leffingwell 1944-46
Allen Welsh Dulles 1946-50
Henry Merritt Wriston 1951-64
Grayson L. Kirk 1964-71
Bayless Manning 1971-77
Winston Lord 1977-85
John Temple Swing 1985-86 (Pro tempore)
Peter Tarnoff 1986-93
Alton Frye 1993
Leslie Gelb 1993-2003
Richard N. Haass 2003-

References

Source: The Council on Foreign Relations from 1921 to 1996: Historical Roster of Directors and Officers[8]

"Membership - Council on Foreign Relations". Cfr.org. Retrieved 2012-06-07.
"Corporate Program" PDF (330 KB)
"President's Welcome ("About CFR"), with a hyperlink to "History", both accessed February 24, 2007. (Date accessed applies to other citations to the CFR website.)
"Leadership and Staff". Accessed February 24, 2007.
Corporate Members (as of June 07, 2013)
Washington Post, Columnists, "Talk About Your Serious Roles", By Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts, Wednesday, February 28, 2007; Page C03. Nominated by council member Trevor Neilson. If she's voted in at the June board meeting, the 31-year-old Jolie will receive a five-year "term" membership.
Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery, NY Mag, Landon Thomas, retrieved 2011 3 25
"Continuing the Inquiry: Historical Roster of Directors and Officers".

Categories:

Council on Foreign Relations
Lists of people by institutional affiliation

Navigation menu

Create account
Log in

Article
Talk

Read
Edit
View history

Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikimedia Shop

Interaction

Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page

Tools

What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page

Print/export

Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version

Languages

Edit links

This page was last modified on 13 October 2014 at 20:49.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia(R) is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

[Anthony Marsh]

I don't have a cast of thousands.
Maybe a baker's dozen. The same as the Castro plots.
There were lots of little mistakes.
And just because people talked does not mean you listened.

> Or is finally to a cast of millions yet?
>

Reductio ad Absurdum.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 11/18/14 10:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 18 Nov 2014 16:15:00 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
> <gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On 11/18/14, 12:17 PM, Elwood P. Dowd wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 12:06:20 AM UTC-5, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 6:59:03 PM UTC-8, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Don't you see how weird it is that a global-warming denier would be
>>>> brought on as a consultant to a science program? Someone's personal bias
>>>> led them to bring you on as an official consultant. I, and I suspect Tink,
>>>> have no problems with your being on the show to offer your two cents, but
>>>> the program's giving you a special spot ahead of the other talking heads
>>>> on the show is an embarrassment, IMO, akin to their giving such a spot to
>>>> a CT with a CV, but little credibility, a la you know who.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you talking about the global warming that ended in 1998?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
>>
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
>
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
>
> A blown up larger version:
>
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif
>

To quote "lomiller
Philosopher"
at
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=261928
<quote on>To calculate a meaningful trend you need something in the
neighborhood of 20+ years of data. If you have less than this you will
always be able to cherry pick ?periods of no warming? due to the natural
variation in year to year temperatures.</quote>


Nineteen ninety-eight was an outlier; you have to try to factor out el
ni?o...

> And here is a different series (sea ice) from a site you won't like:
> :-)
>
> http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/may-5-global-sea-ice-area-second-highest-on-record/
>
> And here is another that doesn't show any year since 1997 having been
> any warmer than that year:
>
> http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
>

Ho-hum.
And yet oil companies are salivating at the opening of the formerly
icebound northern seaways.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/increasing-Antarctic-Southern-sea-ice-intermediate.htm

/sandy

[pjsp...@aol.com]

I take the fifth.

>
> >>=20
> >> So what?
> >>=20
> >> >And you are not a=20
> >> >scientist; you are a global-warming denier.
> >> >
> >>=20
> >> "Denier" is a really sleazy tactic, Pat, and attempt to equate those
> >> of us who are skeptical of global warming with holocaust deniers.
> >
> >What? Honestly, that had never occurred to me. When people deny something
> >that seems obvious to others they get called deniers. You are a conspiracy
> >denier, are you not?
> >
>
> You are an Oswald guilt denier, are you not?

Regarding what? I suspect he was set up as Kennedy's killer, but then
killed a policeman while trying to escape.

>
> But now that you know how nasty and incendiary the term is, I hope
> you'll stop using it.
>
>
> >>=20
> >> After 17 years of no global warming, don't you think a bit of
> >> skepticism is in order?
> >>=20
> >> And why is it OK to be skeptical of what government tells people where
> >> the JFK assassination is concerned, but not where global warming is
> >> concerned?
> >>=20
> >> You choose to be skeptical about some things, but you are dogmatic
> >> about global warming.
> >
> >Not at all, My point is that NOVA is a mainstream science show, and that
> >normally they'd have nothing to do with someone who questions global
> >warming.
>
> If they are a "mainstream science" show, normally they would have
> nothing to do with someone who questions the experts' assessment of
> the medical evidence in the JFK case.

I don't believe this is true. I suspect they'd let various theorists state
their theories, and then inject some moderation. You are a single-assassin
theorist. You have as much right to be on a show as a conspiracy theorist.
But no one, least of all you, should try to pass you off as an expert on
history or science. You're biased. You have an agenda. You know it.

>
> Why do you think *you* have a right to question "science," and I
> don't?
>
> >To mainstream scientists, people like you might as well be
> >Christian Scientists, or the flat-earth society.
> >
>
> If so, mainstream scientists are bigots.
>
> And how about questioning the top forensic pathologists in the
> country? Which is what you do.

There is a slight difference in that I use the textbooks written by the
top pathologists to show the world the error of their ways, and you use
largely-discredited scientists on the payroll of the energy companies to
try to pretend the burning of fossil fuels isn't destroying the
environment, and that all the top scientists are wrong.

>
>
> >>=20
> >>=20
> >> >Don't you see how weird it is that a global-warming denier would be=20
> >> >brought on as a consultant to a science program?=20
> >>=20
> >> The science people they had were the Haigs, well-established
> >> ballistics experts.
> >>=20
> >> People like me are a lot better qualified to evaluate the actions of
> >> government panels and government bureaucrats than people in other
> >> disciplines.
> >
> >Now, we're talking. So WHY have you never, at least as far as I can tell,
> >written about what is obvious to anyone who studies politics--that the
> >Warren Commission primarily served a political purpose?
> >
>
> Because it was really an honest investigation, regardless of what you
> folks say.

Nope. That bird has flown. Specter admitted he knew the wound was on the
back before he submitted the chapters saying it was on the neck. It was a
blatant and deliberate deception. And none of your spin can put that genie
back in the bottle.

>
> I *could* write about all the politics surrounding the WC, but that
> would be irrelevant to the evidence for or against a conspiracy.

That's precisely my point, John. You don't care about what happened, as
long as it wasn't a conspiracy. You are agenda-driven. I, and many others,
on the other hand, are intrigued by the full story--e.g. the in-fighting
between RFK and LBJ, the feud between the FBI and DPD--even if it has no
bearing on the possibility of conspiracy.

>
> I could attack Earl Warren for being too timid on some fronts: see
> Shenon. But that would be irrelevant to the evidence in the case.

Context is content, John, context is content.

LOL. You couldn't be more wrong. There is no denial on my part. EVIDENCE
is the autopsy photos and x-rays, and the statements of the eyewitnesses.
The conclusions of men who never saw the body, or witness the shooting, is
not in itself evidence. It's analysis to be consider within context. It's
absolutely shocking how many people miss this. Having one panel say the
bullet entered at the top of the head, after a previous panel has said it
entered near the bottom of the head, is not a CONFIRMATION of the initial
panel's conclusions, just because both panels think there was one bullet.
It is a refutation, and a giant neon sign saying "Something's Wrong Here!"

>
> Is global warming a rigid matter of faith with you? Not to be
> questioned or examined?
>
> Don't you think you should be tolerant of heterodoxy, just as us LNs

> should be tolerant of your heterodoxy with regard to a conspiracy.

>
>
> >in
> >fact, that usually leads them to run the other way. So what makes them
> >trust you when it comes to the assassination? It doesn't follow.
> >
>
> Becaus they see me as sensible and well-informed. They think of
> conspiracy theories as a bit "fringe."

Particularly when they involve a supposed hoax orchestrated by the
scientific community to hurt the oil companies...

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 11/18/14 10:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:

Do you have an alternative model that purports to explain scientifically
what would make warming plateau or reverse?

Or do you simply believe God keeps a finger on the thermostat?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/18/2014 5:52 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 11:51:36 AM UTC-5, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
>>
>> What I'm trying to get at is the "people like me" part. You are not Robert
>> Caro. or Dallek, or any other mainstream historian that the media tends to
>> trust. Your views on politics and global warming are a giant red flag, in
>> fact, that usually leads them to run the other way. So what makes them
>> trust you when it comes to the assassination? It doesn't follow.
>
> I've asked this question in other newsgroups and have yet to have anyone
> step up and answer it. Since the earth's climate has been constantly
> changing for the past 4.5 billion years, why is the prospect of further
> climate change such a catastrophe. Most of that past climate change has
> occurred without any contribution from humans.
>

Because the Earth has had several catastrophic changes in the past. Almost
99% of the species went extinct, including the dinosaurs. Look up Ice
Planet? Watch the movie The Day After Tomorrow. Slow change we can handle
ok. Rapid change not that much.

> I am not a climate change denier. I accept that the climate is changing.
> It would be amazing if suddely it quit changing. I am skeptical of those

Then what would you call that? Climate Stall?

> who act as if they can predict future climate change based on short term
> data and computer models. Back in the late 1970s after several brutally
> cold winters, some in the scientific community were wondering if we were
> at the dawn of the next ice age. That was right at the end of a 40 year
> period of global cooling that reversed itself and produced a warming trend
> that lasted no more than 20 years. Recent data shows no warming since. Who
> knows what the next trend will bring. We cannot predict what the forces of
> nature are going to throw at us. We can adapt to what it does.

You still don't understand Science.
Runaway CO2 levels could just as well cause another ice age.

>

[bigdog]

If you are referring to the article titled "Did Connally turn left or
right?", most of that is criticism of the way others have represented
Connally's bedside interview. Nowhere in that article do you explain how
it is that Connally was able to turn left far enough to see JFK and then
turn back to the right to the position seen in Z222 in the less than one
second he was hidden by the sign, which is what you claimed in the other
thread. You have given us no such explaination because there is no
plausible explaination for that. It simply doesn't work and you know
it.

> > the one in which you claim to have explained Connally's leftward turn
> > after he heard the first shot. But of course we all know you made that one
>
> I didn't say after hearing the first shot. Stop putting words in my mouth
> and learn to debate honestly. You give all WC defenders a bad name and it
> starts with L.
>

Well if you are going to tell us that the turn Connally described was not
in reaction to the first shot, that opens up a whole new discussion.
Connally said he was reacting to the first shot. Are you calling him a
liar? Or maybe you have adopted the Bob Harris theory that there was an
earlier shot that nobody could hear.

[bigdog]

I meant to add this quote which I lifted from the last paragraph of your
article:

"First, every author must be willing to defend what he writes and back up
his statements with sources and references. "

So why when you are asked by others to provide sources and references do
you choose to play dodgeball instead?

[Anthony Marsh]

Just look at the satellite photos and see how the ice cap is melting
more and more each year. This is a long-term trend.

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

[Elwood P. Dowd]

Richard Lindzen atmospheric physicist, known for his work in the dynamics
of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry. He
has published more than 200 scientific papers and books. From 1983 until
he retired in 2013, he was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology said:

Based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC
couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some
forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even
this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural
internal variability--that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El
Niño, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure
of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen
years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural
internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for
anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I could've said that myself, but I was *so* tired of typing.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:43:01 PM UTC-5, Sandy McCroskey wrote:

Do you believe the weather has always been like it is now?

[Elwood P. Dowd]

. Almost

Marsh wrote that 99% of the species went extinct, including the dinosaurs.
The extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by anthropogenic global warming
caused by humans who didn't even exist. It may have been the automobiles
that caused the BERING Strait Ice Bridge to melt. Marsh PLEASE TELL ME
EXACTLY WHERE YOU GOT YOUR CLIMATOLOGY DEGREE?

[cmikes]

Except it's not melting. The current argument is that Global Warming,
which stopped in 1997, is causing the formation of more ice, but the fact
that there is more ice is not in dispute.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/antarctic-sea-ice-continues-to-expand/5760642

[gwmcc...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 2:43:01 PM UTC-5, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
> On 11/18/14 10:35 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> > On 18 Nov 2014 16:15:00 -0500, Sandy McCroskey

- show quoted text -

Do you believe the weather has always been like it is now?

It would be interesting to know what compels you to ask such a question.
Nothing I said indicates I would entertain an idiotic notion like that.
How in the world did you get there?

Creationists seem to believe that God controls the climate. I don't know
how you could confuse me with them, but only such supernatural
intervention could prevent change. Past extinctions were divinely
ordained, they'll tell you. Like, God made it rain 40 days and 40 nights.
I shouldn't have to tell you that I hold to the once (and still, for some)
scandalously impious notion that the earth has been repeatedly subject to
catatrophic upheaval and climatic change.

[John McAdams]

Isn't this the real "inconvenient truth" for global warming folks?

The earth has been quite a bit warmer than it is now, and also colder,
all without mankind putting carbon dioxide into the air?

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

[John McAdams]

On 19 Nov 2014 14:31:48 -0500, Sandy McCroskey

Suppose in three more years we get that?

Will, all of a sudden, we need 30 years?

Don't you realize that global warming believers pick the start and end
points they need to support their theory?

>If you have less than this you will
>always be able to cherry pick ?periods of no warming? due to the natural
>variation in year to year temperatures.</quote>
>

Pot. Kettle. Black.

>
>Nineteen ninety-eight was an outlier; you have to try to factor out el
>ni?o...
>

Perhaps the run up of temperatures in the late 20th century was an
outlier?

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

[Sandy McCroskey]

And yadda yadda yadda to you too.

>>
>> Nineteen ninety-eight was an outlier; you have to try to factor out el
>> ni?o...
>>
>
> Perhaps the run up of temperatures in the late 20th century was an
> outlier?
>

It sure would be nice to believe that.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140721181805.htm

[Elwood P. Dowd]

Catastrophic not catatrophic. Check your spelling. That's not like you.

[Anthony Marsh]

Again proving that you reject science. Maybe it was all a dream?

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

[Anthony Marsh]

The difference it when Mankind artificially creates the conditions in
100 years which may take nature thousands of years. Remember the Ice
Ages? Remember the extinction of the dinosaurs? Scientists think that
was a catastrophic event over a short time. We survived the Ice Ages. We
might not survive a comet strike.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

Again, LOOK at the satellite photos. Are you blind?

> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-22/antarctic-sea-ice-continues-to-expand/5760642
>

[Anthony Marsh]

And waiting for the ice to recede in Iceland so that they can drill there.
What may be the largest deposit in the world. Then the CIA will claim
Iceland has a nuclear bomb to justify our invading Iceland.

[David Von Pein]

PAT SPEER SAID:

Specter admitted he knew the wound was on the back before he submitted the
chapters saying it was on the neck. It was a blatant and deliberate
deception. And none of your spin can put that genie back in the bottle.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's no genie to put back in the bottle....and CE903 proves it:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm

Commission Exhibit 903 places the wound just where the autopsy photo has
it and just where the autopsy surgeons place it in the Boswell Face Sheet
--- in the UPPER BACK, not the "neck".

And this is true regardless of the continual use of the word "neck" in the
text of the WCR and in the various testimony in the WC volumes.

The problem isn't WHERE the wound is located. The WC knew exactly where it
was--14 cm. below the mastoid.

The problem is merely semantics---"neck vs. back"--and nothing more. But
the location of the bullet wound never changed--ever.

And the Warren Commission never attempted to *change* the wound's location
either. And that's because--as Jean Davison said on January 2, 2007....

"To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up
to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the
entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not strengthen
it. .... The claim that [Gerald] Ford's change 'strengthens' the WC's SBT
is simply not true." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Commission-Exhibit-903

[bigdog]

Who needs to as long as we have you around to explain it all to us.

> Runaway CO2 levels could just as well cause another ice age.

Is that what caused previous ice ages? If past trends hold, we are due for
a new ice age. The warming periods between ice ages generally last between
10,000 to 12,000 years. Each ice age has been preceded by a spike in both
global temperatures and CO2 levels. Unless you want to blame Fred
Flintstone's SUV, I don't think man had anything to do with that. We may
simply be witnessing that temperature and CO2 spike that has preceded
previous ice ages.

It's been over 11,000 years since the last ice age. That seems to me to be
of far greater concern than global warming, not that we can do anything
about it. It's been estimated the global population was a few million when
the last ice age ended. We now have 7 billion people that need to be fed
and who knows how many when the next ice age starts. If the agricultural
regions of the world get covered with a mile thick glacier, that will be a
recipe for catastrophe. We would be better off figuring out what to do if
that happens rather than worrying about whether the thermometer goes up a
few degrees.

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, but there is a still difference between 10,000 years and 100 years.

> It's been over 11,000 years since the last ice age. That seems to me to be
> of far greater concern than global warming, not that we can do anything
> about it. It's been estimated the global population was a few million when

We we adapted and survived the last Ice Age. The Whooly Mammoth, not so
much, unless you watch the SyFy channel.

> the last ice age ended. We now have 7 billion people that need to be fed
> and who knows how many when the next ice age starts. If the agricultural
> regions of the world get covered with a mile thick glacier, that will be a
> recipe for catastrophe. We would be better off figuring out what to do if
> that happens rather than worrying about whether the thermometer goes up a
> few degrees.
>

Which is worse, an Ice Age or a desert planet like Mars?
Somebody must have survived the Iceball Earth.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/21/2014 3:01 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> Specter admitted he knew the wound was on the back before he submitted the
> chapters saying it was on the neck. It was a blatant and deliberate
> deception. And none of your spin can put that genie back in the bottle.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> There's no genie to put back in the bottle....and CE903 proves it:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
> Commission Exhibit 903 places the wound just where the autopsy photo has
> it and just where the autopsy surgeons place it in the Boswell Face Sheet
> --- in the UPPER BACK, not the "neck".
>
> And this is true regardless of the continual use of the word "neck" in the
> text of the WCR and in the various testimony in the WC volumes.
>
> The problem isn't WHERE the wound is located. The WC knew exactly where it
> was--14 cm. below the mastoid.
>

No, that is not a valid measurement, as the HSCA pointed out.
The wound in the back would not allow a SBT so they had to move it up
with verbal plastic surgery to the neck.

> The problem is merely semantics---"neck vs. back"--and nothing more. But
> the location of the bullet wound never changed--ever.
>

You are not the only WC defender who can't tell the difference between
back and neck. Most can not even tell the difference between ABOVE and
BELOW.

> And the Warren Commission never attempted to *change* the wound's location
> either. And that's because--as Jean Davison said on January 2, 2007....
>
> "To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up
> to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the
> entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not strengthen
> it. .... The claim that [Gerald] Ford's change 'strengthens' the WC's SBT
> is simply not true." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007
>

Wrong. I diagrammed how the SBT can only work if the entrance wound is
ABOVE the top of the shoulders and not as we can see it BELOW the top of
the shoulders. Either Jean is being deliberately disingenuous or she
doesn't know the difference between ABOVE and BELOW.

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Commission-Exhibit-903
>

[bigdog]

I didn't know we have choice?

> Somebody must have survived the Iceball Earth.

Humans didn't. If it occurred, it was at least 650 million years ago. That
was way before us. I have no idea what the next 100 years are going to be
like or the next hundred days. I kinda sorta know what the next 100 hours
are going to bring weatherwise. Beyond that, it's anybody's guess. We
can't predict what nature is going to throw at us. We have brains that
allow us to adapt. We will adapt to whatever that is because we have no
choice.

[bigdog]

Sure you did, Tony. Just like all the other things you claim to have done
which nobody has ever seen.

[Anthony Marsh]

You refused to look as usual.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, we do. By what we do to change the planet.

>> Somebody must have survived the Iceball Earth.
>
> Humans didn't. If it occurred, it was at least 650 million years ago. That
> was way before us. I have no idea what the next 100 years are going to be

I didn't say humans.
Humans are fragile.

[Jean Davison]

Nonsense. As usual.

Jean

[bigdog]

You refused to provide a cite as usual.

As is always the case with your claims, they are phantoms which no one has
ever seen.

[Sandy McCroskey]

You said "somebody."
Look it up. That means "some person."

/sm

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong again, Grammar Nazi.
It is used to avoid naming any specific individual.
What you you think the movie title Somebody Up There Likes Me means?
God as a person? An angel as a person?
Oh, I forgot, you don't know God and you don't believe in Angels.

> /sm

News in Science
Green power saved earth from iceball fate

Thursday, 2 July 2009
AFP
green forest

As CO2 levels plummeted, plant growth and rock weathering slowed leading
to carbon sequestration, say researchers (Source: iStockphoto)
Related Stories

Melting methane thawed frozen planet, Science Online, 29 May 2008
'Snowball earth' was more a slushball, Science Online, 06 Dec 2007
How the Earth became a snowball, Science Online, 19 Mar 2004

Vegetation helped save earth from runaway cooling that would have
encased the planet in ice, according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the journal Nature, sheds light on the
natural mechanisms that over hundreds of millions of years have swung
the globe like a pendulum between deep chill and intense heat.

Around 50 million years ago, the planet's poles were ice-free and
crocodiles roamed the Arctic.

But that was followed by a long period of cooling, in which levels of
carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal 'greenhouse' gas that traps solar
heat, progressively declined.

Belching volcanoes provided the main source of this CO2 - in contrast to
today, when the gas comes overwhelmingly from burning fossil fuels.

But there was also a force which removed CO2: a chemical reaction that
occurs when silica rocks are weathered.

Over time, the gas is dissolved into groundwater, which flows to the sea
and eventually the carbon is sequestered on the ocean floor.

Climate scientists have long puzzled about what happened at a key point
in this weathering process.

Around 25 million years ago, earth was wrenched by a period of mountain
building that threw up the Himalayas and the Andes.

This created conditions that, in theory, should have sucked nearly all
the CO2 out of the atmosphere and plunged the planet into a deep freeze.

Yet it clearly did not happen, and the question is why.
Plant buffer

The answer, according to US geophysicists, lies in the buffering power
of plants.

Vegetation, especially trees, suck in atmospheric CO2 in the process of
photosynthesis and also play a key role in the weathering of rocks.

Their roots secrete acids that dissolve minerals, hold soils and
increase the amount of CO2 dissolved in groundwater.

As the CO2 levels plummeted, plants were starved of their essential gas
for life, according to the team's hypothesis.

This slowed the weathering process down, and led to less burial of the
carbon. As a result, there remained enough CO2 in the air to avoid the
'iceball earth' scenario.

"As the CO2 concentration of earth's atmosphere decreased to about 200
to 250 parts per million (ppm), CO2 levels stabilised," says lead author
Mark Pagani, an associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale
University.

The study is based on simulations of the global carbon cycle and
observations from plant growth experiments.
Modern times

If plants saved earth from endless chill, they are unlikely to do the
same when it comes to human-induced warming, say the authors.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere today are around 385 ppm, compared with 280
ppm before the Industrial Revolution.

"We are releasing CO2 to the atmosphere about 100 times faster than all
the volcanoes in the world put together," says Dr Ken Caldeira of the
Carnegie Institution for Science.

"While these weathering processes will eventually remove the CO2 we are
adding to the atmosphere, they act too slowly to help us avoid dangerous
climate change.

"It will take hundreds of thousands of years for these rock-weathering
processes to remove our fossil-fuel emissions from the atmosphere."

Tags: climate-change, earth-sciences, geology

[Anthony Marsh]

I did. You admit that you refuse to look at the articles on my Web site.

> As is always the case with your claims, they are phantoms which no one has
> ever seen.
>
>

Everyone else but you has seen.

[Glenn V.]

Den tisdagen den 25:e november 2014 kl. 04:31:37 UTC+1 skrev Jean Davison:

> Nonsense. As usual.
>
> Jean

Jean

Could I please ask you to elaborate on the quotation DVP submitted above?

/Glenn V.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Yes.
And neither of them would be threatened by the Iceball Earth.

[Mark Florio]

Sandy, I'm sorry I posted anything about punctuation versus substance. All
I did was give Tony an excuse to foam. He doesn't get that throwing a
certain pejorative around dilutes its meaning. Mark Florio.

[bigdog]

Standard dodge #3. The truth is you have provided no such cite. If you
had, you could easily repeat it. But you won't because you can't.

> > As is always the case with your claims, they are phantoms which no one has
> > ever seen.
> >
> >
>
> Everyone else but you has seen.

Nobody else has seen it. You are making it up. AGAIN!!!

[David Von Pein]

GLENN V. SAID:

Jean, Could I please ask you to elaborate on the quotation DVP submitted
above?


DAVID VON PEIN PROVIDES THE LINK TO JEAN'S ORIGINAL COMMENTS (VIA THE
EDUCATION FORUM, CIRCA 2006-2007):

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8861&page=4#entry86999

Continue on to the remaining pages of that Edu. Forum thread for more of
Jean's remarks.

[CLAY BERTRAND RUSSELL]

Another boring response from Florio.

[Glenn V.]

Thanks, David.

[Anthony Marsh]

What are you, a Sadist? Telling innocent people that they have to
subject themselves to abuse like that?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/27/2014 12:09 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 5:27:42 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 11/25/2014 11:26 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Monday, November 24, 2014 9:23:29 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>> On 11/24/2014 11:49 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, November 23, 2014 1:49:29 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/21/2014 3:01 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up
>>>>>>> to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the
>>>>>>> entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not strengthen
>>>>>>> it. .... The claim that [Gerald] Ford's change 'strengthens' the WC's SBT
>>>>>>> is simply not true." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. I diagrammed how the SBT can only work if the entrance wound is
>>>>>> ABOVE the top of the shoulders and not as we can see it BELOW the top of
>>>>>> the shoulders. Either Jean is being deliberately disingenuous or she
>>>>>> doesn't know the difference between ABOVE and BELOW.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure you did, Tony. Just like all the other things you claim to have done
>>>>> which nobody has ever seen.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You refused to look as usual.
>>>
>>> You refused to provide a cite as usual.
>>>
>>
>> I did. You admit that you refuse to look at the articles on my Web site.
>>
>
> Standard dodge #3. The truth is you have provided no such cite. If you
> had, you could easily repeat it. But you won't because you can't.
>

I can repeat it 1,000 times, but you'll never read it.

>
>>> As is always the case with your claims, they are phantoms which no one has
>>> ever seen.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Everyone else but you has seen.
>
> Nobody else has seen it. You are making it up. AGAIN!!!
>
>

You are refusing to look, again, and again, and again!!!!!!!!!

[Anthony Marsh]

FYI, I did not invent the term Grammar Nazi.

[Anthony Marsh]

Illogical. I don't see how God or an angel could be threatened by the
Iceball Earth. Maybe an angel sent a comet to warm up and thaw the
Iceball Earth to save life.
Sorta like Sodom and Gomorrah.

[bigdog]

A variation of standard dodge #2. "I've already repeated it x times and
you refuse to read it". As is the case with standard dodge #3 you haven't
provided the asked for cite even once because there is nothing to cite.
Why don't you go for the hat trick and throw in standard dodge #1. "Learn
to google".

> >
> > Nobody else has seen it. You are making it up. AGAIN!!!
>
> You are refusing to look, again, and again, and again!!!!!!!!!

You are nothing if not predictable. And quite amusing too.

[Sandy McCroskey]

But that's what I said.

So what *somebody* (what *person*) survived Iceball Earth?

[Jean Davison]

Glenn,

Sorry I didn't see your question earlier.

The downward trajectory of the bullet exiting below Kennedy's Adam's apple
was approximately 18 degrees according to surveyors' calculations for the
HSCA and WC. Going backward from the exit (at the knot in his tie), 18
degrees puts the entry somewhere in his upper back. Moving the entry up to
the neck would make the bullet's angle too steep to have hit Connally
where it did, imo. I think this can be seen in almost any side view of
JFK:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt/croft-love.jpg

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/croft.jpg

The angle from nape of his neck to the tie knot looks closer to 45
degrees, imo. Where could that shot have come from, a helicopter?

Ford didn't *need* to move the back wound up. And in fact he didn't, since
the phrase he revised put the wound on "his back at a point slightly
*above the shoulder*." It can't be above the shoulder and still be in the
back. (Except maybe in conspiracyland where apparently anything is
possible.)

http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

Jean

[FSHG]

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/9604/spectersurprizedce903.jpg

On Friday, November 21, 2014 3:01:02 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> PAT SPEER SAID:
>
> Specter admitted he knew the wound was on the back before he submitted the
> chapters saying it was on the neck. It was a blatant and deliberate
> deception. And none of your spin can put that genie back in the bottle.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> There's no genie to put back in the bottle....and CE903 proves it:
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh18/html/WH_Vol18_0055b.htm
>
> Commission Exhibit 903 places the wound just where the autopsy photo has
> it and just where the autopsy surgeons place it in the Boswell Face Sheet
> --- in the UPPER BACK, not the "neck".
>
> And this is true regardless of the continual use of the word "neck" in the
> text of the WCR and in the various testimony in the WC volumes.
>
> The problem isn't WHERE the wound is located. The WC knew exactly where it
> was--14 cm. below the mastoid.
>

> The problem is merely semantics---"neck vs. back"--and nothing more. But
> the location of the bullet wound never changed--ever.
>

> And the Warren Commission never attempted to *change* the wound's location
> either. And that's because--as Jean Davison said on January 2, 2007....
>

> "To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up
> to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the
> entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not strengthen
> it. .... The claim that [Gerald] Ford's change 'strengthens' the WC's SBT
> is simply not true." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007
>

> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Commission-Exhibit-903

[David Von Pein]

And just one quick look at CE903 tells us that the WC did not "move" the
wound up into Kennedy's "neck". Specter's pointer in CE903 places the
wound just where the autopsy photo has it--in the upper back--which works
perfectly for the SBT bullet, moving downward at an angle of 17.72
degrees, to exit right at the tie knot....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

[Anthony Marsh]

As I said before and you just proved, WC defenders do not even know the
difference between ABOVE and BELOW. Specter is holding the rod ABOVE the
top of the shoulders. JFK's wound was BELOW the top of the shoulders.
Humes had Rydberg draw in an entrance wound ABOVE the top of the
shoulders.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/rydberg.gif

We can see for ourselves that the back wound was really BELOW the top of
the shoulders.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/F5-backshotwithryberg.jpg

You can't even admit this simple fact. Never give an inch. Always attack.
Always misrepresent. Establish your WC defender bona fides. Prove that you
can't even tell the difference between ABOVE and BELOW.

[John McAdams]

On 29 Nov 2014 17:43:31 -0500, Anthony Marsh

So Specter should have used a rapier and run the guy through.

Beautiful, Tony.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/28/2014 8:04 PM, Jean Davison wrote:
> On 11/26/2014 8:28 PM, Glenn V. wrote:
>> Den tisdagen den 25:e november 2014 kl. 04:31:37 UTC+1 skrev Jean
>> Davison:
>>
>>> Nonsense. As usual.
>>>
>>> Jean
>>
>> Jean
>>
>> Could I please ask you to elaborate on the quotation DVP submitted above?
>>
>> /Glenn V.
>>
>>
>
> Glenn,
>
> Sorry I didn't see your question earlier.
>
> The downward trajectory of the bullet exiting below Kennedy's Adam's
> apple was approximately 18 degrees according to surveyors' calculations
> for the HSCA and WC. Going backward from the exit (at the knot in his
> tie), 18 degrees puts the entry somewhere in his upper back. Moving the
> entry up to the neck would make the bullet's angle too steep to have hit
> Connally where it did, imo. I think this can be seen in almost any side
> view of JFK:
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/hunt/croft-love.jpg
>
> http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/images/news/croft.jpg
>

Jean, you're not trying hard enough. I'm going to have to talk to your
handler. You could have used Baden's trick and claimed that JFK was
leaning over by 18 degrees. If you had just helped the WC then they
would not have had to lie and claim that the bullet entered the neck
above the shoulder.

> The angle from nape of his neck to the tie knot looks closer to 45
> degrees, imo. Where could that shot have come from, a helicopter?
>

What you been smoking up there? They just made it legal, didn't they?
Do I really have to remind you that Humes is the one who guessed 45
degrees? And I am disappointed that you didn't remember to use a UFO in
your straw man argument instead of the mundane helicopter.

> Ford didn't *need* to move the back wound up. And in fact he didn't,
> since the phrase he revised put the wound on "his back at a point
> slightly *above the shoulder*." It can't be above the shoulder and still
> be in the back. (Except maybe in conspiracyland where apparently
> anything is possible.)
>

No. The autopsy doctors said Upper Back.
So again we find another WC defender who doesn't know the difference
between ABOVE and BELOW. Rankin told them the entrance would was in the
back.

> http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html
>
> Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

I didn't say person. Maybe his name was Frank.

[Anthony Marsh]

I think you've tried that trick about 5 times and every time I
corrected you. Once again, he did not have to use that rod. He did that
intentionally while the standin was sitting perfectly upright to produce
a lying picture.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

Note to DVP. Your team-mate John has hereby acknowledged what is obvious
to everyone else--that CE 903 does not show a trajectory passing through
the ACTUAL location of the back wound.

We know, of course, that Shaneyfelt took pictures in which the ACTUAL
location of the chalk mark on the stand-in was shown. We know, of course,
that Specter asked Shaneyfelt to not enter these pictures into evidence
and instead either arranged or allowed him to say that the trajectory
"approximated" the location of the back wound--while entering CE 903 into
evidence. We know also that Specter had SS agent Kelley say they used the
location of the wound on CE 386 (the Rydberg drawing) when placing the
chalk mark on the back of the stand-in. Specter had thereby kept the
ACTUAL location of the chalk mark out of the record. Well, WHY would he
have done that if his trajectory analysis actually confirmed the SBT?

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

[Glenn V.]

Thank you, Jean.

[Jean Davison]

More nonsense. Learn how to read, Tony.

Jean

[Anthony Marsh]

DVP said quite clearly that the rod is placed ABOVE where the actual
wound is. John still can't figure out the difference between ABOVE and
BELOW. He doesn't each geometry, you know.

> We know, of course, that Shaneyfelt took pictures in which the ACTUAL
> location of the chalk mark on the stand-in was shown. We know, of course,
> that Specter asked Shaneyfelt to not enter these pictures into evidence
> and instead either arranged or allowed him to say that the trajectory
> "approximated" the location of the back wound--while entering CE 903 into
> evidence. We know also that Specter had SS agent Kelley say they used the

And why couldn't the WC just say that their drawing of the head wound
"approximated" The actual entrance hole?

> location of the wound on CE 386 (the Rydberg drawing) when placing the
> chalk mark on the back of the stand-in. Specter had thereby kept the
> ACTUAL location of the chalk mark out of the record. Well, WHY would he
> have done that if his trajectory analysis actually confirmed the SBT?
>

Why is there air?

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

[Anthony Marsh]

Jeez, don't encourage her.

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/ce903-part-3.html

[Glenn V.]

Unlike you, I was taught what normal courtesy is all about. Besides, I
would encourage Jean Davison 24/7/365 to participate in this forum, unlike
what I'd encourage you to do. You should learn from her what serious
research is and what good manors are.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Back to square one again with Tony.

You said "someone." "Someone" means a person.
Live with it.