WHY do lone-nutters post here???? Answer...
SecretServiceguy
WAS NO CONPIRACY, THEN WHY THE $#@$#% WOULD YOU EVEN BOTHER LOOKING AT
THIS STUFF, LET ALONE POSTING????????
'Nuff said. The more the lone-nutters post, the more they make the
CTers look good.
I have a life---married, kids, good job, musician in an up and coming
band, etc. Although I am (semi) retired and burned out now, this has
0.0 to do with any of my accomplishments (or lack thereof...sorry,
Rahnie baby).
Again---IF YOU BELIEVE OSWALD ACTED ALONE, WHY BOTHER???????
Why, indeed.
Again, I am right (as usual)
Vince Palamara :)
Steve
Vince Palamara wrote:
I have a life---married, kids, good job, musician in an up and coming
band, etc. Although I am (semi) retired and burned out now, this has
0.0 to do with any of my accomplishments (or lack thereof...sorry,
Rahnie baby).
Steve writes:
You left out a major detail in describingyourself, Vince:
You are TERRIBLY full of yourself.
In answer to your question as to "Why do "lone nutter's" post here...
It is because we have to correct and display (for the innocent lurkers
who may come here) the lies and disinformation that is spread around
about the assassination, by people like e.g. Tom Rossley, who has been
caught red handed by Todd Vaughan, as having lies about Lee Bowers, not
to mention other things, on his Website.
I hope this answers your question.
Steve
SecretServiceguy
vince
Steve
vince
Steve:
Well, that's too bad for you, Vince
Ben Holmes
SecretServiceguy says...
Tis true... LNT'ers have no coherent basis for their beliefs... they will argue
that Oswald did it, but will stick that proverbial 10-foot pole between
themselves and the actual Warren Commission's acts. They won't defend the WC's
actions, they simply can't. A common theme between the WC and the HSCA seems to
be, "They made a lot of mistakes, but ended up with the right conclusion". How
silly...
No LNT'er yet has been willing to defend why the "truth" needs lies to support
it. For both WC *and* HSCA lied to support their "conclusions"...
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1142341682.8...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
> SecretServiceguy says...
> >
> >They have no life. The bottom line---IF OSWALD ACTED ALONE AND THERE
> >WAS NO CONPIRACY, THEN WHY THE $#@$#% WOULD YOU EVEN BOTHER LOOKING AT
> >THIS STUFF, LET ALONE POSTING????????
> >
> >'Nuff said. The more the lone-nutters post, the more they make the
> >CTers look good.
> >
> >I have a life---married, kids, good job, musician in an up and coming
> >band, etc. Although I am (semi) retired and burned out now, this has
> >0.0 to do with any of my accomplishments (or lack thereof...sorry,
> >Rahnie baby).
> >
> >Again---IF YOU BELIEVE OSWALD ACTED ALONE, WHY BOTHER???????
> >
> >Why, indeed.
> >
> >Again, I am right (as usual)
> >
> >Vince Palamara :)
>
> Tis true... LNT'ers have no coherent basis for their beliefs... they will argue
> that Oswald did it,
Of course Oswald did it. What do you use to convince yourself he
didn`t? Testimony of people who say he was in the building the shots
originated from, and a report you`ve never seen saying Oz didn`t have
nitrates on his face. Anything is good enough for a kook who wants to
avoid the obvious.
> but will stick that proverbial 10-foot pole between
> themselves and the actual Warren Commission's acts.
I`m forever blowing bubbles... How long will they bitch about the
WC?
> They won't defend the WC's
> actions, they simply can't.
The WC has never been the point, yet kooks like to pretend it is.
> A common theme between the WC and the HSCA seems to
> be, "They made a lot of mistakes, but ended up with the right conclusion".
The only reasonable conclusion. The obvious conclusion. The only
real conclusion possible, which explains why there are no contenders.
> How
> silly...
How silly to think that because you can find things to criticize
about the WC, that proves conspiracy.
> No LNT'er yet has been willing to defend why the "truth" needs lies to support
> it.
Can CT explain why, if they are truly after the truth, they work so
hard to disregard the evidence indicating Oz`s guilt?
> For both WC *and* HSCA lied to support their "conclusions"...
Kooks would be dissatisfied with any conclusions that didn`t show
conspiracy. Unfortunately for them, there was no conspiracy to show.
JLeyd...@aol.com
SecretServiceguy wrote:
> They have no life. The bottom line---IF OSWALD ACTED ALONE AND THERE
> WAS NO CONPIRACY, THEN WHY THE $#@$#% WOULD YOU EVEN BOTHER LOOKING AT
> THIS STUFF, LET ALONE POSTING????????
>
> 'Nuff said. The more the lone-nutters post, the more they make the
> CTers look good.
Maybe the reason Lone Assassin people post here is that it seems to
annoy the CTs so much to have their fantasies questioned. You know,
like the fantasy that you're "Secret ServiceGuy." Sure thing! Tell
me, do you carry a toy gun and have you ever pulled it on anyone?
Well, besides us, that is.
JGL
>
> I have a life---married, kids, good job, musician in an up and coming
> band, etc. Although I am (semi) retired and burned out now, this has
> 0.0 to do with any of my accomplishments (or lack thereof...sorry,
> Rahnie baby).
>
> Again---IF YOU BELIEVE OSWALD ACTED ALONE, WHY BOTHER???????
>
> Why, indeed.
>
> Again, I am right (as usual)
>
> Vince Palamara :)
."
SecretServiceguy
vince
tomnln
1. Destroying Oswald’s note to Dallas FBI Office.
2. Withholding Hosty’s name, address, phone number
And license plate number from Oswald’s notebook.
3 . Destroying Walker back yard photo.
4. Changing Walker bullet from "Steel-Jacketed"
to
Copper Jacketed .
5. Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate.
6. Lying when claiming Paper for gun bag matched
TSBD paper.
6. Lying by stating Oswald had NO connection to
CIA.
7. Lying about Oswald going to Mexico City.
8. Washing out Limo at Parkland Hospital.
Thus Destroying Evidence. Within minutes
9. Stealing body from Dallas jurisdiction under
Gun Point.
10. Stealing Limo from Dallas Jurisdiction.
11. Destroying part 3 of P O Box Rental Application.
12. Showed LHO 133A BEFORE it was Found. WCR App XI
13. Dry Cleaning/Pressing JBC’s Clothing.
14. Switch Entrance/Exit wounds on JBC’s Wrist wound.
15. JFK’s brain missing.
16. Autopsy slides missing.
17. Alteration of “Z” film
18.
I have a Live Audio Chat Room on www.paltalk.com
Download & Use for FREE.
Once Logged on select Social Issues.
Scroll down to room called "Who Killed John F. Kennedy?"
I start between 8-9 pm e.s.t. EVERY NITE.
We can transfer files to one another Instantly.
ANY Exhibits of Evidence, ANY Testimony from WC/HSCA Volumes.
Look forward to seeing you there.
tomnln
tomnln
"Opinions are like A--holes, Everybody has one".
Did any of you see any Citations in his post????????????????
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1142358579.5...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
ANOTHER post WITHOUT Citations.
<JLeyd...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1142361999.3...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Steve
Rossley, the liar, wrote:
Hey Steve;
You forgot to mention that Tom Rossley got several of you WCR Defenders
(read Accessories After the Fact)
to ADMIT that that the authorities "Destroyed Evidence", a Felony.
Steve writes:
Please, Tom. I know for a fact that I did NOT "ADMIT" to any such
thing to you.
Rossley, the liar, coninued:
Hence, you, todd, McAdams, Jean Davison, Ken & others not worth
mentioning
are Nothing more that Felon Supporters.
Steve writes:
Grow up, Tom.
Liar Rossley wrote:
(If you need me to post those CONFESSIONS, just ask)
Steve writes:
Yes, please do so, and supply the proof of the "CONFESSION" such as
the person's post, email, whatever. The way you lie on your website,
and lie in here, I don't trust **anything** that you say as fact. And
unless you provide the entire post or email, along with the persons"
Confession" I wont believe a word of this!
Liar Rossley wrote:
You also forgot to mention that NOT one of you has the Guts to debate
me in a "Live Audio Chat Room"
I have Repeatedly invited you to do so.
Steve writes:
Tom, your "Live Audio Chat Room" is the equivelent of a baby's
playpen. If I want to talk with a baby in a playpen, I don't have to
go to your "chat room", I can visit my newly born great nephew.
I look forward to your offer to post the "CONFESSIONS", Tom, and I am
sutre so do those you say you "got" to "ADMIT".
Steve
re: produce the "CONFESSIONS" of the folks you say that you "got... to
ADMIT" " that the authorities "Destroyed Evidence"
Several of us are waiting...
tomnln
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1142384426.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
===================================================================
> Steve writes:
> Tom, your "Live Audio Chat Room" is the equivelent of a baby's
> playpen. If I want to talk with a baby in a playpen, I don't have to
> go to your "chat room", I can visit my newly born great nephew.
The Truth is that you don't have the GUTS.
Because I can transfer CE Exhibits & Testimony Instsntly.
=====================================================================
> I look forward to your offer to post the "CONFESSIONS", Tom, and I am
> sutre so do those you say you "got" to "ADMIT".
===================================================================
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message news:...
> MIDDLE POST
>
> "John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> news:431b7976...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>> On 1 Sep 2005 09:11:11 -0400, garag...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>In an ungodly long post, Chad Zimmermans chastises me for criticizing
>>>his pal, Larry Sturdivan's, "experimental duplication" shooting tests
>>>of human skulls, tests done with Alfred Olivier for the Warren
>>>Commission way, way back when.
>>>
>>>His comments, intersperced with my replies, offer a window into not
>>>only this interesting question, but also into how Chad tries to shift
>>>focus away from the heart of my criticisms concerning the flawed
>>>"duplications."
>>>
>>
>> Gary is always trying to "shift the focus" of any discussion away from
>> the evidence to attack all the Evil Minions who believe Oswald killed
>> Kennedy.
>>
>>
>>>Gary
>>>
>>>Chad Zimmerman Aug 31, 9:09 pm hide options
>>>Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk, alt.conspiracy.jfk, alt.war.vietnam
>>>From: "Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@cableone.net> - Find messages by this
>>>author
>>>Date: 1 Sep 2005 00:09:22 -0400
>>>Local: Wed, Aug 31 2005 9:09 pm
>>>Subject: Re: How did the Warren Commission, LIFE Magazine, George Bush,
>>>the New York Times, Larry Sturdivan AND John McAdams get it wrong?
>>>
>>>GA: > The lie comes in the fact no one, not Mandel or anyone at LIFE,
>>>ever
>>>> corrected the whopping error.
>>>
>>>
>>>Probably because less than .01% of all of America cares as much about
>>>this
>>>as you do. Many things have been published that aren't correct. Scores of
>>>theories have been published, yet only one can be correct. You never
>>>complain about those, now do you? But, those darn LN slanted
>>>observations...
>>>
>>>GA: Has it not occurred to you that no one cares about this significant
>>>error because almost no one knows about it? Journalists generally
>>>endeavor
>>>to get their facts strait, which is why often the most niggling of errors
>>>get corrected in later editions. In this case, Mandel's wasn't exactly a
>>>niggling error, it was a whopper, and it was never corrected. But you're
>>>comment is relevant because, since LIFE, and LIFE ONLY, had the Z-film,
>>>they didn't have to worry about anyone finding out about the error, or
>>>having to answer for it.
>>>
>>
>> Gary has admitted that Mandel didn't lie about this.
>>
>> Media often refuse or simply neglect to correct errors.
>>
>> Dan Rather *still* hasn't admitted that he used forged papers to
>> report on President Bush's National Guard service!
>>
>>
>>
>>>>It would seem entirely innocent but for the
>>>> lack of a correction, which would have required LIFE to come up with
>>>> the
>>>> next to impossible: an explanation for how a shot from behind had
>>>> created
>>>> an entrance wound in the front of Kennedy's throat.
>>>
>>
>> They could simply explain that the wound was an *exit* from the
>> entrance wound in the back.
>>
>>
>>>CZ: Oh, yeah...the Parkland observations again...
>>>
>>>Gary, it was small. It was small for a reason other than it being an
>>>entry
>>>wound. The collar prevented expansion of the skin, thereby reducing the
>>>exit hole. Perhaps you need to pick up a Carcano and see for yourself.
>>>
>>>Imagine if every pathologist called a small hole a wound of entry. If you
>>>have an entry to the back and one to the front....yet no exits and no
>>>bullets in the body... just what kind of magic bullets do that?
>>>
>>>The kind that bounce off of transverse processes?
>>>
>>>You've got a bunch of Parkland witnesses that:
>>>
>>>1. Didn't observe an abrasion collar.
>>>2. Didn't observe the President's back.
>>>3. Didn't dissect the wound tract.
>>>4. Based their entire conclusion on the size of the hole.
>>>5. Dissected through the hole, thereby obliterating the evidentiary
>>>value of the wound and rendering their heartfelt initial opinions as
>>>fact?!?
>>>
>>>...But those damned autopsy pathologists!
>>>
>>>Your looking towards sources of very poor forensic detail and ignoring
>>>those that actually looked, measured and photographed the wound.
>>>
>>>GA: Say what? You've changed topics, Chad. The issue isn't why Parkland
>>>observations are imperfect, the issue is why Mandel's observations in
>>>LIFE about the Z-film are off by light years. Please feel free to
>>>discuss Parkland errors anytime, but they're not relevant here.
>>>
>>
>> Gary has already admitted that Mandel didn't lie.
>>
>> But he still finds it *sinister* that LIFE published what it did.
>>
>> The Mandel article *represents* the wounds as the Parkland doctors
>> reported them. He had no other data.
>>
>> Somebody struggling to make sense of all the evidence, based on poor
>> data, is likely to make mistakes.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> But lets not ignore the context here. The title of Mandel's LIFE
>>>> article
>>>> says it all, "End to Nagging Rumors" - RUMORS of conspiracy!, of
>>>> course.
>>>> Declassified records show that, from Hoover and LBJ and Nicholas
>>>> Katzenbach on down, "respected authority" was furiously trying to stamp
>>>> out suspicion about the official explanation that seemed a little too
>>>> improbable, a little too facile. And the patriotic thing to do then, as
>>>> now, was to march in lockstep with "respected authority," namely, J.
>>>> Edgar
>>>> Hoover, who, in the "Seat of Government" [Hoover's own description of
>>>> his
>>>> position], was in a powerful position to insist he'd would hear nothing
>>>> of
>>>> conspiracy and make others "hear" him about it.
>>>
>>>> But don't think this sort of thing isn't common, even today.
>>>
>>>CZ: Yeah, it happens in every administration, Gary. Its called
>>>controlling
>>>the public opinion. Clinton was a master at it. Instead of doing what was
>>>right, he polled public opinion to see what his response should be to an
>>>issue, then responded that way. In this case, the world was
>>>watching...and
>>>reacting. They had to control the world opinion. If you haul off and call
>>>Ozzie a commie with Soviet connections and implicate the Soviet Union,
>>>then you risk war and your current coveted way of life.
>>>
>>>Honesty is an important ideal. However, running governments never
>>>includes
>>>full honesty because our government has to answer to dimwitted, alarmist
>>>media personnel and extremist advocacy groups that cannot grasp such
>>>concepts as National Security, Gary.
>>>
>>>Anyone that has the idea that our government has to provide full scrutiny
>>>to the public:
>>>
>>>A. Hasn't actually ever dealt with any other goverment on important
>>>matters.
>>>B. Reads too many philosophy books.
>>>C. Lives in a box.
>>>D. All of the above.
>>>
>>>So, yes, I depart from the traditional, idealistic view of world peace
>>>and
>>>total honesty in government for a little something I refer to as
>>>'Reality'. The very things you despise contribute to National Security.
>>>It
>>>can be a hard thing to accept.
>>>
>>>Now, you've sunk yourself into 40+ year old records that reflect the
>>>reality that we live in and are trying to make heads of tails and vice
>>>versa. No wonder you see the men in black wherever you turn.
>>>
>>>GA: Thanks for your spirited and utterly convincing defense of govt.
>>>deceit and dishonesty. I never before now realized we all need to be lied
>>>to by the govt and it's always done with our best interests at heart. ;~>
>>>
>>
>> If the government had said that communists *did* kill Kennedy, Aguilar
>> would be fit to be tied.
>>
>>>> The New York Times's most celebrated,. and currently incarcerated,
>>>> stringer, Judith Miller, breathlessly wrote terrifying story after
>>>> terrifying story in the run up to war hyping Bush's bogus
>>>> "imminent-WMD-threat" rationale. Were they lies? In the sense in which
>>>> .John normally speaks, they probably weren't. But her silly stories
>>>> exaggerating the threat, like Mandel's silly misinterpretation, like
>>>> .John's kindness to Mandel, nicely accommodated authority. [No one was
>>>> going to call *them* soft on terrorism or soft on "commies" like Oswald
>>>> or
>>>> soft on conspiracists!]
>>>
>>>> But for anyone who cared to look, there was ample evidence BEFORE THE
>>>> WAR
>>>> that Bush was grossly exaggerating the threat, just as there was ample
>>>> evidence in the Zapurder film that put to rout Mandel's "patriotic"
>>>> interpretation, as well as .John's absolution of Mandel.
>>>
>>>
>>>CZ: Yeah, we'd all be better off with Saddam Hussein in power and
>>>continuing with his bribes. Iraq's people didn't deserve an opportunity
>>>for freedom and democracy. They should remain a beaten and tortured
>>>society- living in fear of their ruler. In fact, I'll bet that if any
>>>other country had led the charge, you wouldn't be so hypercritical of our
>>>advancement in Iraq.
>>>
>>>
>>>GA: Thanks again for changing the subject, Chad.
>>
>>
>> Note that it was Gary who wanted to talk *not* about the
>> assassination, but about WMDs.
>>
>> While makes it odd for him to accuse *Chad* of changing the subject.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>CZ: Just how many conspiracy theories are there on the JFK assassination?
>>>How many can be correct? One. But, that doesn't bother you, now does it?
>>>Who muddies the waters? The LN's that believe in one event, or the CT's
>>>that seem to believe in a near infinite amount of theories involving
>>>unsurpassed technologies?
>>>
>>>
>>>GA: Oh, how you misstate the obvious, Chad! When it's proven, as it has
>>>been by the govt. itself, that the govt's investigation was tragically
>>>flawed, and when it's proven that the govt destroyed evidence, tampered
>>>with evidence and withheld evidence and continues to withhold evidence,
>>>Warrenistas carp that skeptics keep changing their stories. If the govt
>>>would stop paltering with the evidence, perhaps the partial glimpses of
>>>all the JFK evidence the state allows the public might not be so
>>>confusing
>>>to them, might not invite so many conflicted scenarios.
>>>
>>
>> Excuses, excuses.
>>
>>
>>>And that's without even exploring the fact that no small number of
>>>previously respectable govt scenarios regarding JfK's death have been
>>>crushed by declassifications.
>>>
>>
>> Such as?
>>
>>>
>>>How Warrenistas can expect skeptics to be unconfused by the contradictory
>>>nature of much of the evidence, or the fact new releases often debunk
>>>prior "immutable facts," escapes me. The only appropriate reaction is to
>>>be conflicted and to wonder something Warrenistas NEVER WONDER: if the
>>>truth is so simple, why has the govt. so often been caught lying about
>>>and
>>>destroying evidence and why has the govt.'s own position changed so
>>>often?
>
> =========================================================
>> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three) been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
>
> WOW JOHN
> two or three FELONIES are "Acceptable" to you???
===========================================================
> Thats Lie #1. see below. Are all the OTHERS also "Acceptable "to you?
> 1. Destroying Oswald's note to Dallas FBI Office.
>
> 2. Destroying Hosty's name, address phone #
>
> And license plate number from Oswald's notebook.
>
> 3 . Destroying Walker back yard photo.
>
> 4. Changing Walker bullet from "Steel-Jacketed" to
>
> Copper Jacketed .
>
> 5. Changing transcript of Oswald's radio debate.
>
> 6. Lying when claiming Paper for gun bag matched
>
> TSBD paper.
>
> 7. Lying by stating Oswald had NO connection to CIA.
>
> 8. Lying about Oswald going to Mexico City.
>
> 9. Washing out Limo at Parkland Hospital.
>
> Thus Destroying Evidence.
>
> 10. Stealing body from Dallas jurisdiction under
>
> Gun Point.
>
> 11. Stealing Limo from Dallas Jurisdiction.
>
> 12. Destroying part 3 of P O Box Rental Application.
>
> 13. Showed LHO 133A BEFORE it was Found. WCR App XI
>
> etc. etc. etc.
==========================================================================
>>>> Nowhere is that tendency more obvious than in the tests that were
>>>> performed in 1964 to duplicate Oswald's killer shot. In a section of
>>>> the
>>>> Warren Report entitled, "Wound Ballistics Experiments," the Commission
>>>> reported that "an extensive series of tests were conducted by the Wound
>>>> Ballistics Branch of the U.S. Army" at Edgewood Arsenal, MD.[90] These
>>>> experiments, the Commission said, "blew out the right side of the
>>>> (test)
>>>> skull in a manner very similar to the head wounds of the
>>>> President."[91]
>>>> [See: http://historymatters.com/essa ys/jfkmed/How5Investigations/H
>>>> ow5Invest...] for images and footnotes.]
>>>
>>>> Using Oswald's rifle, appropriate ammunition and human skulls, the
>>>> Commission's ballistics expert, Dr. Alfred Olivier, undertook to
>>>> duplicate
>>>> JFK's wounds. Firing from a position above and behind them, he aimed at
>>>> the same low spot in the rear of his test skulls that matched the
>>>> entrance
>>>> point specified in JFK's autopsy report. Describing Commission Exhibit
>>>> #
>>>> 862 - a photograph of a blasted skull from his tests - Olivier
>>>> testified,
>>>> "This particular skull blew out the right side in a manner very similar
>>>> to
>>>> the wounds of the President ... We found that this bullet could do
>>>> exactly
>>>> - could make the type of wound that the President received."[92]
>>>
>>>> See Warren Commission Exhibit 861 & 862, in which Dr. Alfred Olivier of
>>>> Edgewood Arensal "duplicated" JFK's head wound. (Available on-line at
>>>> history matters, at:
>>>
>>>http://historymatters.com/arch ive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH
>>>_Vol17_04...
>>>
>>>> The Commission's photographs show a bullet entrance just above the test
>>>> skull's EOP, as specified in the autopsy report. The exit wound
>>>> involved
>>>> virtually the entire right side of the skull, including a good portion
>>>> of
>>>> the right forehead, the entire bony eye socket, and part of the
>>>> cheekbone.[93] (See
>>>
>>>http://historymatters.com/arch ive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH
>>>_Vol17_04...)
>>>
>>>
>>>CZ: And, Gary, did those tests take all measures to assure that the
>>>explosive nature of the wound would identically replicate the injuries to
>>>JFK? No. There are too many factors to be concerned with. The possibility
>>>of exactly replicating the damage to a human skull is almost impossible.
>>>Did they cover the skull with tissue to simulate the expansive qualities
>>>of skin? No. Was the brain matter the same density? No. Was the bone
>>>fresh? Probably not.
>>>
>>>This is a common theme amongst CT's. "Do it exactly like you say it was
>>>done, then I'll believe!"
>>>
>>
>> But of course when it's done *closely* the results are *close* to what
>> actually happened.
>>
>> And the buffs ignore that.
>>
>>>However, it is not an easy thing to do, Gary. I imagine you probably know
>>>that and are damn glad, because it gives you plenty of information to
>>>complain about under the guise that it is totally rational to think that
>>>it should easily be replicated.
>>>
>>>GA: This is silly, Chad!
>>>
>>>The Warren Commission gravely reported that Olivier's tests resulted in
>>>skull injuries that closely resembled JFK's. I didn't invent that. They
>>>have to stand by it or explain it.
>>>
>>
>> But they *did* closely resemble JFK's.
>>
>> Not close enough for you, but as close as we could expect in any
>> experiment.
>>
>> BTW, do you deny that JFK was hit in the back of the head in the
>> cowlick area that blased open his skull?
>>
>> Unless you have another scenario, you are just carping to no effect.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Why the Commission's "duplication" tests failed to duplicate JFK's
>>>injuries are not at all at issue here, despite your best efforts to
>>>sashay
>>>into that line of argument. What IS at issue is that the test results
>>>were
>>>completely unlike Kennedy's and none of the "faith-based" believers on
>>>the
>>>Commission noted the obvious, something so obvious that even the noted
>>>Warrenista, John Lattimer, commented upon how unlike JFK's injuries were
>>>Olivier's blasted skulls.
>>>
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>CZ: Say, did you take Wecht to task for the idiotic SBT reconstruction
>>>done about 2 years ago with the idiotic light sticks and the chairs
>>>sitting at the same height? Probably not. You only blow your horn in one
>>>direction.
>>>
>>>GA: I've not read everything and I'm not familiar with this 'Wecht
>>>reconstruction,' if that's what it was. Give me a reference and I'll look
>>>it up and give you an opinion.
>>>
>>
>> Please do, Gary.
>>
>>
>>>> JFK, by contrast, had no injuries to any of those areas, either
>>>> described
>>>> in the autopsy report, or depicted in the Rydberg diagrams approved and
>>>> published by the Commission. (See Figure 1) [Nor are any visible in the
>>>> set of autopsy photographs that are at the National Archives. (See
>>>> Figure
>>>> 4)] But had Oswald in fact fired the fatal shot the way the Warren
>>>> Commission said he had, it's likely the offending bullet would have
>>>> blown
>>>> out of JFK's face in a manner similar to these tests.
>>>
>>>
>>>CZ: Or not. Since you probably don't have much experience with
>>>replicating
>>>ballistics tests, should we all be surprised by your thoughts about such
>>>testing protocols? Doubtful.
>>>
>>>To expect identical results from nonidentical laboratory procedure is
>>>unreasonable.
>>>
>>>GA: You're sashaying, again, Chad. I'm not the one who swore, as Olivier
>>>did, that, "This particular skull blew out the right side in a manner
>>>very
>>>similar to the wounds of the President ... We found that this bullet
>>>could
>>>do exactly - could make the type of wound that the President
>>>received."[92] 5H89.. On-line at:
>>>
>>>http://historymatters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/..%5C..%5C..%5Carchive%5Cjfk%5Cwc%5Cwcvols%5Cwh5%5Chtml%5CWC_Vol5_0050a.htm
>>>
>>>Perhaps in chiropractic circles a skull defect involving the
>>>'parietotemporooccipital' skull is roughly the same as one in which the
>>>entire frontal bone, the entire orbit, and a goodly part of the maxilla
>>>are blown out, but were I Olivier, or Lattimer, or Sturdivan, I'd never
>>>describe such dissimilar results as "this bullet could do exactly - could
>>>make the type of wound that the President recieved." ;~} Lattimer agrees
>>>with me!
>>>
>>
>> It was about as close as one would expect in any such experiment.
>>
>> Do you think Kennedy was hit from the right front?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>CZ: Hey, since you and Cyril are chums, don't you think he'd procure you
>>>a
>>>few skulls to shoot? I'm sure we'd all be enlighted to see your testing
>>>protocols and results- particularly if you decided to show us how it
>>>really happened, Gary.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why is it that CT's don't provide us with the real lab tests for frontal
>>>head shots?
>>>
>>>GA: For one good reason: Since Warrenistas are incapable of being
>>>persuaded of even the frailties of the Warren Commission the govt itself
>>>has admitted to, what point would there be in doing such tests?
>>>
>>
>> To actually have some evidence to support your position!
>>
>>
>>>> The gross discrepancies between the Commission's Rydberg diagram and
>>>> autopsy report, as compared with the "experimental duplication,"
>>>> require
>>>> no particular expertise to appreciate. Yet they apparently escaped the
>>>> notice of the Warren Commission and its expert, Dr.Olivier. And they
>>>> continue to escape notice.
>>>
>>>
>>>CZ: Actually, perhaps you're caught in a timewarp of sorts. Most of us
>>>recognize those pitfalls and have moved beyond them. Maybe that has you
>>>confused. I don't know if anyone ever looked at that Rydberg diagram as
>>>an
>>>absolute. It was a bad drawing made to illustrate what happened. Who the
>>>hell cares if it is dead-on, balls accurate? Just CT's.
>>>
>>>GA: Ah, yes, "moved beyond them," not wanting to tarry over what the
>>>Warren Commission accepted as "expert opinion." :-)
>>>
>>
>> Gary, the WC erred in not looking at the autopsy photos and x-rays.
>> That's why we get things like the Rydberg drawing.
>>
>> Do you think that was some evil scheme, or just incompetence?
>>
>> If you think it was some evil scheme, you might explain why the HSCA,
>> when they looked at the autopsy photos and x-rays, also concluded that
>> JFK was hit by two bullets from behind.
>>
>>
>>>> In a published letter to the editor of the peer-review journal,
>>>> Neurosurgery, Larry Sturdivan complimented an article that crowed about
>>>> the Commission's "duplication" skull experiment, which quoted the
>>>> Warren
>>>> Commission verbatim, and he made no comment about the fact the test
>>>> skulls
>>>> differed markedly from JFK's skull.
>>>
>>>
>>>CZ; Did they, or did they just look different because the test skulls
>>>didn't have the benefit of skin to contain the fragments? I don't know.
>>>I'm sure you do. I mean, you've seen the original x-rays and you've seen
>>>the extensive fragmentation of the skull, right? Do you believe that all
>>>skulls should fracture identically if the setup is the same? You do
>>>understand chaos theory, right? Predicting the unpredictable.
>>>
>>>
>>>GA: You're determined to change the subject, aren't you?
>>
>>
>> No, Gary, you are.
>>
>>
>>>I'm not the one
>>>that claimed a skull I shot closely resembled JFK's blasted cranium;
>>>Olivier/Sturdivan/WC did. But as an aside, how do you explain the orbit
>>>and malar bone being absent in Olivier's skull, something a clinging skin
>>>would have had nothing to do with?
>>>
>>
>> One should not expect *identical* results, just generally similar
>> results.
>>
>>>
>>>CZ: Perhaps if you studied their methods, you'd see what they did wrong.
>>>Perhaps you'd understand why the fracture patterns were different between
>>>skulls. Perhaps their entrance was off. Perhaps the placement of the
>>>skull
>>>was wrong. There are many factors. However, you apparently assume that
>>>all
>>>of these things were done correctly, then trumpet what you've declared as
>>>being the wrong result.
>>>
>>>
>>>GA: Good grief! You're really on a roll. For the umteenth time, I didn't
>>>crow that *I'd* duplicated JFK's injuries, the Warren
>>>Commission/Olivier/Sturdivan did, offering as evidence a blasted skull
>>>that was damaged vastly differently than JFK's.
>>>
>>
>> Then you are fussing and fuming about nothing at all.
>>
>> You are just bitching and whining.
>>
>>
>>>Why the skull damage was so different is explored briefly in my essay,
>>>but
>>>it isn't relevant here to the point that Olivier and the Warren
>>>Commission
>>>issued what can be most charitably described as a "faith-based"
>>>experimental similarity, certainly not a scientifically similar result.
>>>
>>
>> But it was similar.
>>
>>
>>>CZ: Is it possible, Gary, that you're putting an equivalent lack of
>>>thought in analyzing these tests as you attribute to the conclusions of
>>>the commissions that utilized the tests?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>GA: What? The Commission's conlcusions aren't much subject to varying
>>>interpretation: they said the results were quite similar. They aren't,
>>>period. Is this really all that hard to comprehend?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> They are in fact quite similar.
>>
>>
>>>CZ: Perhaps you should spend your little time to analyze just how the
>>>experiment should be done, then go ahead and do it. Then, with the world
>>>as you audience, you can show everyone just how you solved the Great
>>>American Murder Mystery!
>>>
>>>Sashay, Chad!
>>>
>>
>> Gary, either you think a better experiment would lead to a
>> *substantively different* result, or you are bitching and moaning
>> about nothing.
>>
>>
>>>> Was Sturdivan "lying," if only by omission? Probably not. For as
>>>> someone
>>>> who'd been involved in the Olivier's tests for the Commission, it's
>>>likely > he so wanted to believe, that he has never really wanted, not
>>>even to this > day, to look at the flatly incompatible results that were
>>>used to bolster > Hoover's preferred solution to the crime.
>>>
>>>CZ: Or you're not an expert in ballistics.
>>>
>>>
>>>BTW- I've always enjoyed your hypothesis that the bullet tapped off of
>>>the
>>>transverse process of T1 and deflected elsewhere without causing any
>>>major
>>>displacement of that small, "fingerlike" projection of bone.
>>>
>>>
>>>GA: First, that's not what I've said. Produce a direct quote, if you can,
>>>and we can discuss it. But you've misstated my position.
>>>
>>
>> What is your position?
>>
>>>
>>>CZ: Ever going to test that hypothesis? Or is simplly throwing that
>>>hypothesis out there good enough for the CT public?
>>>
>>>After all these years, Gary, don't you think that you and Wecht could get
>>>together and finance a good ballistic case study on this? You think maybe
>>>that others would pay admission to the event? Perhaps you could hire a
>>>video crew to make DVD's out of it. Hell, maybe the Discovery Channel
>>>would even finance this whopping adventure. They could call it:
>>>
>>>"Critiquing the Critics: JFK's Murder Unraveled"
>>>
>>>Imagine the byline:
>>>
>>>"For nearly 40 years, Dr. Cyril Wecht has been the leading critic and
>>>authority on the critical issues surrounding the Kennedy assassination.
>>>Now, for the very first time ever, Dr. Wecht will test his own hypotheses
>>>on the true events of November 22, 1963. The show will feature commentary
>>>from noted ophthalmologist Dr. Gary Aguilar and forensic play by play by
>>>Dr. Henry Lee- and his imaginary friend, Sam Constant."
>>>
>>>God I hated Sam Constant in his book, not to mention the JFK section
>>>reads
>>>like it was ripped right out of Wecht's computer.
>>>
>>>GA: I wish this were as interesting as it is irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>> Who is Sam Constant?
>>
>>
>>
>>>> So when Warrenistas cite the conclusions of "authorities" in the
>>>> Kennedy
>>>> case, one needn't be irresponsible to suggest it's worth
>>>> double-checking
>>>> official conclusions.
>>>
>>>
>>>CZ: No doubt you've bothered to analyze the ballistic tests themselves.
>>>I'll bet you've just taunted the results and only assumed the setup would
>>>accurately address the ballistic issues. However, most critics are okay
>>>with simply pointing out what doesn't make sense to them, all the while
>>>providing the captive audience with the impression that you are an
>>>authority on ballistics.
>>>
>>>
>>>GA: Look, I'm not the one offering the pat solution to The Crime,
>>>Warrenistas are. They've got to defend it. When I've offered an
>>>explanation, I'll defend that, okay? That's how it works.
>>>
>>
>> Unless you want to argue that JFK was (for example) hit in the head
>> from the front, you are bitching and whining about nothing.
>>
>>
>>
>>>Oh, and by the way, is John Lattimer now a critic who is "okay with
>>>simply
>>>pointing out what doesn't make sense to" him, because he said Olivier's
>>>tests were nonduplicative and because he offered the same explanation I
>>>did why they weren't? If so, that's news!
>>>
>>
>> Nice that you quote Lattimer.
>>
>> But wait, isn't he on your list of lying scum??!!
>>
>>
>>>>One need only be familiar with any of the many
>>>> possible examples of how "faith-based" conclusions have beclouded even
>>>> the
>>>> minds of the most respected authorities in America on a wide variety of
>>>> controversies.
>>>
>>>
>>>CZ: LOL! Yeah, CT's don't have faith in CT's. Right. Now, remove the wool
>>>from your eyes, Gary.
>>>
>>>Tell me, Gary, do you also believe that the Zapruder film was forged and
>>>that the Moorman photograph is ironclad proof of fakery?
>>>
>>>
>>>GA: I've never argued about the bona fides of the Z-film and I've never
>>>weighed in on Moorman's picture. I've only got so much time and these
>>>topics are not ones I think are worth the time or inclination to pursue.
>>>
>>
>> Your buddy Fetzer has!
>>
>> .John
>>
>> The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
tomnln
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1142395155....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
Steve
Tom Rossley provides the following (below), from a post from Sept.2005.
Gary Aguilar and Chad Zimmerman are discussing the case. Somewhere in
here, Rossley claims contains McAdams' "CONFESSION" (at least that's
what Tom calls it) when he , Tom, stated these words yesterday, on
March 14, 2006 to me: " You forgot to mention that Tom Rossley got
several of you WCR Defenders (read Accessories After the Fact) to ADMIT
Sorry, Tom, this doesnt cut it as a "CONFESSION", nor do I see John
"ADMIT" to anything concerning you, yourself.
The way you worded this, when you said to me: " You forgot to mention
that Tom Rossley got several of you WCR Defenders (read Accessories
After the Fact) to ADMIT that that the authorities "Destroyed
Evidence", a Felony." you exaggerate and make it sound like John
McAdams was talking with you and made a "CONFESSION" and that you made
him "ADMIT" to this, when this is far, far from the truth!
As *anyone* can see, John McAdam's makes no type of a "CONFESSION' or
"ADMITS" to Tomnln (Rossley) that Tom Rossley "got" him to "ADMIT" to
anything.
Here are the only words spoken by John McAdms in the entire post that
I snipped John's words from, and you be the judge:
note: CZ is Chad Zimmerman, GA is Gary Aguilar, JM is McAdams, and TR
is Tom. which I added so as not to confuse who said what.
GA:>>>And that's without even exploring the fact that no small number
of
>>>previously respectable govt scenarios regarding JfK's death have been
>>>crushed by declassifications.
CZ: >> Such as?
GA: >>>How Warrenistas can expect skeptics to be unconfused by the
contradictory
>>>nature of much of the evidence, or the fact new releases often debunk
>>>prior "immutable facts," escapes me. The only appropriate reaction is to
>>>be conflicted and to wonder something Warrenistas NEVER WONDER: if the
>>>truth is so simple, why has the govt. so often been caught lying about
>>>and
>>>destroying evidence and why has the govt.'s own position changed so
>>>often?
> =========================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
TR: > WOW JOHN
> two or three FELONIES are "Acceptable" to you???
As you can see, John McAdams made no "CONFESSION" to Tomnln, nor does
he "ADMIT" anything to Tom.
This is just another example of Tom's lying.
Steve
Steve
"ADMIT" and whom you say you can provide the "CONFESSION" of when you
stated on March 14, 2006, the following:
"You forgot to mention that Tom Rossley got several of you WCR
Defenders (read Accessories After the Fact) to ADMIT that that the
me to post those CONFESSIONS, just ask) ".
I have ask(ed), Tom, and I would like to see where *I* "confessed" or
"ADMIT" That "You", Tom Rossley" "got" me to "ADMIT" to what you have
said, as well as the others you mention. Thus far, you have provided
what you claim is a "Confession" to you, persnally but which, in
reality, is no such thing.
Cough 'em up, Tom
tomnln
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
WHAT part of McAdams words don't you understand steve?????
================================================================
tomnln
THANK YOU steve;
> =========================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
> =========================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
> =========================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
> =========================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
> =========================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
============================================================
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1142430596.2...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
THANKS FER ASKIN.
Here: From YOUR OWN Post;
Thanks Again
> =========================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
===============================================================
tomnln
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
> =========================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
TR: > WOW JOHN
> two or three FELONIES are "Acceptable" to you???
As you can see, John McAdams made no "CONFESSION" to Tomnln, nor does
he "ADMIT" anything to Tom.
This is just another example of Tom's lying.
Steve
=========================================================
AS STEVE WROTE;
"JM" IS John McAdams. Here it is AGAIN;
=========================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
================================================
THANK YOU STEVE.
McAdams may be dissatisfied with you BUT, "I Thank You".
================================================
If you don't think McAdams' words amount to
"Confession/Admittance/Agreement".
You're a Bigger Criminal than your words Illuminate.
==========================================================
YOU & YOU Alone just "Imortalized Garrison's words when he stated
"black is white & white is black in the world of the CIA".
==========================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
============================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
===========================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
=============================================================
JM : >> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three)
been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
=============================================================
Steve
McAdams is not "Confessing" anything to YOU! HE was not talking "TO
YOU", therfore, he was not "admitting" anythuing *TO YOU*. HE was
responding to what Aguilar said. Period. End of discussion.
You are suffering from the diseases of old aga,I am afraid, if you
cannot see the difference between when someone is speaking to youand
speaking tosomeone else.
You also said that you had a "CONFESSION" fromme, and others, since
you uised the words in plural fashion.
This just doesnt cut it, Tom.
Nice try.
tomnln
Steve, in order to defend your Lying friends of the WCR, you "Desperately"
need to convince people of the following;
1. The Dallas Dr's at Parkland were Stupid.
2. The Dallas Technicians at Parkland were Stupid
3. The DPD were Stupid.
4. The Secret Service in Dallas were Stupid.
5. The Dallas Media were Stupid.
6. The National Print Media were Stupid.
7. The National Electronic Media were Stupid.
7. The Dallas FBI were Stupid.
8. The D.C. FBI were Stupid.
9. The D.C. Secret Service were Stupid.
10. The WC members were Stupid.
11. The WC Staff were Stupid.
12. The Rockefeller Committee were Stupid.
13. The Pike Committee were Stupid.
14. The Church Committee were Stupid.
15. The HSCA were Stupid.
etc. etc etc
What are the odds that ALL of these people were Stupid as opposed to the
REMOTE possibility that YOU may be Stupid?
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1142491763.0...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Did your Leader McAdams use these EXACT words or, NOT????????
> =========================================================
>> Government has only in a tiny number of cases (two or three) been
>> found to be destroying evidence or lying about the case.
>
> WOW JOHN
> two or three FELONIES are "Acceptable" to you???
===========================================================
ps;
When it comes to name-calling, Nothing is Lower than the word "TREASON"
which applies to you.
ps; watch the typo's or todd will jump all over your ass. (hehehehehehe)
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1142491763.0...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
c3de...@gmail.com
I've been on Paltalk for three years and it seems to me that ladies who
show can be admins in two weeks or less and guys that deejay good can
be admins in less than a month. Do you know how embarrassing it is to
get booted by an admin on the rag who's only been around for two weeks
and you've been hanging out in a room for three years and won't be
selected to be an admin cause you're old, you lost all you teeth in a
car crash and can't afford new ones cause the motorist that caused the
crash was uninsured, and you're fat and far from being what the ladies
would call eye candy. So maybe I'm lucky they let me hang out at all,
but if I can shell out $59 for a green nic every year you would think
I'd have some seniority over a buxom lass that has a fine set of twins.
It ain't fair. So, how about giving a guy a chance to admin just on the
basis of seniority if nothing else?
Jan Cedarpond
Schenectady, NY
David VP
2. The Dallas Technicians at Parkland were Stupid
3. The DPD were Stupid.
4. The Secret Service in Dallas were Stupid.
5. The Dallas Media were Stupid.
6. The National Print Media were Stupid.
7. The National Electronic Media were Stupid.
7. The Dallas FBI were Stupid.
8. The D.C. FBI were Stupid.
9. The D.C. Secret Service were Stupid.
10. The WC members were Stupid.
11. The WC Staff were Stupid.
12. The Rockefeller Committee were Stupid.
13. The Pike Committee were Stupid.
14. The Church Committee were Stupid.
15. The HSCA were Stupid.
"What are the odds that ALL of these people were Stupid..."
Take out the word "STUPID" in every one of the items in Tom's list
above and replace it with the word "CONSPIRATORS" and you'll then have
a pretty good list of what virtually all CTers must believe in order
for the WCR to NOT be right.
And.......
What are the odds that ALL of these people were CONSPIRATORS?
tomnln
<c3de...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142677089.7...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
see steve for what he is;
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:W7lSf.517408$0l5.38239@dukeread06...
Cliff
of conspiracy in the murder of JFK.
There is a reason for your reticence, Steve.
The Single Bullet Theory requires 4 inches of JFK's clothing
to bunch up entirely ABOVE the SBT inshoot at the base of
JFK's neck but entirely BELOW the jacket collar at the base
of JFK's neck.
It is this pernicious absurdity you and Todd et al peddle daily.
Cliff Varnell
Steve wrote:
> Vince Palamara wrote:
>
> I have a life---married, kids, good job, musician in an up and coming
> band, etc. Although I am (semi) retired and burned out now, this has
> 0.0 to do with any of my accomplishments (or lack thereof...sorry,
> Rahnie baby).
>
>
Steve
I dont care *what* you think of what I think or don't think, what I
believe or don't believe when it comes to the assassination of JFK.
Todd W. Vaughan
The nonsense yopu prattle on with about JFK's shirt not being to ride
up is laughable; it's not worthy of a response.
Sorry, but it's that simple.
Enjoy your delusion.
Todd
aeffects
what-a-maroon!
Todd W. Vaughan
>ahh, you forgot the ARRB
>what-a-maroon!
Don't forget COPA, LANCER, CITKA, AIC, AARC, etc.
With this knowledge maybe you can get off that damn island.
Todd
Cliff
Todd W. Vaughan wrote:
> Cliff,
>
> The nonsense yopu prattle on with about JFK's shirt not being to ride
> up is laughable;
You haven't kept up with the discussion.
JFK's jacket collar dropped in Dealey Plaza. This fact destroys
the Single Bullet Theory.
I pointed this out to you years ago on the JFKResearch
Board and you couldn't refute the point then.
Tell us how 4+" of JFK's clothing bunched up entirely above
C7/T1 at the base of JFK's neck but entirely below the jacket
collar at the base of JFK's neck?
Tell us how the jacket collar and 4+" of bunched up clothing
occupied the same physical space at the same time.
Talk about absurdly delusional!
> it's not worthy of a response.
This is the non sequitar at the heart of LN Theory:
The Single Bullet Theory requires 2+" of JFK's
shirt and 2+" of JFK's jacket to have been elevated.
Clothing can elevate.
Therefore JFK's shirt and jacket each elevated 2+".
> Sorry, but it's that simple.
It is that simple. You won't begin to discuss the facts
of this case, Todd, because you simply can't.
Go away and hide, now.
Cliff Varnell
>
> Enjoy your delusion.
>
> Todd
Cliff
So? Who cares *what* you care or don't care about?
You come on these newsgroups with your indefensible
conclusions and you're getting called on it.
Don't cry about it when someone rubs your nose in your nonsense.
And whatever you do -- DON'T attempt to argue the facts.
But you know that already.
Cliff Varnell
Todd W. Vaughan
You're a wacko.
We all know that.
Thanks, though, for reminding us.
Todd
Steve
Steve wrote:
> Get this straight, Varnell.
> I dont care *what* you think of what I think or don't think, what I
> believe or don't believe when it comes to the assassination of JFK.
Cliff wrote:
So? Who cares *what* you care or don't care about?
Steve writes:
Obviously, you do, or you wouldn't have written what you said to both
Todd and myself.
Cliff wrote:
You come on these newsgroups with your indefensible
conclusions and you're getting called on it.
Steve writes:
But you just said to me: "So? Who cares *what* you care or don't
care about?"
Steve writes:
Make up your mind, Cliff
Cliff wrote:
Don't cry about it when someone rubs your nose in your nonsense.
Steve writes:
Don't flatter yourself, Cliffy.
Cliff wrrites:
And whatever you do -- DON'T attempt to argue the facts.
But you know that already.
Steve writes:
Cliff, you just can't make up your mind, can you?
Cliff Varnell
Cliff
> Cliff,
>
> You're a wacko.
And personal attacks are all you've got?
I predicted you couldn't argue the physical evidence and
you came through like a champ.
Thank you.
>
> We all know that.
*We* who? All the other LNers who can't argue the evidence,
like Steve Barber?
>
> Thanks, though, for reminding us.
>
> Todd
The object lesson here is that LNers like Todd and Steve recoil
in horror from the physical evidence of conspiracy.
It's fun to watch you guys bluster and scoff and never argue the facts.
Keep it up, Todd.
Cliff
Cliff
> Steve wrote:
> > Get this straight, Varnell.
>
> > I dont care *what* you think of what I think or don't think, what I
> > believe or don't believe when it comes to the assassination of JFK.
>
>
> Cliff wrote:
>
> So? Who cares *what* you care or don't care about?>
>
> Steve writes:
>
> Obviously, you do, or you wouldn't have written what you said to both
> Todd and myself.
You think too much of yourself.
Nobody gives a shit about your personal concerns, Steve.
I pointed out your inability to discuss the facts in the JFK murder
case -- I didn't ask about your personal concerns, nobody cares
about those but you.
>
>
> Cliff wrote:
>
> You come on these newsgroups with your indefensible
> conclusions and you're getting called on it.
>
> Steve writes:
>
> But you just said to me: "So? Who cares *what* you care or don't
> care about?"
What does that have to do with the evidence in the murder of JFK?
It's not *what* you care about that matters, Steve, it's the facts you
can or cannot argue.
>
> Steve writes:
>
> Make up your mind, Cliff
That you somehow confuse a discussion of the facts of JFK's
murder with a discussion of Steve Barber's personal concerns
is bizarre.
>
>
> Cliff wrote:
>
> Don't cry about it when someone rubs your nose in your nonsense.
>
>
> Steve writes:
> Don't flatter yourself, Cliffy.
By the way, see where your boy Chad Zimmerman has
disavowed the claims Unsolved History made about his
jacket experiments?
>
>
> Cliff wrrites:
>
> And whatever you do -- DON'T attempt to argue the facts.
> But you know that already.
>
> Steve writes:
>
> Cliff, you just can't make up your mind, can you?
If you want to equate your personal feelings with the facts of the
JFK murder -- be my guest.
Both you and Todd have to make it personal or you have nothing
to post.
Cliff Varnell
Steve
You don't understand?
Let me spell it out for you...
I have NOTHING To say to you! Period.
Go away!
Cliff
Then why did you post this if you have nothing to say?
And the FACT you have nothing to say is my point.
Neither you or Todd can have a rational, adult discussion
of the physical evidence in the case.
I'm not talking *to* you, Steve, I'm talking *about* your
indefensible conclusions.
Get a grip, dude.
Cliff varnell
Steve
I'll bite the bait, Cliff, and start by asking you this:
What "idnefensible conslsions" are you talking about?
tomnln
Consider that a Compliment coming from one guilty of TREASON.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142875369.4...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
On Monday 20 March 2006 at 12:13 AM you wrote the following, after
having been asked " WHY wont you remove the lies from your own webpage?
":
QUOTE ON
"I will correct 2 of my teensie weensie fibs for EVERY ONE of the
"Felonious Lies" of the WCR that you/yours CORRECT."
QUOTE OFF
With that you admitted that his website contains lies.
Your'e now an admitted liar.
No one believes anything you say.
You have ZERO credibility.
Todd
tomnln
>
> Steve wrote:
>> Get this straight, Varnell.
>
>> I dont care *what* you think of what I think or don't think, what I
>> believe or don't believe when it comes to the assassination of JFK.
>
>
> Cliff wrote:
>
> So? Who cares *what* you care or don't care about?
>
> Steve writes:
>
> Obviously, you do, or you wouldn't have written what you said to both
> Todd and myself.
FRICK & FRACK
Include your "Spokesman" Bud & we'll have "Larry, Curly & Moe".
Be carefull, Bud is Just Stupid enough to try to explain Baker's 4 different
accounts of
Baker's lunchroom encounter with Oswald.
GOD knows neither of you 2 have the Guts to address REAL Issues.
==============================================================
tomnln
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1142880044....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
When Felons like these were Locked Up.
"Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote in message
news:1142878181.8...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
credibility.
That means you Denounce the WCR due to all their LIES Under Oath.
Thanks to you we Finnally Buried the Felons you worked so hard to Support.
America Thanks you todd.
What happened? Were you just told you have only 2 hours to live?
That's the ONLY thing that would cause a "Hardened" Felon like you to
Repent.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142889848.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Cliff
Okay,
I'll bite the bait, Cliff, and start by asking you this:
What "idnefensible conslsions" [sic] are you talking about?
Cliff sez:
Your conclusion that only 3 shots were fired in Dealey Plaza
11/22/63 is indefensible.
Let's take an inventory of the wounds and the other physical evidence
in the case, a baker's dozen of irrefutable facts:
JFK:
1) Wound in the throat
2) Posterior wound in the upper torso
3) Fatal head wound
JBC
4) Back wound
5) Rib wound
6) Chest wound
7) Wrist wound
8) Thigh wound
Tague:
9) Cheek wound
10) The bullet defects in JFK's shirt and jacket are 4" below the
bottom of the collars.
11) The Elm St. photos and film show JFK's jacket collar
in a normal position at the base of his neck.
http://www.jfk-online.com/Towner.mpg
12) James Tague stood 90 yards to the southwest from the limo
at the moment of the headshot.
13) There was a stiff wind from the southwest at the moment of
the head shot, as established by the Muchmore film.
http://www.jfk-online.com/1muchmore.html
Steve Barber, you can't reconcile any 3 shot scenario with the
above facts.
The holes in JFK's clothes are 2+" below the C7/T1 inshoot of
the Single Bullet Theory.
How could 4+" of shirt and jacket fabric possibly bunch up entirely
above C7/T1 at the base of JFK's neck but entirely below the
jacket collar at the base of JFK's neck?
The physical evidence of the low back wound is impeccably
corroborated by the contemporaneous documentary evidence
and the statements of at least a dozen witnesses.
Physical evidence is primary, as our friend Dr. Kenneth Rahn is
known to argue. In this case the physical evidence is consistent
with:
4 contemporaneous documents:
1) the Death Certificate marked "verified"
2) the autopsy face sheet marked "verified"
3) the FBI autopsy report
4) Hume's initial autopsy report
The sworn testimony of at least 5 federal agents:
1) FBI SA James Sibert
2) FBI SA Francis O'Neill
3) SS SA Glen Bennett
4) SS SA Clint Hill
5) SS SA Roy Kellerman
The witness statements of medical personnel who handled the
body or witnessed such:
1) Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron
2) Autopsy Doctor John Ebersole
3) Autopsy witness Chester Boyers
4) Autopsy witness Floyd Reibe
5) Autopsy witness Jan Gail Rudnicki
6) Autopsy witness James Curtis Jenkins
7) Autopsy witness Edward Reed
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/back_diagram.gif
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/jfkjacket.GIF
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Evidence/jfkshirt.GIF
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Ford-Rankin/FBIreenact.GIF
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/autopdescript1.gif
Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told Dr. David Mantik
in a 1992 interview that the back wound was at T-4. (Harrison
Livingstone's KILLING THE TRUTH pg 721)
Nurse Diana Bowron washed JFK's body at Parkland, and she
told Livingstone the wound was "lower down on the back" than
shown in the autopsy photos (KTT pg 188.)
Autopsy photographer Floyd Reibe also claimed that the lower
marking on the autopsy photo showed the back wound (KTT pg 721).
Bethesda lab assisstant Jan Gail Rudnicki told Livingstone
that he saw "what appeared to be an entry wound several inches
down on the back." (HIGH TREASON 2, pg 206)
Bethesda x-ray tech Edward Reed reported seeing a back
wound "right between the scapula and the thoracic column."
(KTT pg 720)
James Curtis Jenkins, a lab tech who attended the autopsy,
placed the back wound below the throat wound with this
diagram for the HSCA:
http://jfklancer.com/pub/md/jenkins.gif
Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the
Pathology Department at Bethesda in November 1963. This is
from Boyers signed affidavit:
(quote on)
Another wound was located near the right shoulder blade, more
specifically just under the scapula and next to it.
(quote off)
That's consistent with T3 or lower.
Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett reported, "I saw a shot hit the
Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder."
Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who was at the autopsy, testified
before the Warren Commission:
(quote on)
Yes, sir; I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the
neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column.
(quote off)
Here are the wound diagrams pepared by FBI SAs
Francis O'Neill and James Sibert:
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert1.gif
http://www.jfklancer.com/pub/md/sibert2.gif
So, yes, Steve, the Single Bullet Theory is
demonstrably fallacious -- and, indeed, deserves
to be refered to as the SBF -- Single Bullet Fallacy.
As far as the Tague Frag theory goes, in addition to
the southwest stiff wind, a stiff wind was reported on
the corner of Elm and Houston as coming from the north.
How could a 3 to 6 gram fragment maintain a near-straight-line
trajectory into the teeth of a hard swirling wind over the course
of 90 yards?
Thank you for the opportunity to present this evidence,
Steve.
Cliff Varnell
Steve
Let me put it this way.
You obviously starve for attention, and for someone to talk to
concerning this *crap* you just posted.
You thrive on ambiguity.
You won't get any more attention from me, other than this response
to the post you made.
Please note that I have responded to your post, and that this will
be my final post to you.
Steve
Cliff
Steve wrote:
> Cliff,
>
> Let me put it this way.
>
> You obviously starve for attention,
Atta boy, get right to the personal insults.
As predicted, you can't discuss the physical evidence
of the case in a rational, adult manner.
So it's insults only, eh?
> and for someone to talk to
> concerning this *crap* you just posted.
True, I love rubbing the physical evidence of conspiracy in
the noses of you "high profile" LNer types.
It takes fortitude to face the facts, something your ilk lacks.
>
> You thrive on ambiguity.
You thrive on spewing indefensible bullshit.
>
> You won't get any more attention from me,
I didn't ask for any in the first place.
I said you couldn't discuss the physical evidence
of conspiracy and you can't.
Point made.
> other than this response
> to the post you made.
Your post here isn't a *response* -- it's your cry for help that'll
never come.
None of you LNers -- not one! -- can challenge the fact that JFK's
back wound was too low to allow any possibility of the SBT.
Not one of you will engage in a fact-based debate.
And don't look now, Barber, but your hero Chad Zimmerman
has back pedaled from all those nice things you claimed
for him back in 11/04.
>
> Please note that I have responded to your post, and that this will
> be my final post to you.
It ain't about *you*, Barber.
What exactly is the cause of this over-inflated ego of yours?
It isn't related to anything involving the JFK assassination -- you
proved that again right here.
Cliff Varnell
Steve
would be my last to you
Cliffy wrote:
It ain't about *you*, Barber.
Steve writes:
Cliffy,
It was, in fact, " about" me the moment you chimed into a post that
was a discussion between Tom Rossley, Todd and I, and you made a smart
remark to me.
If "it aint about you, Barber", then don't bring my name up, and
don't chime into discussions and make smart remarks to me, when no one
is talking to you-directly!
Cliff
> Retracting (for the moment) my earlier statement that my previous post
> would be my last to you
Ever see COOL HAND LUKE?
Stay down, Luke, stay down.
>
> Cliffy wrote:
>
> It ain't about *you*, Barber.
>
>
> Steve writes:
>
> Cliffy,
>
> It was, in fact, " about" me the moment you chimed into a post that
> was a discussion between Tom Rossley, Todd and I, and you made a smart
> remark to me.
Wrong. It was about the inability of LNers to argue the physical
facts of the case.
You *are* a believer in the view that one guy shot at JFK, right?
>
> If "it aint about you, Barber", then don't bring my name up,
I call all of you LNers out. Don't take it so personally.
I call you out, Todd, Bud, Zimmerman, Rahn, McAdams -- all
of you.
Not one of you people can come on this group and have a rational,
fact-based discussion of the physical evidence of conspiracy.
> and don't chime into discussions and make smart remarks to me, when no one
> is talking to you-directly!
Oh? Otherwise what? You and Todd are gonna show up at my doorstep?
Better come heavy, Steve-o.
Cliff
tomnln
Cliff must have posted something Official from the 26 volumes.
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1143051706.8...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote in message
news:1143054651....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
It just keeps gettin Better.
steve prefers the 2 on 1 scenario.
I tend to agree. THAT puts the odds in my favor.
Is steve allowed cliff into the mix, it would amount to 2 on 2.
Resulting in "Overwhelming" odds Against them.
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1143059272.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
THIS is Truely GOD's Design.
(you all remember Bud; AAF's Spokesman)
"Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote in message
news:1143060764....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
Is it accpetable to fib about what a witness to the murder of the
President saw?
Todd
Todd W. Vaughan
tomnln
I suggest you take care of that "Stuttering Problem".
It appears that it has reached "Critical Mass".
I think Dr. Vinnie Boombatz would serve you Very Well.
He's Off from work at the Garage on Monday's.
(surgeon general's Warning: todd may be Hazardous to AmericanFreedoms)
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143065160....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Hey Felon;
I just got word that you MUST Return your 30 Pieces of silver.
Because you're NOT Defending your Felon friend Officer Baker.
Remember? Baker gave 4 different accounts of his lunchroom encounter with
Oswald.
Not 1
Not 2
Not 3
BUT, FOUR (4) toddy FOUR (4)
Get off the fib stuff & Earn your 30 Pieces of silver by addressing MAJORS.
Gosh;
In addition to being a Felon Supporter NOW, you're Stealing the 30 Pieces of
silver.
(surgeon general's Warning: todd may be Hazardous to American Freedoms)
Bud
Cliff wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > Retracting (for the moment) my earlier statement that my previous post
> > would be my last to you
>
> Ever see COOL HAND LUKE?
>
> Stay down, Luke, stay down.
>
> >
> > Cliffy wrote:
> >
> > It ain't about *you*, Barber.
> >
> >
> > Steve writes:
> >
> > Cliffy,
> >
> > It was, in fact, " about" me the moment you chimed into a post that
> > was a discussion between Tom Rossley, Todd and I, and you made a smart
> > remark to me.
>
> Wrong. It was about the inability of LNers to argue the physical
> facts of the case.
>
> You *are* a believer in the view that one guy shot at JFK, right?
>
>
> >
> > If "it aint about you, Barber", then don't bring my name up,
>
> I call all of you LNers out. Don't take it so personally.
>
> I call you out, Todd, Bud, Zimmerman, Rahn, McAdams -- all
> of you.
How is it that I am starting to be mentioned amongst the notable LN
researchers? Don`t you kooks read what I write?
> Not one of you people can come on this group and have a rational,
> fact-based discussion of the physical evidence of conspiracy.
<snicker> With a person who thinks the wounds to clothing trumps
the wounds on the actual body?
Todd W. Vaughan
Still afraid of giving a yes or no answer.
Still a coward.
Still a fibber.
Still a liar.
All with no shame.
Just like a NYC crack whore.
Todd
Surgeon General's Warning: Reading Tomnln's Website Will Be Dangeorus
to Your Understanding of the Facts Of This Case
Todd W. Vaughan
tomnln
THAT ain't from Posner's book.
You Stole that from Me.
The Highest Form of Praise is "Duplication".
Following todd's CREDO will have you Urinating on Nam Vets Graves.
Beware of Satanic Worshippers. (todd)
Beware the Anti-Christ. (todd)
Pack it in todd.
todd is Anti Truth/Justice.
todd is Anti-American.
todd is Anti American.
todd Worships Lies Under Oath.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143082030.2...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1143081882.2...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Cliff wrote:
>> Steve wrote:
>> > Retracting (for the moment) my earlier statement that my previous post
>> > would be my last to you
>>
>> Ever see COOL HAND LUKE?
>>
>> Stay down, Luke, stay down.
>>
>> >
>> > Cliffy wrote:
>> >
>> > It ain't about *you*, Barber.
>> >
>> >
>> > Steve writes:
>> >
>> > Cliffy,
>> >
>> > It was, in fact, " about" me the moment you chimed into a post that
>> > was a discussion between Tom Rossley, Todd and I, and you made a smart
>> > remark to me.
>>
>> Wrong. It was about the inability of LNers to argue the physical
>> facts of the case.
>>
>> You *are* a believer in the view that one guy shot at JFK, right?
>>
>>
>> >
>> > If "it aint about you, Barber", then don't bring my name up,
>>
>> I call all of you LNers out. Don't take it so personally.
>>
>> I call you out, Todd, Bud, Zimmerman, Rahn, McAdams -- all
>> of you.
> How is it that I am starting to be mentioned amongst the notable LN
> researchers? Don`t you kooks read what I write?
It's Called ADULATION Bud;
It's Called Hero Worship Bud;
YOU, Alone are Recognized as the "Spokesperson" for the Accessory After the
Fact Sub-Culture.
GOD Bless you Bud;
========================================================================
tomnln
1. you are Homesexual Expert. (Previous Post)
2. you are an Alchohol Expert. (Previous Post)
3. you are a Drug Expert. (Previous Post)
4. you are Prison Expert. (Previous Post)
5. NOW, you're a CrackWhore Expert.
Ohhhhh Don't Forget "Deserter" when you left your Fellow Felon Baker
Stranded.
Quoite a Resume' toddy.
Ya shoulda paid the $2.00 before you end up in the "CHAIR".
(Surgeon General's Warning: todd may be Hazardous to American Freedoms)
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143082056.1...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cliff
Bud wrote:
> Cliff wrote:
> > Steve wrote:
> > > Retracting (for the moment) my earlier statement that my previous post
> > > would be my last to you
> >
> > Ever see COOL HAND LUKE?
> >
> > Stay down, Luke, stay down.
> >
> > >
> > > Cliffy wrote:
> > >
> > > It ain't about *you*, Barber.
> > >
> > >
> > > Steve writes:
> > >
> > > Cliffy,
> > >
> > > It was, in fact, " about" me the moment you chimed into a post that
> > > was a discussion between Tom Rossley, Todd and I, and you made a smart
> > > remark to me.
> >
> > Wrong. It was about the inability of LNers to argue the physical
> > facts of the case.
> >
> > You *are* a believer in the view that one guy shot at JFK, right?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > If "it aint about you, Barber", then don't bring my name up,
> >
> > I call all of you LNers out. Don't take it so personally.
> >
> > I call you out, Todd, Bud, Zimmerman, Rahn, McAdams -- all
> > of you.
>
> How is it that I am starting to be mentioned amongst the notable LN
> researchers?
You post a lot here, so I thought I'd throw your name out.
Don't mean to be rude, but it tends to get that way around here.
> Don`t you kooks read what I write?
Not enough, maybe.
Maybe I pegged you wrong. Do you think 3 shots and 3 shots only
were fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63?
>
> > Not one of you people can come on this group and have a rational,
> > fact-based discussion of the physical evidence of conspiracy.
>
> <snicker> With a person who thinks the wounds to clothing trumps
> the wounds on the actual body?
No, Bud, with a person who can argue the evidence for the bullet
defects in the clothes matching the actual back wound at T3.
Cliff
Steve
Steve wrote:
> Retracting (for the moment) my earlier statement that my previous post
> would be my last to you
Ever see COOL HAND LUKE?
Stay down, Luke, stay down.
> Cliffy wrote:
> It ain't about *you*, Barber.
> Steve writes:
> Cliffy,
> It was, in fact, " about" me the moment you chimed into a post that
> was a discussion between Tom Rossley, Todd and I, and you made a smart
> remark to me.
Wrong. It was about the inability of LNers to argue the physical
facts of the case.
You *are* a believer in the view that one guy shot at JFK, right?
> If "it aint about you, Barber", then don't bring my name up,
I call all of you LNers out. Don't take it so personally.
I call you out, Todd, Bud, Zimmerman, Rahn, McAdams -- all
of you.
Not one of you people can come on this group and have a rational,
fact-based discussion of the physical evidence of conspiracy.
Steve wrote:
> and don't chime into discussions and make smart remarks to me, when no one
> is talking to you-directly!
Cliff writes:
Oh? Otherwise what? You and Todd are gonna show up at my doorstep?
Better come heavy, Steve-o.
Cliff
Steve writes:
Cliffy, this is wishful thinking on your part. Sorry. You aren't
worth my "showing up at your doorstep. "
Steve
Cliff
>
> Steve writes:
>
> Cliffy, this is wishful thinking on your part.
Why would I want to see your sorry ass.
> Sorry.
That's what I'm say'n.
> You aren't worth my "showing up at your doorstep. "
>
> Steve
But Tom is?
Like I say, your ilk lack fortitude.
Steve
> Steve writes:
> Sorry.
> Steve
But Tom is?
Steve writes:
Like I said, Cliffy, you starve for attention.
tomnln
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1143129546....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
>tom is "Disapointed". <
Ouch! Not another tom-o-typo!
We all know you meant "tom is a "Disapointment".
Probably Ellens favorite saying.
Todd
tomnln
I'll just point out his adversity to discuss Evidence/Testimony.
(the Anti-American won't even tell us Where his Boss Bin Laden IS)
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143147440....@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
>I'll just point out his adversity to discuss Evidence/Testimony. <
You want to discuss "Evidence/Testimony"?
OK, let's discuss what Lee Bowers saw.
You go first.
Todd
tomnln
Tell the people about Officer Baker's FOUR (4) Different accounts of his
Lunchroom encounter with Oswald.
Do you Believe;
Lie 1?
Lie 2?
Lie 3?
Lie 4?
Any Combination?
ALL FOUR (4)?
You have been DUCKING "This Subject" for Months.
C'Mon Felon Supporter SUPPORT.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143150686.3...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
I need clarification on this subject.
I'm Serious.
I Really want to know if steve/todd are gonna "Pay tom a Visit to Teach him
something"?
I read that (or words to THAT effect) in one of steve's posts.
I Just wanna know if they're just blowing smoke like every other post OR, if
it's True/
Please, Please, Please, let me know?
Respectfully, tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:csDUf.12926$YX1.65@dukeread06...
Todd W. Vaughan
>I Really want to know if steve/todd are gonna "Pay tom a Visit to Teach him
>something"?
>I read that (or words to THAT effect) in one of steve's posts.
Let's be clear; I never made any claim that I was going to visit you.
Todd
tomnln
Your Co-Conspirator Suggested that you come with him !
Are you gonna DESERT steve the way you Deserted Officer Baker?
Looks like the LN'r Ship is Sinking judging from all the Rats who are
leaving.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1143158052....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
Vaughan says...
Yeah... Jerry McNally tried that on me once... his comment was "Pal, one day our
paths might cross. And at that time I'll kick your Marine ass."
And yet, as often as I mention that I regularly stand ready to receive an 'ass
kicking' at the Encino Judo Club, there have never been any takers.
Nor do I ever expect any. Loudmouth bullies take pleasure with those who can't
defend themselves, but wouldn't dare cross the path of someone who is quite
capable of defending themselves.
And, as often as I've pointed out the lies of others - you'd think that
*someone* would have taken me up on the offer, and allowed me to call 'em a liar
to their face.
--
NewsGuy.Com 30Gb $9.95 Carry Forward and On Demand Bandwidth
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <bnho...@rain.org> wrote in message
news:dvveu...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <1143158052....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, Todd W.
> Vaughan says...
>>
>>Tomnln,
>>
>>> I Really want to know if steve/todd are gonna "Pay tom a Visit to Teach
>>> him
>>> something"?
>>> I read that (or words to THAT effect) in one of steve's posts.
>>
>>
>>Let's be clear; I never made any claim that I was going to visit you.
>>
>>Todd
>
>
> Yeah... Jerry McNally tried that on me once... his comment was "Pal, one
> day our
> paths might cross. And at that time I'll kick your Marine ass."
>
> And yet, as often as I mention that I regularly stand ready to receive an
> 'ass
> kicking' at the Encino Judo Club, there have never been any takers.
=====================================================================
> Nor do I ever expect any. Loudmouth bullies take pleasure with those who
> can't
> defend themselves, but wouldn't dare cross the path of someone who is
> quite
> capable of defending themselves.
Well By Golly;
I think I remember something once a long time ago about a Big Mouth Hunter
becoming the Hunted.
Just a thought.
===========================================================================
Steve
Todd did not say anything about paying Tom a visit. He merely asked
Tom where he lived, and mentioned Tom's neck of the woods.
I am the one who said what was said about paying Tom a visit. For
some reason, Tom takes this as a "threat".
Listen up, Tommy Benny, Cliffy and Healy.
None of you are worth going to prison for. I wouldnt waste my time
"threatening" you. I do noth "tghreaten" , anddid not "threaten"
anyone of you with physical harm, or any other type of harm. I have
never struck a person in my life, and I am certainly **not** going to
start with the likes of any of you. None of you are worth it!
I think that you folks are so obssessed with the Kennedy assassination
that you are all nothing but a bunch of parnoiacs who hide behind their
computer screeens and think they can take on the world. Meanwhile, the
rest of the world could care less what you think about this topic and
could care less about"debating" something that happened nearly 5
decades ago.
Just because you folks don't have a life doesn't mean the rest of the
world doesn't.
Cliff
> Steve writes:
>
> Like I said, Cliffy, you starve for attention.
You say that like it's a bad thing. :->
Of course I do. I'm early promoting my new website and the article --
Intense Studies of the Obvious: The physical evidence of conspiracy
in the murder of John F. Kennedy
(Summer 06)...
So you're a drummer, eh, Steve?
I was a drummer once.
For fifteen minutes.
In Reno, Nevada, January of 1980.
I formed a punk rock band (called itself 7 Seconds) around
the declaration that I would be the drummer in the band, even
though I'd never done it before.
That lasted for fifteen minutes before I recruited another buddy of
mine to be the drummer and I became the manager.
7 Seconds has its music displayed at the Experience Music Project,
the great Seattle rock'n roll museum.
You see, Steve, I've had an impact (albeit modest) on the history of
rocknroll as a drummer -- and you haven't.
And I can't even play.
You can piss off now.
Cliff
tomnln
wanna get Serious with Me????
you can find out if I'm just a talker like you Felons are steve/todd/friends
OR NOT
your Bullshit is gonna stop........by your choice OR MINE (??)
"Steve" <sba...@i71.net> wrote in message
news:1143185422.1...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Sometimes 7 seconds makes all the difference in a Lifetime.
"Cliff" <nk...@sfo.com> wrote in message
news:1143186821.4...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David VP
Is there anything more pathetic than a CTer on CT Steroids? I doubt it.
Yes, the (CT) bullshit WILL stop. And this is what's going to stop it
(for good).....
www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393045250/qid=1143241458/sr=1-1
Vince will pull no punches. Might as well pull up CT stakes now and
save further embarrassing "Fuck You Felons" posts like your recent one.
Pathetic.
tomnln
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143241577.1...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Is there anything more pathetic than a CTer on CT Steroids? I doubt it.
>
>
>
>>> "Your Bullshit is gonna stop......."
>
> Yes, the bullshit *will* stop. And this is what's going to stop it (for
> good)......
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393045250/qid=1143241458/sr=1-1
>
> Vince will pull no punches. Might as well pull up CT stakes now and
> save further embassing "Fuck You Felons" posts like your recent one.
> Pathetic.
>
tomnln
DISEASE.
You guys must be Sleeping Together.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143242087.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
YES, there IS someone More pathetic.
It's you "Accessories After the Fact" Faggots who's mind is incapacitated by
AIDS.
I notice you didn't address points of Destruction of Evidence Whimppy-Ass.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143242087.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
David VP
I'm not a gypsy...but my prediction re. V.B. is as solid as granite,
without question.
It's always good for CTers to get a dose of assassination "reality"
every now and again....so here it is (with this first quote
guaranteeing Vincent's success at burying all conspiracy notions
forever):
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1998
--------------
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. .... In fact, you could throw 80
percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would
still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his
sole role in the crime. .... The Warren Commission looked at a
tremendous amount of evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone.
I've studied the evidence, and I agree." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1986
----------------------
"Almost all of the current books on the subject deal with conspiracy
theories. I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think I can convince
the average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed JFK." -- Vincent T.
Bugliosi; April 22, 2004
-----------------------
"Right now I'm working around the clock, almost literally, because I'm
reliving the JFK trial in my dreams." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 2005
-----------------------
"The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy." -- Vincent
T. Bugliosi (via a portion of his Opening Statement to the jury during
the 1986 televised Docu-Trial "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald")
-----------------------
Vincent T. Bugliosi (while questioning Dr. Vincent Guinn during the
1986 TV Docu-Trial) -- "There may have been fifty people firing at
President Kennedy that day; but if there were, they ALL missed; only
bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the President; is that
correct?"
Dr. Vincent P. Guinn -- "That's a correct statement; yes."
-----------------------
"I am at work writing an in-depth book on the assassination of
President John F. Kennedy, one that I'm confident will shed a different
light on the tragedy that altered the course of American history." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1991
-----------------------
"What the assassination buffs have done -- they've succeeded in
discrediting the Warren Commission. Every book that comes out alleges a
conspiracy. Someone has got to debunk these absurd conspiracy
theories." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; January 1988
-----------------------
"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-Castro
Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. In almost 40 years, there has not
been one scintilla of proof tying the assassination to anyone but
Oswald. There have been theories, but no evidence. Oswald had the
motive, the opportunity, and the skill to kill President Kennedy." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi
-----------------------
"I am writing two volumes on the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy. My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee
Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he
acted alone." (Emphasis his.) -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 2001
-----------------------
"I agree with all of {Gerald} Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology.
There's a credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." --
Vincent T. Bugliosi
-----------------------
"I am trying to finish my book on the assassination of President John
F. Kennedy. There is a need for a book on the non-pro-conspiracy side.
My view is that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. I
know that somewhere between 75 percent and 80 percent of the American
people believe he was the victim of a conspiracy.
"But I want to tell you a story. I was speaking in Toronto on tactics
and techniques used in the movie "JFK" just after the Oliver Stone
movie was released. After the speech, there was a Q & A, and I asked
for a show of hands of how many believed the assassination was a
conspiracy. It was 80 percent to 90 percent of the audience.
"Then I said that I'd like to have a show of hands as to how many saw
the movie "JFK" or at any time in the past had read a book rejecting
the Warren Commission or believing in a conspiracy. Again, there was an
enormous show of hands. I told them they should hear both sides of the
story before making up their minds. With that thought in mind, I asked
how many had read the Warren Report. Hardly any raised their hands.
"Very few had heard both sides of the story. It was easier and more
romantic to believe in the conspiracy. My book will show otherwise.
Many of the conspiracy theories are appealing to the intellectual
palate at first glance, but they do violence to all notions of common
sense." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; April 6, 1997
-----------------------
Original Publisher's Blurb Re. "Final Verdict";
Via W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. (Spring 1998):
"Final Verdict", by Vincent T. Bugliosi (With Fred Haines) ..........
"It was the crime of the century, the most shattering public event most
of us will ever live through. Much has been written about that day in
Dallas, but never an account that laid all questions to rest - until
now.
At 1:00 P.M. on November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was
pronounced dead, the victim of a sniper attack during his motorcade
through Dallas. That may be the only fact generally agreed upon in the
vast literature spawned by the assassination. Polls reveal that 85
percent of Americans believe there was a conspiracy behind Lee Harvey
Oswald -- some even believe Oswald had nothing to do with it -- and in
this astonishingly-encyclopedic and readable book, Vincent Bugliosi
shows how we have come to believe such lies.
Bugliosi, brillant prosecutor of Charles Manson and best-selling author
of the book, "Outrage", that hammered a chain of circumstantial guilt
around O.J. Simpson, is perhaps the only man in America capable of
"prosecuting" Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of John F. Kennedy.
His book is a narrative compendium of fact, ballistic evidence,
re-examination of key witnesses, and, above all, common sense. Every
detail and nuance is accounted for, every conspiracy theory revealed as
a fraud upon the American public. While reading it we have the eerie
feeling that we are in Dallas the day a lone gunman changed the course
of history. Mr. Bugliosi's irresistible logic and absolute command of
the evidence shed fresh light on this peculiarly American nightmare. At
last we know what really happened; at last it all makes sense."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>Is there anything more pathetic than a CTer on CT Steroids? I doubt it.
>
>
>
>
>good)......
>
>www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393045250/qid=1143241458/sr=1-1
>
>Vince will pull no punches. Might as well pull up CT stakes now and
>Pathetic.
My prediction: David will be unable to defend Bugliosi's book when it comes
out... for I find it difficult to believe that he can do any better than Posner,
and Posner has been ripped to shreds.
I *am* amused that all the hopes of the LNT'er crowd seems to be getting placed
on a book that isn't even finished... After over 40 years, haven't they figured
it out yet?
Perhaps I'll save this post to remind David after Bugliosi's book comes out...
aeffects
David VP wrote:
> >>> "FUCK you, Felons. Your Bullshit is gonna stop...." <<<
>
>
> Is there anything more pathetic than a CTer on CT Steroids? I doubt it.
>
> Yes, the (CT) bullshit WILL stop. And this is what's going to stop it
> (for good).....
>
> www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393045250/qid=1143241458/sr=1-1
>
> Vince will pull no punches.
LOL, how many years has Vince been writing, re-writing then re-writing
again and again and again.
How long does it take for a prosecutor to come to the conclusion LHO
was the LONE gunman?
When it comes to Vince -- a very, very, very, VERY long time.
give it up vonPain - its boring...
>Might as well pull up CT stakes now
nah -- why? -- can't wait to see how you fair in total embarassment
David VP
Who cares? To me, it's a sign of "touching all bases produced by the CT
Nuthatches".
And it IS coming. So save your "embarrassment" for your own
theories.....
http://www.lawcrossing.com/article/index.php?id=1283
>> "Give it up {Mr. Von Pein} - its boring..."
Yeah...the one-killer truth usually is pretty boring when put up
against a 6-shot, 3-killer O. Stone shoot-'em-up, huh?
tomnln
A simple Yes or, No will suffice.
Or, are you Backing Another Loser by Habit?
Yes Or, No David?
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143243052.9...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Just Another "Gypsy Fortune Teller".
Will Vincent address the Felonies of the authorities when they Destroyed
Evidence?
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143244856.1...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
David VP
EVERYTHING will be addressed by Vince in "Final Verdict: The Simple
Truth In The Killing Of JFK" (W.W. Norton & Co.).
Everything. And since Vince still has the amazing confidence to make
comments like this (below) as of mid-2004, I'm confident beyond ALL
doubt that EVERY loose end/question/CT fruitcake theory has been
addressed to Vincent's pro-LN satisfaction.
Obviously he has reconciled EVERY little point in his mind as a FORMER
PROSECUTOR, and there is NO admissibility problem or "destruction of
evidence" difficulty (as you put it) so big to negate the overall
pro-LN/LHO "Final Verdict". THAT fact, alone, should make CTers quake.
.......
"Almost all of the current books on the subject deal with conspiracy
theories. I believe there was no conspiracy, and I think I can convince
the average reader in 25 pages that Oswald killed JFK." -- V. Bugliosi;
April 2004
----------------------
"Every detail and nuance is accounted for {in 'Final Verdict'}, every
conspiracy theory revealed as a fraud upon the American public." --
W.W. Norton; 1998
tomnln
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1143245944....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...