On Apr 23, 7:55 pm, mainframetech <
mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 12:19 pm, bigdog <
jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 23, 8:50 am, mainframetech <
mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 22, 10:00 am, bigdog <
jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 22, 8:11 am, mainframetech <
mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 21, 10:42 pm, bigdog <
jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 7:25 pm, mainframetech <
mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 21, 3:12 pm, bigdog <
jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 21, 9:12 am, mainframetech <
mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Apr 20, 10:12 pm, bigdog <
jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > I take his words that he said out loud as meaning a certain thing
> > > > > because I believe Hoover was fully aware of the plot, and may have
> > > > > contributed to it.
>
> > > > Mind reading.
>
> > > Nope. Just my belief, which I openly stated.
>
> > I see. So when I read Hoover's words and believe he meant what he
> > said, I'm reading his mind, but you are free to read they saw words
> > and assume he meant exactly the opposite what he said. Typical of the
> > fucked up way you look at everything in this case.
>
> Nope. Once again you wandered off into Wonderland. You heard what
> he said and acted like you knew what he was thinking, that he was
> being completely on the up and up.
This from the dumbfuck who thinks Hoover meant just the opposite of
what he actually said.
> But earlier you admitted that
> politicians lie, so that means that you had to read his mind to know
> if he was telling the truth or not.
First of all, Hoover was not a politician. He was a bureaucrat, but I
wouldn't expect someone of your limited mental faculties to understand
the difference. I don't need to be able to read Hoover's mind to know
what he was teilling LBJ was accurate because there is a shitload of
evidence that tells us Oswald was the assassin. You on the other hand
take the illogical leap of faith that Hoover was lying to LBJ with no
evidence whatsoever to support that belief. But that's what dumbfucks
do.
>I saw his wi=ords and they were
> said in such a way as to suggest duplicity, a matrural political kind
> of action. Try and stay with it, eh?
>
This last statement is ludicrous even by your exceptional low
standards of reason and logic. How the fuck can you tell how somebody
said something by reading a transcript. Just one ridiculous assumption
after another. I'm sorry for having underestimated you. When I saw
Waltards had returned, I demoted you to the #2 dumbest person on this
board. I realize now I was too hasty. You have risen to the top.
Congratulations.
> > > > > But you're reading his mind without him saying
> > > > > anything. There's a difference, but you have to be of average
> > > > > intelligence to see it.
>
> > > > Yes there's a difference. I read what Hoover said and believe he meant
> > > > what he said. You read what he said and claim he meant exactly the
> > > > opposite of what he said.
>
> > > Hmm. And I remember you agreeing that politicians lie, and yet
> > > you're ready to believe whatever ol' Hoover said.
>
> > When politicians lie, it is usually when they are in public because
> > they are trying to deceive the public. That isn't the case with what
> > he was telling privately to LBJ. When Hoover told LBJ Oswald was the
> > assassin, I believe him because that is what the evidence dictates.
>
> 'Usually'? So there are cases that they lie and they're not in
> public? OK, was this one of them? First, he didn't say "Oswald was
> the assassin". He said the people had to be convinced that Oswald was
> the 'real' assassin. Big difference. You tried to say it like it was
> so, and Hoover said it like it wasn't and had to be impressed on
> people. To be sure of what we're talking about, that you wiped out,
> here it is again:
Keep up the illogical thought process. It should keep you in the dark
for another 48 years.
> "Hoover noted the need to have "something issued so we can convince
> the public that Oswald is the real assassin,"
>
Gee, I don't suppose it crossed that dysfunctional mind of yours that
Hoover wanted to convince the American people that Oswald was the
assassin because Oswald was the assassin. Of course it didn't because
that is the logical explaination.
> > > Naah, not logical.
> > > Actually, I was more convinced by his choice of words, which as you
> > > know sometimes gives away the silent intent of a person, like the
> > > 'Freudian slip'...:)
>
> > Sounds like a dumbfuck slip by you.
>
> Nope. But maybe by Hoover.
>
No maybe about it. You are the dumbfuck.
> > > > And I will agree with you that it only takes
> > > > a person of average intelligence to figure out which one of us is
> > > > engaging in mind reading.
> > > > > > You say there is no evidence of Hoover's covering
> > > > > > > up anything, but do you think he would have announced that just so you
> > > > > > > could read it 45 years later? I don't think so.
>
> > > > > > Typical of the lame bullshit you come up with when you can't cite any
> > > > > > evidence to support the stupid things you say, which is just about
> > > > > > everything you say.
>
> > > > > So as usual, you have fallen down to your normal level of ad hominem
> > > > > comments when you have no facts ofrsensible logic to provide.
>
> > > > You have earned everyone of the ad hominem attacks. You are a coward,
> > > > a liar, and a dumbfuck. Hell of a combination.
>
> > > LOL! You've got it so bad, you respond from an accusation of ad
> > > hominem with more of the same...:)
>
> > Just calling a spade a spade and a cowardly lying dumbfuck a cowardly,
> > lying dumfuck.
>
> And full of repetition besides! Really losing it there ol'
> fella...:)
>
Well yes, I guess it does go without saying that you are a cowardly
lying dumbfuck.
This sounds like a rewording of the schoolyard comeback, "Oh yeah, so
are you". is this really the best you've got.
> > > > > Sort of like
> > > > > living in a mud mire and getting nowhere trying to get out...:) I've
> > > > > already mentioned a number of witnesses that saw folks including the
> > > > > smoke from other than smoking behind the fence on the GK. Look back
> > > > > if you're not too lazy.
>
> > > > You have provided no eyewitnesses who saw a shooter on the GK. You
> > > > have provided no weapon that was fired from the GK. You have provided
> > > > no bullets fired from the GK. You have provided no spent shells that
> > > > were found on the GK. You can provide no qualified medical examiner
> > > > who claims there is any medical evidence of shots fired from anywhere
> > > > except the TSBD.
>
> > > Actually, neither can you as far as the 'nest' is concerned. All
> > > the evidence was co-opted by the FBI who showed themselves notorious
> > > at losing things and misplacing bullets and such.
>
> > Typical. The evidence won't support your position so you dismiss the
> > evidence. You have to conjure your beliefs out of thin air because you
> > have nothing to support them as you have demonstrated over and over
> > again with your continued evasions.
>
> I didn't dismiss the evidence, your best buddies the FBI did, or
> lost it or mixed it up or whatever.
>
No they presented it. You rejected it. You wanted to believe something
that there was no evidence of.
> > > We have all those things for the shooter in the TSBD.
>
> > > Nope. See above.
>
> > You are in denial. All that evidence exists and you simply can't deal
> > with it so you choose to ignore it. What an asshole!!!
>
> All kinds of evidence exists, but you won't look at it, or you
> dismiss it, or fall asleep when it's being discussed. What a loser.
>
<snicker, snicker> You keep saying that without ever being able to
state what that evidence is. You just keep lying and evading. You
remind me of the Kevin Costner character Ray in Field of Dreams when
he tries to kidnap Terrence Mann played by James Earl Jones. He put
his finger in his jacket pocket and tried to pretend he had a gun.
When Mann called his bluff and said "Show me your gun", Ray responded,
"I'm not going to show you my gun". That's you in a nutshell. You have
nothing but a finger in your pocket and you're trying to pretend you
have a gun. You are fooling nobody.
> > > > We have none of those things for your phantom shooter on the GK. You
> > > > continue to swing and miss.
>
> > > I don't remember saying the GK was the one and only place a shooter
> > > could be, though it's one of the better possibilities, since there
> > > were so many witnesses that felt the shots came from there.
>
> > You can't produce and ounce of hard evidence of a shooter anywhere
> > except in the TSBD. You've demonstrated that over and over again.
> > There were no EYEwitnesses to a shooter on the GK.
>
> Whoa! Getting a bit up tight, eh? There is not evidence that a
> shooter took out JFK from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
You mean other than shells, bullets, the rifle, fingerprints, fiber
evidence, medical evidence, and oh, yeah, several eyewitnesses who
actually saw a gunman there.
> Maybe from the
> Daltex building, or the GK, but the stuff we went through about LHO
> and some shooter in the TSBD was no good.
>
We have everything we would expect to have as evidence of a shooter in
the TSBD and no evidence whatsoever of a shooter on the GK or in the
Dal-Tex but you choose to believe the shooter was in the Dal-Tex or on
the GK. Once a dumbfuck, always a dumbfuck.
> > > We know a
> > > few people were there based on a number of witnesses, and we know that
> > > smoke came from there concomitant with a shot that wasn't a cigarette,
>
> > You assume it wasn't a cigarette. People, including police officers
> > ran to the GK following the shooting from Elm St. The ran there from
> > the overpass. Lee Bowers had a clear view of the area during the
> > shooting. Not one of those people ever saw a gunman. There are no
> > eyewitnesses for a gunman on the GK and no physical evidence of a
> > gunman on the GK. Smoke and mirrors is all you've got because there
> > was no gunman on the GK.
>
> Well, I found a big list of the people that sw stuff on the GK on
> the murder day. Here it is...record the names as they go by:
I'm sure people saw a lot of things on the GK that day.. None of them
saw a shooter or any evidence of one.
> Why do you suppose Lee Bowers said that he saw so little when others
> saw more? He had a good view, though a bit far away. Here's the full
> story of Lee Bowers, with all the friends of his commenting on what he
> said beyond what he was afraid to say to the WC, and his untimely
> death, where he told ambulance attendants he felt 'drugged' before he
> hit an abutment on the highway.
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt Lee Bowers full story
>
Of course you don't believe what Bowers told the WC, UNDER OATH, and
make wild assumptions about what he really saw with nothing to support
those assumptions. That is what dumbfucks do. And that's a great way
to rub somebody out. Drug him and hope a highway abutment gets in his
way. I guess they would have been screwed if he just ran his car into
a ditch. <snicker>
> > > and we know that there was a person there that told a police officer
> > > that he was Secret Service, but there was no SS people there at the
> > > time. And all sorts of other evidence.
>
> > No one told anyone he was Secret Service. A guy in plain clothes
> > showed an officer some credentials and the officer assumed he was
> > Secret Service because he didn't look closely at the ID and couldn't
> > give a name for the person he encountered because he hadn't looked
> > closely. His presence there would not have precluded anyone from
> > seeing a gunman if one had actually been there. Nobody stopped Lee
> > Bowers from seeing the area behind the fence and he saw no gunman. No
> > one stopped the officer on the overpass from looking behind the fence
> > and he saw nobody. No eyewitnesses. No photographic evidence, No
> > physical evidence. That's a great case you've made for a shooter on
> > the GK.
>
> See video above. Many people agree...they 'corroborate' each
> other...:)
How does one person's guess corroborate another person's guess. Nobody
saw a gunman on the GK. Deal with it.
> So a DPD officer sees a guy with 'credentials' and you
> think that's nothing? What 'credentials'? What's the guy doing
> there? Who is he? The Secret Service said they had no one there.
>
We don't know for sure who he was because the cop never IDed him, but
Bugliosi offers several plausible explainations of who it could have
been. Plain clothes guys who were known to have been there. A rational
person doesn't take unknowns and make assumptions as to what the
answer is. That's what dumbfucks do.
>
>
> > > > > > > Of course you do, You're a dumbfuck. Nobody testified that
> > > > > > > > they saw a Mauser. They realized they had made a mistake before they
> > > > > > > > testified. No Mauser bullets or shells were found. MC bullets and
> > > > > > > > shells were found. But you think it was a Mauser found on the sixth
> > > > > > > > floor. Of course you do. You're a dumbfuck.
>
> > > > > Roger Craig said they found a Mauser, and he said so clearly.
>
> > > > Roger Craig said a lot of ridiculous things, none of which can be
> > > > corroborated. The guy was on the outside looking in on the crime of
> > > > the century and he made up a whole shitload of stuff to try to make it
> > > > seem like he was involved. If he hadn't made up all that crap, nobody
> > > > would know who Roger Craig was. He fed the CTs the bullshit they
> > > > wanted to hear and you guys ate it up and licked the bowl.
>
> > > Ah! Do you have backup for that destruction of Roger Craig's
> > > reputation?
>
> > Roger Craig did that himself. When a guy tells a story that doesn't
> > fit with any of the other evidence, it's a safe bet the guy is full of
> > shit. But he's all you've got.
>
> Nope. Won't do. You tried to scuttle out of a question with bul l
> for an answer. When a guy tells a story that doesn't fit with other
> evidence, look for a whistleblower and something wrong going on. As to
> all I've got, check the video with all the names:
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
No sensible person is going to believe a whisteblower whose story
doesn't fit the evidence. Only dumbfucks do that. Name one
whistleblower who ever made a case based on nothing but there own
claims. Can't do it? Didn't think so.
The limo was not stolen against the law. It was federal property. No
warrant had been issued for it. It was taken back to Washington and
searched for evidence by law enforcement personnel.
> and the body was stolen at gunpoint against the law,
Another bald faced lie. Nobody drew their guns at Parkland.
> and the
> federal authorities had control of all evidence they could get their
> sweaty little hands on?
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
Let me give you a primer on logical thinking. When two groups of
people give differing versions of an event that are mutually
exclusive, we know at least one of those two groups has to be wrong.
It is possible they could both be wrong, but it is not possible they
could both be right. So how can we tell which group, if any is
correct. We could just assume the group that supports what we want to
believe is the group that is right. That is the dumbfuck approach. Or
we can look at other forms of evidence to figure out which group is
right. In this case we have one large group of EARwitnesses who say
all the shots came from the GK and another large group of EARwitnesses
that say all the shots came from the direction of the TBSD. Mutual
exclusivity. At least one of them is wrong. Do we have other forms of
evidence. Yes we do!!! We have several EYEwitnesses who saw a shooter
at the southeast corner window of the sixth floor of the TSDB. Lo and
behold, they found three spent shells at that window. Lo and behold,
they found a rifle across the floor from that window. Lo and behold,
it was proven that rifle fired those spent shells. Lo and behold, that
rifle also fired the two bullets that were recovered. Lo and behold,
that rifle belonged to a TSBD employee whose fingerprints were at the
window, on a bag found next to the window large enough to hold the
rifle, and an eyewitness IDed him as the shooter. Pretty good
corroboration for those who say the shots came from the TSBD. And what
do we have to corroborate those who say the shots came from the GK.
Zero, Zip. Nada. Just a whole shitload of assumptions by a whole
shitload of dumbfucks.
> When
> you read the various DPD testimonies, most of them say they headed for
> the GK because the shots seemed to come from there and most people
> were heading up that way, or looking up there.
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
Why don't you quote some of those witnesses' testimony and let us see
what they really said.
I'll bet you a million dollars you can't cite one thing I said that
suggests Hearst was crying poverty.
BBBBBBUZZZZZZZZ!!!! Wrong answer. Thanks for playing.
> He had a cute smile. And I didn't
> assume anything, fool. Look carefully and see the question marks in
> the sentence, giving you an opportunity to say it ain't so.
>
> > > > > Or would no one give a damn because they didn't
> > > > > think there was a conspiracy involved at all?
>
> > > > Conspiracy theories aren't born because people think there was a
> > > > conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are born because people want to
> > > > believe there was a conspiracy.
>
> > > Think about what you just said...:)
>
> > I thought about it BEFORE I wrote it. The only reason people believe
> > there was a conspiracy to kill JFK is because they want to believe
> > that. That don't want to believe that something so awful could have
> > happened because a little loser stuck a cheap rifle out a window and
> > shot him. But that is what the evidence tells us. There is no reason
> > to believe there was anything more to it than that.
>
> If the evidence was so clear cut, no one would have questioned it.
Complete bullshit. You must believe the evidence isn't clear that 9/11
was a terrorist attack since a whole lot of people have questioned
that.
> But it was a mess. They screwed up trying to implicate Oswald in
> Mexico City and elsewhere, and then they made a mess of the evidence,
Why would they even bother trying to prove Oswald went to Mexico if it
wasn't so. It does little if anything to make the case against him. If
they never found out about his Mexico trip, the case against him would
be just as strong.
> having to steal it away so no innocent person would find the wrong
> things. People thought that the excuse for a lone nut was so thin and
> full of crap they were on the verge of rioting. The WC kept it down,
> but was so badly done that the people soon arose again...and again,
> etc.
>
They keep rising and failing to provide any evidence that anyone
except Oswald was resposible.
Oh, I see. The dog ate your evidence.
> > > Actually, neither you nor I can say one way or the other, as noted
> > > above. Ya see, you don't know either and are just guessing. Neither
> > > LBJ nor Hoover would pass on to us who else was talking to LBJ. You
> > > can be sure that if LBJ was part of the conspiracy, or even the main
> > > man, he would be talking to others in the cabal about the efforts to
> > > cover it all up.
>
> > > > > > > > When you previously got your ass kicked.
>
> > > > > > > Naah...:)
>
> > > > > > You really are a glutton for punishment. I'll bet you love it when
> > > > > > your mommy spanks you.
>
> > > > > It taught me how to do it to you, and I have been finding that very
> > > > > satisfying.
>
> > > > I'm sure that is true. Not often we get honesty from you.
>
> > > > > Since I'm the main provider of backup and information,
> > > > > and you just throw in an occasional low class insult...:)
>
> > > > Your continued refusal to provide a shred of evidence that anybody but
> > > > Oswald was involved is duly noted.
>
>
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
> > > Bull. I've provided info until the cows come home. You are much
> > > more likely to blat out something and not provide backup, and the
> > > evidence has been spoken of through this thread. Let the onlookers
> > > decide...:)
>
>
http://tinyurl.com/c3hkklt
>
So the best you can do is support your own wild assumptions with
somebody else's wil assumptions. I suppose you think a YouTube video
constitutes evidence.
Way to go, dumbfuck.