The average American

[David Emerling]

At some point in time, in any protracted debate about the Kennedy
assassination, invariably, the conspiracy theorist is going to mention how
the majority of people (as indicated by polls) believe that a conspiracy
was involved. They use this as a building block to support their position.
It's their way of saying, "Most people agree with ME - therefore, the
probability that I'M correct is greater than the probability that YOU are
correct. Most people agree with ME!"

I'll bet there is not a single conspiracy theorist in this discussion
group who has not, at one time or another, made this argument; if not
directly, at least, indirectly. The irony, of course, is that the CTs
accuse the LNs of being naive, mindless sheep who blindly believe what
they are told by the Warren Commission when, in fact, the LNs are in the
minority. The majority of literature, by far, is conspiracy oriented. It
is the CTs who are in the majority. An argument can be made that it is
THEY who are the "sheep" and are the ones who are blindly following the
crowd.

There is a thing called Godwin's Law - which states: "As an online
discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis
or Hitler approaches 1". I think the same can be said about references to
polls in the Kennedy assassination debate. Sooner or later, the CT is
going to raise the point that polls consistently indicate that the
majority of Americans believe in "some kind" of conspiracy. They do not
seem very concerned that there is no consensus on the nature of this
conspiracy, however.

Why am I writing this? I'm watching a Sunday morning news program and the
discussion is about Donald Trump as a presidential candidate and how he
has been defying all predictions of his dropping in the polls. But quite
the opposite is happening! Polls are consistently showing Donald Trump as
the Republican front runner.

The average American is not a very sophisticated individual. Donald Trump
is clearly unqualified to be President of the United States. He says
things that are patently wrong - PROVABLY wrong! He is arrogant and
childish. He has neither the temperament, maturity, polish nor
statesmanship skills to serve as president. Any intelligent person can
readily see that. And yet, obviously, a significant number of Americans
cannot see that.

One characteristic of the not-so-intelligent segment of America is that
they feel victimized. They feel like they are being held down. They are
naturally distrustful. They do not trust the government. They do not trust
the media. They do not trust Wall Street. They do not trust big business.
They do not trust foreigners. That is their default view of the world.
It's a naturally cynical and paranoid worldview. Trump resonates with
these people. And there are a lot of them!

Sound familiar?

Now, I'm not saying that a CT would necessarily be a Trump supporter.
That's not my point. My point is that whenever you take a poll of the
general public, it is always going to be contaminated by a large segment
that does not have enough command of the issue to make an intelligent
assessment. Instead, they have a much more visceral, emotional and
knee-jerk view. It doesn't come from their brain - it comes from their
heart.

The fact that Donald Trump is doing so well in the polls is an indicator
that this irrational group of Americans are actually a very significant
group. The average American is not very politically astute and responds
much more to sound bites than logic.

And THIS is why polls indicate that the majority of Americans believe
"some kind" of conspiracy was involved in the Kennedy assassination. They
are not equipped to know any better yet they DID have time to go to the
theater and watch Oliver Stone's JFK.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Ralph Cinque]

What difference does it make, Emerling, when the polls are all rubbish
anyway? They NEVER conduct polls asking people if they think Oswald was
guilty or not. What they do is ask whether the person thinks Oswald acted
alone or whether it involved a conspiracy.

In other words: take your pick between government story #1 (WC) or
government story #2 (HSCA).

And what are the pollsters instructed to do if the subject responds by
saying:

"Neither. Oswald didn't act alone, and he didn't act within a conspiracy.
He was a patsy, framed and innocent."

What happens to those who respond like that or similar to that? Are their
votes simply discarded? They don't even tell us.

So, Emerling, don't bring up polls because polls are a propaganda
instrument of YOUR side of the debate. They are part of the manipulation
and mind control; the Orwellian mind control.

Oh, and by the way: I'm making you famous.

[BOZ]

I hope the American people are intelligent enough to vote for Donald
Trump.

[mainframetech]

Well that rant tells us much asbout the speaker. Your rhetoric above
fits well with your description of the uninformed you described as:

"a large segment that does not have enough command of the issue to
make an intelligent assessment. Instead, they have a much more visceral,
emotional and knee-jerk view. It doesn't come from their brain - it comes
from their heart."

Since you've arrived here, you have avoided ANY debate with ANYONE that
could offer you a good argument. You have picked out only those you might
lord it over as if you had some superior intellect. Your failure to get
down and mix with the folks that disagree with you won't happen, because
that's what you're afraid of. Real argument where your beliefs are on
trial. In my case, I deal mostly with evidence and proof, and sworn
testimony, things you would find impossible to contend with. So you do
ther saf ething and avoid it like the plague.

Your speech above is filled with opiniion, but the real proof awaits
the light.

Chris

[Peter Makres]

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 8:21:52 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

Good post! Spot on.

Peter

[dwro...@gmail.com]

Even though I'm a CT, I have to agree with you to a large extent. I never
paid too much attention to polls because history has shown that the
majority of people have many times been wrong. There are many "low
information" people out there, LNs as well as CTs, that have never done
much of there own research but instead have based their conclusions on the
opinions of others. Hearsay is always trumped by factual information. (No
reference to Donald here.)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/6/2015 8:21 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> At some point in time, in any protracted debate about the Kennedy
> assassination, invariably, the conspiracy theorist is going to mention how
> the majority of people (as indicated by polls) believe that a conspiracy
> was involved. They use this as a building block to support their position.
> It's their way of saying, "Most people agree with ME - therefore, the
> probability that I'M correct is greater than the probability that YOU are
> correct. Most people agree with ME!"
>
> I'll bet there is not a single conspiracy theorist in this discussion
> group who has not, at one time or another, made this argument; if not
> directly, at least, indirectly. The irony, of course, is that the CTs
> accuse the LNs of being naive, mindless sheep who blindly believe what
> they are told by the Warren Commission when, in fact, the LNs are in the
> minority. The majority of literature, by far, is conspiracy oriented. It
> is the CTs who are in the majority. An argument can be made that it is
> THEY who are the "sheep" and are the ones who are blindly following the
> crowd.
>

You misunderstand the dynamic. CTers do not follow each other. There are
just too many competing theories. But WC defenders are mindless sheep who
follow the Judas Goat known as the Warren Commission.

> There is a thing called Godwin's Law - which states: "As an online
> discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis
> or Hitler approaches 1". I think the same can be said about references to
> polls in the Kennedy assassination debate. Sooner or later, the CT is
> going to raise the point that polls consistently indicate that the
> majority of Americans believe in "some kind" of conspiracy. They do not
> seem very concerned that there is no consensus on the nature of this
> conspiracy, however.
>

We do it not to prove that we are right, but to show how ridiculous it
is for you to claim that you are right.

> Why am I writing this? I'm watching a Sunday morning news program and the
> discussion is about Donald Trump as a presidential candidate and how he
> has been defying all predictions of his dropping in the polls. But quite
> the opposite is happening! Polls are consistently showing Donald Trump as
> the Republican front runner.
>

He's learned that the more outrageous things he says the higher his
standing in the polls. But like you he is only appealing to 22% of the
Republicans who are only 22% of the voters. So he can win the nomination,
but at 22% of 22% he can't win the general election. That is why the
Republican Establishment is considering assassinating him. He doesn't care
if he wins the election as long as he gets higher ratings. But the
Republican Establishment is sick and tired of losing Presidential
Elections. Is there any law against reelecting George Herbert Walker Bush?

> The average American is not a very sophisticated individual. Donald Trump

But of course you are as part of the Elite!

> is clearly unqualified to be President of the United States. He says

Thanks Captain obvious. His supporters don't care if he is qualified or
a liar. Their goal is to destroy the government.

> things that are patently wrong - PROVABLY wrong! He is arrogant and
> childish. He has neither the temperament, maturity, polish nor

And those are his GOOD qualities!

> statesmanship skills to serve as president. Any intelligent person can
> readily see that. And yet, obviously, a significant number of Americans
> cannot see that.
>

That leaves out the majority of Republicans.

> One characteristic of the not-so-intelligent segment of America is that
> they feel victimized. They feel like they are being held down. They are

Some of it is just good old-fashioned racism.

> naturally distrustful. They do not trust the government. They do not trust
> the media. They do not trust Wall Street. They do not trust big business.
> They do not trust foreigners. That is their default view of the world.
> It's a naturally cynical and paranoid worldview. Trump resonates with
> these people. And there are a lot of them!
>
> Sound familiar?

(Obscure reference to 1932 Germany)

>
> Now, I'm not saying that a CT would necessarily be a Trump supporter.

Hardly any would, except for extreme rightwing nuts like Alex Jones.
You know that most CTers are Liberals who support Hillary or Bernie.

> That's not my point. My point is that whenever you take a poll of the
> general public, it is always going to be contaminated by a large segment
> that does not have enough command of the issue to make an intelligent
> assessment. Instead, they have a much more visceral, emotional and
> knee-jerk view. It doesn't come from their brain - it comes from their
> heart.
>
> The fact that Donald Trump is doing so well in the polls is an indicator
> that this irrational group of Americans are actually a very significant
> group. The average American is not very politically astute and responds
> much more to sound bites than logic.
>

You mean the ones who are not smart enough to answer the phone?
Is your elitist affectation only to cover up your lack of education?

> And THIS is why polls indicate that the majority of Americans believe
> "some kind" of conspiracy was involved in the Kennedy assassination. They
> are not equipped to know any better yet they DID have time to go to the
> theater and watch Oliver Stone's JFK.
>

Also known as Poisoning the Well. You say, "Ignore those polls because
they only spoke to stupid people."

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>

I notice that you didn't have time to read the 26 volumes of the WCR!
(preempting TMNLN)

>
>

[Bud]

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 8:21:52 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

> At some point in time, in any protracted debate about the Kennedy
> assassination, invariably, the conspiracy theorist is going to mention how
> the majority of people (as indicated by polls) believe that a conspiracy
> was involved. They use this as a building block to support their position.
> It's their way of saying, "Most people agree with ME - therefore, the
> probability that I'M correct is greater than the probability that YOU are
> correct. Most people agree with ME!"

I think when it comes down to it, more people believe that Oswald shot
Kennedy than any other possibility. Look at all the disagreement among the
CTers here on the best approach to make pretend Oswald was innocent. If
you took 10 conspiracy hobbyist who blame the CIA, on examination you
would likely find wide disagreement on particulars. The people who believe
Oswald acted alone are in total agreement on every major issue. They
believe in the SBT. They believe Oswald brought his rifle to work in the
paper bag. They believe Oswald killed Tippit. More people agree with me on
what occurred than any CTer posting anywhere.

> I'll bet there is not a single conspiracy theorist in this discussion
> group who has not, at one time or another, made this argument; if not
> directly, at least, indirectly. The irony, of course, is that the CTs
> accuse the LNs of being naive, mindless sheep who blindly believe what
> they are told by the Warren Commission when, in fact, the LNs are in the
> minority. The majority of literature, by far, is conspiracy oriented. It
> is the CTs who are in the majority. An argument can be made that it is
> THEY who are the "sheep" and are the ones who are blindly following the
> crowd.
>
> There is a thing called Godwin's Law - which states: "As an online
> discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis
> or Hitler approaches 1". I think the same can be said about references to
> polls in the Kennedy assassination debate. Sooner or later, the CT is
> going to raise the point that polls consistently indicate that the
> majority of Americans believe in "some kind" of conspiracy. They do not
> seem very concerned that there is no consensus on the nature of this
> conspiracy, however.

It`s cool to believe that something fishy happened in the JFK
assassination, you can be totally ignorant but be seen as wise and "in the
know" by voicing skepticism about Oswald`s guilt.

> Why am I writing this? I'm watching a Sunday morning news program and the
> discussion is about Donald Trump as a presidential candidate and how he
> has been defying all predictions of his dropping in the polls. But quite
> the opposite is happening! Polls are consistently showing Donald Trump as
> the Republican front runner.
>
> The average American is not a very sophisticated individual. Donald Trump
> is clearly unqualified to be President of the United States. He says
> things that are patently wrong - PROVABLY wrong! He is arrogant and
> childish. He has neither the temperament, maturity, polish nor
> statesmanship skills to serve as president. Any intelligent person can
> readily see that. And yet, obviously, a significant number of Americans
> cannot see that.

Americans should be embarrassed that he is considered a serious
candidate.

[David Emerling]

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:44:10 PM UTC-6, dwro...@gmail.com wrote:
> I never
> paid too much attention to polls because history has shown that the
> majority of people have many times been wrong.

Polling has become quite a sophisticated science over the years. They are
often falsely (in my opinion) accused of trying to advance a certain
agenda by inaccurately reporting results. This criticism usually comes
from people who do not like the polling results. I disagree with that
criticism. It's a business. They are in the business of being ACCURATE.
The Gallup polling agency wants the reputation for being MORE accurate
than the Harris polling agency, for instance. They really don't care what
the issue is. They just want to be accurate. They are in the accuracy
business.

They have nothing to gain from being wrong. It's bad for business.

I think polls generally show an accurate snapshot of sentiment. That
doesn't mean that the opinions expressed by the majority of those who are
subjects of these polls are correct, however. For instance, I think the
polls that consistently indicate that the majority of Americans believe
that there was a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination are
accurate. I believe that the majority of Americans DO believe that.
They're wrong. But the poll is accurately conveying what the majority
believes.


In election years, people often cite how early polls are "wrong" because
there are so many examples of early leaders in the polls falling by the
wayside. But that doesn't mean the polls are wrong. It means the dynamics
of the election change over time. The polls accurately detect these
changes as they occur. Usually, the final poll, just prior to the final
election, is an accurate indicator of the final outcome.

Election polls (Who are you going to vote for?) are different than opinion
polls (Was there a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination?).

In the first type of poll, people determine the outcome regardless of
whether the candidate is the best one or not. The people determine
reality. In the second type of poll, they can be right or wrong. What the
majority thinks doesn't change the reality. There either WAS or was NOT a
conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Just because a majority of people
think there was a conspiracy doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy. But
if a majority of people think Hillary Clinton should be the next president
- she WILL be the next president, regardless whether somebody else would
have been a better president.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 2:19:14 PM UTC-6, BOZ wrote:

> I hope the American people are intelligent enough to vote for Donald
> Trump.

Here's your sign!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBjelRDKHUk

I'm convinced that if there was a poll that asked whether the sun will
rise in the east tomorrow, 30% would say NO.

10% would say no because they would make convoluted arguments like, "We
can't be certain that the sun won't blow up" or "It might be a cloudy day
and the sun might not be visible" or "The sun doesn't really rise - it is
because the Earth is rotating". Thanks for the insight, Copernicus.

10% would say no because they are contrarians who like to take outrageous
positions just to get noticed. By the way, I think this describes a lot of
CTs.

10% would say no because they are simply too ignorant to know that the sun
DOES rise in the east. To be blunt, they're just stupid people. There is
no limit to the things they DON'T know.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:48:37 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Also known as Poisoning the Well. You say, "Ignore those polls because
> they only spoke to stupid people."

No, I'm NOT saying "ignore those polls". They are what they are. I think
the polls ACCURATELY indicate that the majority of Americans believe there
was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination.

My point is that most of those polled are not qualified to answer the
question. Their answers mostly reflect the pop culture belief that there
WAS a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. That belief has evolved out
of the pervasive drumbeats of the conspiracy community, of which there is
no consensus on any of the details of the assassination.

If we polled a bunch of 5th graders and asked, "What is the cube root of
8?" and the majority of them thought the answer was 4 - that wouldn't
change the FACT that the answer is 2. 5th graders are simply not qualified
to have an opinion about cube roots because they have no idea what it is.
They haven't been taught that yet. That doesn't stop them from having an
opinion, though.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:37:31 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:

> Since you've arrived here, you have avoided ANY debate with ANYONE that
> could offer you a good argument.

My guess is that my first post in this newsgroup predates yours by quite a
bit. I visit here on occasion - I don't LIVE here like you do.

You see, I already know what happened on November 22nd, 1963. It's no
mystery to me. I don't need your input. You are eminently predictable on
all points. Whatever evidence I would bring up, you will state that it
cannot be trusted because it's either planted, fabricated, or altered.
I've been at this for a while - I'm pretty familiar with how the game is
played. I choose to play it on MY terms - not yours. I wouldn't have
anything particularly original to say that others, more well-versed than I
am, have not already said - and with which I agree ... and with which you
disagree. Isn't it interesting how all the LNs seem to be on the same page
whereas the CTs have a variety of playbooks? Why do you think that is?

I don't think you realize that you are like the bearded lady at the circus
- a grotesque oddity that people will look at but are actually quite
disgusted. Or, how people will stare at a train wreck.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

Who was the last president that was a "businessman" ? The last president
who was an a**hole was Nixon..

[bigdog]

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 8:21:52 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

You bring up an excellent point with your observation that there is not
one conspiracy theory but many and none holds a majority status among the
population in general nor even in the universe of conspiracy believers.
Thus the lone assassin theory is just one of many theories about the death
of JFK and if compared to the myriad of conspiracy theories it would
easily be the plurality viewpoint.

As for Trump, I don't think he believes half the things he says. I think
he has shrewdly judged the mood of the Republican base voters and has
tailored his rhetoric to tap into that. There is a disconnect between the
rank and file Republicans and the more moderate Republican leadership and
Trump is appealing to those voters to the dismay of the party leaders. I
think it is going to be an interesting primary season. If Trump continues
to remain popular with the base and wins most of the primaries and
caucuses, he will be the delegate leader but he might not be able to
garner a delegate majority since there are still delegates chosen the old
fashioned way in the proverbial "smoke filled rooms" even though those
rooms are now non-smoking areas. If Trump can't get enough of those
delegates to gain a majority, we might actually see a convention that will
be worth watching. I would love to see a brokered convention, something we
haven't had in my lifetime. It would be good theater.

As for me, I liked that Trump was saying politically incorrect things that
moderate Republicans are afraid to say but he lost me when he started
talking about closing down mosques. I am adamantly opposed to any form of
religious persecution and could not in good conscience vote for someone
who advocates such a thing.

[mainframetech]

Shucks, all the way through I thought you were talking about the
supporters of the Donald.

Chris

[BT George]

Pretty much spot on. Although I hate to admit that I'm something of a
conspiracy theorist when it comes to Trump. Perhaps it's a tiny one,
conceived and hatched in his own mind alone.

Nevertheless, it's my belief he is running with the specific *intention*
of screwing up the Republican nomination process By getting himself and
the Party seen as a bunch of radically reactionary goofballs that are
unelectable in the general election. ...And probably with the added bonus
that he *loves* to get attention whether good or bad.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/7/2015 9:15 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 8:21:52 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
>> At some point in time, in any protracted debate about the Kennedy
>> assassination, invariably, the conspiracy theorist is going to mention how
>> the majority of people (as indicated by polls) believe that a conspiracy
>> was involved. They use this as a building block to support their position.
>> It's their way of saying, "Most people agree with ME - therefore, the
>> probability that I'M correct is greater than the probability that YOU are
>> correct. Most people agree with ME!"
>
> I think when it comes down to it, more people believe that Oswald shot
> Kennedy than any other possibility. Look at all the disagreement among the
> CTers here on the best approach to make pretend Oswald was innocent. If

Oswald doesn't have to be innocent for it to be a conspiracy.

> you took 10 conspiracy hobbyist who blame the CIA, on examination you
> would likely find wide disagreement on particulars. The people who believe
> Oswald acted alone are in total agreement on every major issue. They

Wrong. You guys can't even agree on a frame for your many SBTs.
You can't even agree on which shot missed.

> believe in the SBT. They believe Oswald brought his rifle to work in the
> paper bag. They believe Oswald killed Tippit. More people agree with me on
> what occurred than any CTer posting anywhere.
>
>> I'll bet there is not a single conspiracy theorist in this discussion
>> group who has not, at one time or another, made this argument; if not
>> directly, at least, indirectly. The irony, of course, is that the CTs
>> accuse the LNs of being naive, mindless sheep who blindly believe what
>> they are told by the Warren Commission when, in fact, the LNs are in the
>> minority. The majority of literature, by far, is conspiracy oriented. It
>> is the CTs who are in the majority. An argument can be made that it is
>> THEY who are the "sheep" and are the ones who are blindly following the
>> crowd.
>>
>> There is a thing called Godwin's Law - which states: "As an online
>> discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis
>> or Hitler approaches 1". I think the same can be said about references to
>> polls in the Kennedy assassination debate. Sooner or later, the CT is
>> going to raise the point that polls consistently indicate that the
>> majority of Americans believe in "some kind" of conspiracy. They do not
>> seem very concerned that there is no consensus on the nature of this
>> conspiracy, however.
>
> It`s cool to believe that something fishy happened in the JFK
> assassination, you can be totally ignorant but be seen as wise and "in the
> know" by voicing skepticism about Oswald`s guilt.
>

Illogical.

[mainframetech]

Are you equating yourself with the people that stare at the fat lady
and train wrecks? What brings you here? The same as some other skeptics
that enjoy insulting others because they take the mainstream opinion and
feel they are in the right and so are protected by the masses that agree
with them?

I've noticed that as a person who is doing things on your "own terms",
you choose the terms that keep you nice and safe from any emabrrassment in
debate. If you're flittign in now anf then for a boost to the ego, by
going at a few peopel that you feel that you can easily conquer, then I
understand your "Terms" very well.

I've made many comments here over a number of years, and you're welcome
to jump in the mud with us and try debating any one of them. Especially
the ones that are backed up by sworn testimony. Why not have a look at
the bullet hole in the forehead of JFK? That one just scrams out for a
safe LN to get at and prove it's a dumb idea.

If you need instructions to look at it and give an opinion on what you
see, let me know.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Yep. Opinions are easy to formulate. Requires no research, and no
facts.

Chris

[mainframetech]

A lot of opinion there. Slippery stuff, opinions.

Chris

[BOZ]

Americans should be embarrassed that they voted for Obama twice.

[Anthony Marsh]

Your sentence is too long.
I hope the American people are intelligent enough to vote.

[BOZ]

In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate
with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul
Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions
to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador
replied:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not
acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of
the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was
slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the
man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his
share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every
sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually
struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."
("American Peace Commissioners to John Jay," March 28, 1786, "Thomas
Jefferson Papers," Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of
Congress. LoC: March 28, 1786 (handwritten).)

http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/005/0400/0430.jpg

[BOZ]

On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 9:21:52 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

They do not trust the government(Do you trust Obama?) They do not trust
the media(Do you trust CNN?) They do not trust Wall Street(Would you trust
Bernie Madoff. He made off with a lot of people's money.) They do not
trust big business(Do you trust Enron?) They do not trust foreigners(Do
you trust foreigners who pledge allegiance to Isis?)

[BOZ]

Trump is putting his own money into his campaign. Trump should mention
that when Mohammed was 50 he married a 6 year old girl named Aisha.
Mohammad's marriage was consummated in Medina when Aisha was 9. Mohammed
was 53.

[David Emerling]

On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 8:15:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:

> I think when it comes down to it, more people believe that Oswald shot
> Kennedy than any other possibility. Look at all the disagreement among the
> CTers here on the best approach to make pretend Oswald was innocent.

I believe you are correct.

If the choice is only black & white - Was there a conspiracy or was there
no conspiracy? - I believe most Americans would say that there was a
conspiracy. Polls have consistently indicated that.

But, if you broke it down into pieces, and divided the conspiracy theories
into different parts, I think the "theory" that would have the highest
percentage would be that Oswald shot Kennedy alone.

For instance, what if people were asked to pick one of the following?

John Kennedy was assassinated by ...
(A) Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone without any support.
(B) Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone but he had support from the CIA.
(C) Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone but he had support from the pro-Castro
Cubans.
(D) Lee Harvey Oswald AND a Secret Service Agent who accidentally fired
his AR-15.
(E) Lee Harvey Oswald AND a shooter on the grassy knoll.
(F) Lee Harvey Oswald AND a shooter hiding in a roadside sewer.
(G) Lee Harvey Oswald along with multiple shooters around Dealey Plaza.
(H) elements of the CIA - NOT Lee Harvey Oswald.
(I) elements of the mafia - NOT Lee Harvey Oswald.
(J) elements of the military industrial complex - NOT Lee Harvey Oswald.

Well, you get the idea. I could go on and on. Suffice it to say that this
list would be very long.

I think (A) would probably have the highest percentage compared to all the
others. It might lose out to (E), however. It would be close. It wouldn't
be a particularly large percentage because I think the selections would be
spread out across the spectrum. As you can see, any selection OTHER than
(A) would essentially be a vote for a conspiracy. The conspiracy community
has certainly given people a lot to choice from. It's a veritable
smorgasbord of conspiracies. Certainly there is ONE that fits somebody's
taste. Besides, (A) is boring.

The smallest group, by far, are those who think that Lee Harvey Oswald was
completely innocent. Although, on the internet, where hardcore/fringe
conspiracy theorists are quite active - one would not get that impression.
These fringe conspiracy quacks are the squeaky wheels of the debate. Loud
and shrill.

Whenever I have a casual discussion about the Kennedy assassination with
somebody who is not particularly well-versed in any of the details, BY
FAR, the most common answer I get goes something like this, "I just don't
see how Oswald could have done it all by himself. I think he must have had
some kind of help." They believe that Oswald was a shooter, but they can
never articulate what kind of help he had. They can't really explain WHY
they believe that or WHO would have helped him. They just have this
nagging sense that one man couldn't point a gun at the president, pull the
trigger, and kill him so easily. Yet, ironically, that is how ALL the
previous presidential assassinations have occurred. There are even many
failed presidential assassination attempts, had they been successful, that
would have added additional lone gunman scenarios to the assassination
sagas.

Richard Lawrence could have joined the ranks of presidential assassins had
his pistol not misfired. Then he tried to use another pistol. It also
misfired. President Andrew Jackson would have been a victim of a lone
gunman.

President William Taft was fortunate that a man concealing a handgun along
the procession route in El Paso was discovered and disarmed by a Texas
Ranger. He would've been a victim of a lone gunman.

Theodore Roosevelt was actually shot by a lone gunman AFTER he had left
office. He was fortunate to survive the shooting. The bullet hit Roosevelt
in an area of his chest where he had folded over his lengthy speech in his
breast pocket. Fortunately, his speech was nearly 50-pages long.

Giuseppe Zangara could have been more famous that Lee Oswald if his aim
was a little better. In Miami, Zangara fired five shots at President
Franklin Roosevelt, missing with all five shots but hitting other
bystanders.

The list goes on and on. "Squeaky" Fromme could have been famous! John
Hinckley could have been more famous than he is now.

Oswald wasn't so special. He was just another brick in the wall.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Bud]

I know they are.

[mainframetech]

Knowing that there was a conspiracy from an overview doesn't mean that
the average person will come to the exact same conclusions as to how it
was done and by whom as others will. Enough to say that so many agree in
the overview.

> As for Trump, I don't think he believes half the things he says. I think
> he has shrewdly judged the mood of the Republican base voters and has
> tailored his rhetoric to tap into that. There is a disconnect between the
> rank and file Republicans and the more moderate Republican leadership and
> Trump is appealing to those voters to the dismay of the party leaders. I
> think it is going to be an interesting primary season. If Trump continues
> to remain popular with the base and wins most of the primaries and
> caucuses, he will be the delegate leader but he might not be able to
> garner a delegate majority since there are still delegates chosen the old
> fashioned way in the proverbial "smoke filled rooms" even though those
> rooms are now non-smoking areas. If Trump can't get enough of those
> delegates to gain a majority, we might actually see a convention that will
> be worth watching. I would love to see a brokered convention, something we
> haven't had in my lifetime. It would be good theater.
>

I doubt that Trump wants to be president. I think he's just playing it
for notoriety for his future projects. And he will get what he wants from
the Republican leaderships, who are even now talking about the fact that
Trump is a fascist based on many of his pronouncements. The job of
president leaves very little time to enjoy your wealth and position, and
Trump likes to enjoy. The only reason he's gotten this far is that
Republicans believe anything they hear from any seemingly official source,
like the WCR.

> As for me, I liked that Trump was saying politically incorrect things that
> moderate Republicans are afraid to say but he lost me when he started
> talking about closing down mosques. I am adamantly opposed to any form of
> religious persecution and could not in good conscience vote for someone
> who advocates such a thing.

There's a point for you! Now you're up to -573 from -574.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:44:10 PM UTC-6, dwro...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I never
> > paid too much attention to polls because history has shown that the
> > majority of people have many times been wrong.
>
> Polling has become quite a sophisticated science over the years. They are
> often falsely (in my opinion) accused of trying to advance a certain
> agenda by inaccurately reporting results. This criticism usually comes
> from people who do not like the polling results. I disagree with that
> criticism. It's a business. They are in the business of being ACCURATE.
> The Gallup polling agency wants the reputation for being MORE accurate
> than the Harris polling agency, for instance. They really don't care what
> the issue is. They just want to be accurate. They are in the accuracy
> business.
>

I would agree with you that polling done by companies who are in that business (Gallup, Roper, Quinnipiac) are not deliberately skewed because their reputations depend on the accuracy of their results. However there are people who conduct polls who have a political agenda and it is easy enough for them to skew the results in their favor through sampling bias as well as how the questions are framed.

> They have nothing to gain from being wrong. It's bad for business.
>
> I think polls generally show an accurate snapshot of sentiment. That
> doesn't mean that the opinions expressed by the majority of those who are
> subjects of these polls are correct, however. For instance, I think the
> polls that consistently indicate that the majority of Americans believe
> that there was a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination are
> accurate. I believe that the majority of Americans DO believe that.
> They're wrong. But the poll is accurately conveying what the majority
> believes.
>
>
> In election years, people often cite how early polls are "wrong" because
> there are so many examples of early leaders in the polls falling by the
> wayside. But that doesn't mean the polls are wrong. It means the dynamics
> of the election change over time. The polls accurately detect these
> changes as they occur. Usually, the final poll, just prior to the final
> election, is an accurate indicator of the final outcome.
>

This was illustrated in the 1980 presidential election. For most of the fall the polls showed Carter and Reagan neck and neck. However, in the last weekend there was a dramatic shift toward Reagan with most of the late deciders going to him. This came after the polling companies had conducted their final polls. Internal polling done by the Carter campaign however picked up this trend and his campaign manager told Carter he was going to lose big. Most people believe this was why Carter broke down and cried when giving a speech to the folks in his home town of Plains, Ga.

> Election polls (Who are you going to vote for?) are different than opinion
> polls (Was there a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination?).
>
> In the first type of poll, people determine the outcome regardless of
> whether the candidate is the best one or not. The people determine
> reality. In the second type of poll, they can be right or wrong. What the
> majority thinks doesn't change the reality. There either WAS or was NOT a
> conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Just because a majority of people
> think there was a conspiracy doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy. But
> if a majority of people think Hillary Clinton should be the next president
> - she WILL be the next president, regardless whether somebody else would
> have been a better president.

Unless of course the Electoral College says otherwise as in 2000.

[bigdog]

I haven't dismissed the idea that Trump is deliberately trying to screw
things up for the GOP to ensure a Clinton victory. After all he
contributed to her Senate campaign and invited the Clinton's to his last
wedding (front pew seat no less) along with much of the New York liberal
elites. I also wouldn't dismiss the idea that if Trump actually got
nominated he might decide things turned out better than he imagined and
double cross the Clintons by trying to beat them. I also wouldn't be
surprised if he loses the nomination if he would run as a third party
candidate effectively guaranteeing a Clinton victory.

[bigdog]

Oh the irony.

[Anthony Marsh]

You have to remember that these people do not care at all about the JFK
assassination. They are only here to use it as a springboard to push
their Nazi ideology.
They haven't even read the WC. Most never went to college.
They love to Troll the newsgroups only to attack Liberals.
This is their chance to defame President Kennedy because he was a
leading Liberal. They don't agree with anything he stood for.

> I've noticed that as a person who is doing things on your "own terms",
> you choose the terms that keep you nice and safe from any emabrrassment in
> debate. If you're flittign in now anf then for a boost to the ego, by
> going at a few peopel that you feel that you can easily conquer, then I
> understand your "Terms" very well.
>
> I've made many comments here over a number of years, and you're welcome
> to jump in the mud with us and try debating any one of them. Especially
> the ones that are backed up by sworn testimony. Why not have a look at
> the bullet hole in the forehead of JFK? That one just scrams out for a
> safe LN to get at and prove it's a dumb idea.
>

They refuse to look at the evidence. Too scary.
They want pablum, not truth.

[BOZ]

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Reagan_vs_Obama.jpg

[BOZ]

> > David Emerling
> > Memphis, TN

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/81_1724271.jpg

[David Emerling]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:22:39 PM UTC-6, BOZ wrote:

> They do not trust the government(Do you trust Obama?)

Yes, I do trust President Obama. That doesn't mean I agree with all his
policies. Nonetheless, I trust him. Let me guess, you trust him because
you think one or all of the following: 1) He was never born in the U.S.,
2) He is actually a Muslim, 3) He wants to bring Sharia Law to America.

> They do not trust the media(Do you trust CNN?)

I think CNN does a very good job of relaying the news. In fact, I think
most all of the U.S. news programs do a decent job. That would include FOX
News. We are very fortunate in this country to have a media that probes
and is not a mouthpiece for a corrupt government. Unless you are familiar
yourself with how bad the "news" agencies from other nations are, you
cannot fully appreciate how good our news agencies are.

> They do not trust Wall Street(Would you trust Bernie Madoff. He made off
> with a lot of people's money.)

Bernie Madoof was not "Wall Street" - he was a person. I think the United
States financial market operates pretty darn well.

> They do not trust big business(Do you trust Enron?)

Enron is not the sole representative of "big business". Besides, Enron's
problems were a result of a handful of corrupt people. There was nothing
fundamentally wrong with Enron as a business entity. PEOPLE are corrupt.
Businesses are inanimate and are neither good nor evil.

Do you think your life benefits in any way as a result of "big business"?

> They do not trust foreigners(Do you trust foreigners who pledge allegiance to > Isis?)

I don't trust anybody who vows to do harm to others - especially U.S.
citizens. Are we knowingly allowing foreigners who pledge allegiance to
ISIS into our country?

Thank you for your paranoid rant. It was quite entertaining. It really
reveals the worldview of most conspiracy theorists and largely explains
WHY they believe there is a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. They
ignore the hard evidence and the corroborated testimony in favor of seeing
things through their paranoid, grey-colored glasses. There is so much for
them to distrust in the Kennedy assassination. As I said before, one of
the hallmarks of those who are not-so-intelligent is that they feel
victimized by those who have power. That includes the police, the FBI, the
government, the military, the CIA, the wealthy ... etc.

I choose not to live in your paranoid world with your cynical outlook. I'm
a careful person who recognizes good and evil in the world. I take common
sense precautions. I believe things based on evidence - not because I want
it to conform with my worldview. I allow the world to mold my view instead
of trying to force my view to mold the world.

I know you think that I'm a sucker and that I'm naive. You probably
believe that I'm setting myself up for victimization and that you are wise
as you hunker down in your basement with your 15 year supply of canned
goods. Yet, I'm 58 yrs old and doing fine in life. And I'm happy! Thanks
for enlightening me for all the things I should distrust. Duly noted.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Bud]

No argument there. I never thought much of Obama as Presidential timber
but Trump is silly putty.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

And that has what to do with public policy?

Trump is a buffoon, a joke, an embarrassment.

Trump supporters are a perfect example of Churchill's line about the best
argument against democracy being a conversation with the average voter.

Sorry John: back to the topic.

[BT George]

No one has to convince me that Mohammad was a false prophet and a pervert
and general despot. But that has nothing to do with Trumps many, many
ridiculous comments, unconstitutional proscriptions, fake conservative
credentials, and general unfitness by temperament to be a
Commander-In-Chief.

BT George

[Anthony Marsh]

Oh please, those are the average Reagan Republicans, the type that William
F. Buckley kicked out of the party and were welcomed back when Obama won.


Rachel Maddow has a theory that Trump is trying to get kicked out as the
Republican candidate so that he can run as an independent because he is
afraid of winning. Your basic bullying coward. The leaders of the
Republican Party are biding their time until the primaries. After that
Trump can not change from the Republican Party to an Independent Party
without losing all those votes.

> BT George
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/8/2015 4:55 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:37:31 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
>> Since you've arrived here, you have avoided ANY debate with ANYONE that
>> could offer you a good argument.
>
> My guess is that my first post in this newsgroup predates yours by quite a
> bit. I visit here on occasion - I don't LIVE here like you do.
>
> You see, I already know what happened on November 22nd, 1963. It's no

You only know what you've been told by the government. You are a
follower, not a thinker.

> mystery to me. I don't need your input. You are eminently predictable on
> all points. Whatever evidence I would bring up, you will state that it
> cannot be trusted because it's either planted, fabricated, or altered.
> I've been at this for a while - I'm pretty familiar with how the game is
> played. I choose to play it on MY terms - not yours. I wouldn't have
> anything particularly original to say that others, more well-versed than I
> am, have not already said - and with which I agree ... and with which you

You agree with anything that promotes your extreme rightwing ideology.

> disagree. Isn't it interesting how all the LNs seem to be on the same page
> whereas the CTs have a variety of playbooks? Why do you think that is?
>

It's call Free Thought.
We don't get all our answers from the Bible. We can think for ourselves.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/8/2015 4:53 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:48:37 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Also known as Poisoning the Well. You say, "Ignore those polls because
>> they only spoke to stupid people."
>
> No, I'm NOT saying "ignore those polls". They are what they are. I think

> the polls ACCURATELY indicate that the majority of Americans believe there
> was a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination.
>

No, the way polls work is that they are correct if you like what they
say and incorrect if you don't like what they say.

> My point is that most of those polled are not qualified to answer the
> question. Their answers mostly reflect the pop culture belief that there
> WAS a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. That belief has evolved out
> of the pervasive drumbeats of the conspiracy community, of which there is
> no consensus on any of the details of the assassination.
>

Yes, we know that you are an elitist who thinks that everyone else in
the world is a moron. Does that come from your 3 college degrees?

> If we polled a bunch of 5th graders and asked, "What is the cube root of
> 8?" and the majority of them thought the answer was 4 - that wouldn't
> change the FACT that the answer is 2. 5th graders are simply not qualified
> to have an opinion about cube roots because they have no idea what it is.
> They haven't been taught that yet. That doesn't stop them from having an
> opinion, though.
>

A poll doesn't mean that people have the correct answer. You only want
to find out what people think.

The Truth is not determined by popular vote. Even if they vote that
Pluto is not a planet.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/8/2015 4:50 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 2:19:14 PM UTC-6, BOZ wrote:
>
>> I hope the American people are intelligent enough to vote for Donald
>> Trump.
>
> Here's your sign!
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBjelRDKHUk
>
> I'm convinced that if there was a poll that asked whether the sun will
> rise in the east tomorrow, 30% would say NO.
>
> 10% would say no because they would make convoluted arguments like, "We
> can't be certain that the sun won't blow up" or "It might be a cloudy day
> and the sun might not be visible" or "The sun doesn't really rise - it is
> because the Earth is rotating". Thanks for the insight, Copernicus.
>
> 10% would say no because they are contrarians who like to take outrageous
> positions just to get noticed. By the way, I think this describes a lot of
> CTs.
>
> 10% would say no because they are simply too ignorant to know that the sun
> DOES rise in the east. To be blunt, they're just stupid people. There is
> no limit to the things they DON'T know.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

First of all, the polls are not taken of average Americans. The Trump
polls are only taken of Republican voters, who are less educated than
Democrats. The less education they have the more likely they are to
support Donald Trump. They are a fringe who do not represent the average
American.

Certified Dimwits: The Key to Herr Trump?s Lead
share this

Digg.com
Mixx.com
Technorati
del.icio.us
Facebook.com
StumbleUpon
reddit.com

Dec
9

phillydailynewsDonald Trump leads among Republicans because he has a
stranglehold on the most ignorant voters in America. That?s not just our
opinion, but an Actual Fact.

As our old friend Bill Schneider noted more politely the other day in a
column:

Trump?s support for the Republican nomination is not defined by ideology
or age or gender. It?s defined by education. Among GOP voters with a
college degree in the latest CNN poll, Trump comes in fourth with just 18
percent. But he has a huge lead among non-college voters ? 46 percent. No
other candidate comes close.

According to that CNN poll, the presidential race is close among GOP
voters who hold college degrees, with Ted Cruz at 22%, Ben Carson and
Marco Rubio tied at 19% and Trump at 18%.

But among those without college degrees, Trump leads with 46%, compared
to Cruz at 12%, Carson at 11% and Rubio at just 8%. The Washington Post
also has polling showing the education gap for Trump and explaining why
uneducated people are most pro-Donald.

Trump and Torquemada: A Calbuzz analogy that most Trump supporters
wouldn?t get:

Assassins-Creed-Unity-four-players ISIS : Islam :: Inquisition :
Christianity

Yes, as the bloviators on TV keep reminding us, Trump personifies the
anti-Obama, anti-government, anti-establishment and xenophobic impulses
of part of the white working class in America. Nothing he says is too
outrageous, too racist or too fascist for them.

That his fact-free demagoguery sounds increasingly like the ravings of
Adolph Hitler doesn?t bother him.

As Politico noted:

?You?re increasingly being compared to Hitler. Doesn?t that give you any
pause at all?? ABC News? George Stephanopoulos asked the Republican poll
leader on ?Good Morning America,? displaying an image of the
Philadelphia Daily News? punning Tuesday front-page headline ?The New
Furor.?

In response, Trump said no, invoking what he termed President Franklin
D. Roosevelt?s ?solution for Germans, Italians, Japanese many years ago?
during World War II. ?This was a president that was highly respected by
all,? Trump said, remarking upon the Democratic president?s actions
during the war. ?If you look at what he was doing, it was far worse.?

fdrWhat FDR did to foreign nationals during World War II ?was far worse?
than what Hitler did? Or far worse than what he, Trump, is proposing?
You decide what he meant.

OMG ? Cheney?s right: What?s nuts is this: Trump probably meant that
what FDR did was ?far worse? than what he?s proposing. But even if he
asserted that what Roosevelt did was worse than Hitler, his uneducated,
blood-thirsty supporters would probably agree.

As if to prove the point, Andrew Anglin, neo-Nazi publisher of the Daily
Stormer, wrote of Trump?s proposal, ?Finally, someone speaks sense? Heil
Donald Trump ? THE ULTIMATE SAVIOR.?

Trump isn?t backing down, despite being denounced by just about every
thinking person in the political world. Even the loathsome Dick Cheney,
was repulsed:

?I think this whole notion that somehow we can just say no more Muslims,
just ban a whole religion, goes against everything we stand for and
believe in,? he told right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt. ?I mean,
religious freedom has been a very important part of our history and
where we came from. A lot of people, my ancestors got here, because they
were Puritans.?

Not that this will matter to Trump and his know-nothing supporters:
Every denouncement from any political figure is seen as further evidence
that THEY are idiots and that The Donald is inviolate. It?s a closed system.

trump-hitler Whether the Republican Party ? and it?s their
responsibility now ? can put a silver stake in the demon?s heart and
thereby save their chances of being sucked dry in the general election
next November, is doubtful.

And if they try, Trump can just fund his own independent bid, thereby
further eroding the GOP?s fortunes. As he tweeted Tuesday: ?A new poll
indicates that 68% of my supporters would vote for me if I departed the
GOP & ran as an independent.? Which would guarantee a landslide for
Hillary Clinton.

Pardon our schadenfreude Herr Trump.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/8/2015 4:49 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:44:10 PM UTC-6, dwro...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I never
>> paid too much attention to polls because history has shown that the
>> majority of people have many times been wrong.
>
> Polling has become quite a sophisticated science over the years. They are
> often falsely (in my opinion) accused of trying to advance a certain
> agenda by inaccurately reporting results. This criticism usually comes

It can also be created by what questions are asked and how.
For example: Do you agree with Obama's policy of appeasing ISIS?
Loaded questions based on false premises and lies.

> from people who do not like the polling results. I disagree with that
> criticism. It's a business. They are in the business of being ACCURATE.

No, they aren't. They are only taking a snapshot of a moment.

> The Gallup polling agency wants the reputation for being MORE accurate
> than the Harris polling agency, for instance. They really don't care what
> the issue is. They just want to be accurate. They are in the accuracy
> business.
>

What about Pew?

> They have nothing to gain from being wrong. It's bad for business.
>

Like most corporations, when they get that big they don't need to care
about getting it right.

> I think polls generally show an accurate snapshot of sentiment. That
> doesn't mean that the opinions expressed by the majority of those who are
> subjects of these polls are correct, however. For instance, I think the
> polls that consistently indicate that the majority of Americans believe
> that there was a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination are
> accurate. I believe that the majority of Americans DO believe that.
> They're wrong. But the poll is accurately conveying what the majority
> believes.
>

So only you elite really know the truth?

>
> In election years, people often cite how early polls are "wrong" because
> there are so many examples of early leaders in the polls falling by the
> wayside. But that doesn't mean the polls are wrong. It means the dynamics
> of the election change over time. The polls accurately detect these
> changes as they occur. Usually, the final poll, just prior to the final
> election, is an accurate indicator of the final outcome.
>

> Election polls (Who are you going to vote for?) are different than opinion
> polls (Was there a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination?).
>
> In the first type of poll, people determine the outcome regardless of
> whether the candidate is the best one or not. The people determine

In fact, when you check polls against each other, many people who vote
for Trump know he won't win. They are just trying to send a message that
they are fed up with politics as usual.

> reality. In the second type of poll, they can be right or wrong. What the
> majority thinks doesn't change the reality. There either WAS or was NOT a
> conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Just because a majority of people
> think there was a conspiracy doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy. But
> if a majority of people think Hillary Clinton should be the next president
> - she WILL be the next president, regardless whether somebody else would
> have been a better president.
>

Not necessarily. Remember the 2000 election? Whoever gets the most votes
may not be the one who is elected President.
Hillary may get 51% of the vote and lose the election.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[David Emerling]

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7:06:59 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Oswald doesn't have to be innocent for it to be a conspiracy.

I agree with that statement 100%! In fact, the only possible conspiracy is
one that involves Oswald as shooter. I have always said that I am 100%
certain that Oswald was the presidential assassin and 99% certain that he
did without any outside help or sponsorship.

The evidence is simply too overwhelming to assert that Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting. It requires a TON of evidence and
corroborated testimony to be thrown out. That makes no sense.

So, if Oswald had "help" - who helped him? What is the evidence of this
help? Obviously, nobody was helping him escape. He was clearly just
winging it on his own. If Oswald had something he could have told the
authorities about some outside involvement, then it couldn't possibly have
been part of their plan for him to be captured and interrogated for two
days. Just who were these conspirators who are both brilliant and yet, at
the same time, bumbling idiots?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> I hope the American people are intelligent enough to vote.

When stupid people vote you get a stupid result. Quite frankly, our nation
would be better off if stupid people did NOT vote. They might as well be
pulling the handle of a slot machine for all that it contributes to the
democratic process. Yet, in America, stupid people have rights. So, I
support their RIGHT to vote but I do not support the notion that the more
who vote - the better.

To keep this on topic: This is why I have always maintained that those who
are polled on the Kennedy assassination (conspiracy vs no conspiracy) are
usually not qualified to have an opinion. The poll ends up reflecting the
pop culture view that a conspiracy DID exist.

Tomln criticizes everybody in this newsgroup for not reading the 26
volumes; and yet, I would say that everybody in this group, whether CT or
LN, knows a GREAT deal about the Kennedy assassination. I wonder what he
would think of those who are polled about the existence of the Kennedy
assassination. I bet not even 1% of them have even read a single word of
the Warren Report. I'll bet less than 10% can name the OTHER person who
was shot during the assassination. They're not qualified!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[BOZ]

Mr Emerling wrote "you trust him because" (I don't trust him)

> you think one or all of the following: 1) He was never born in the U.S.,

(Obama was born in Hawaii). I believe that Oswald acted alone.

[Sandy McCroskey]

Highly implausible. What motivates Trump, besides ego and
self-aggrandizement? He sincerely wants to be president and sincerely
thinks he has a chance. I sincerely hope he's as wrong about this as he is
about (almost) everything else (meaning, aside from the influence of Big
Money on politics. Ironic, ain't it?).

[Sandy McCroskey]

Which certainly doesn't contradict anything BT said.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 12/8/15 8:10 PM, mainframetech wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 4:55:11 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
>> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:37:31 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>>
>>> Since you've arrived here, you have avoided ANY debate with ANYONE that
>>> could offer you a good argument.
>>
>> My guess is that my first post in this newsgroup predates yours by quite a
>> bit. I visit here on occasion - I don't LIVE here like you do.
>>
>> You see, I already know what happened on November 22nd, 1963. It's no

>> mystery to me. I don't need your input. You are eminently predictable on
>> all points. Whatever evidence I would bring up, you will state that it
>> cannot be trusted because it's either planted, fabricated, or altered.
>> I've been at this for a while - I'm pretty familiar with how the game is
>> played. I choose to play it on MY terms - not yours. I wouldn't have
>> anything particularly original to say that others, more well-versed than I
>> am, have not already said - and with which I agree ... and with which you

>> disagree. Isn't it interesting how all the LNs seem to be on the same page
>> whereas the CTs have a variety of playbooks? Why do you think that is?
>>

>> I don't think you realize that you are like the bearded lady at the circus
>> - a grotesque oddity that people will look at but are actually quite
>> disgusted. Or, how people will stare at a train wreck.
>>
>> David Emerling
>> Memphis, TN
>
>
>

> Are you equating yourself with the people that stare at the fat lady
> and train wrecks? What brings you here? The same as some other skeptics
> that enjoy insulting others because they take the mainstream opinion and
> feel they are in the right and so are protected by the masses that agree
> with them?
>

The mainstream opinion, if by that you mean What Most People Think, is
still that there was some Big Mysterious Conspiracy behind JFK's death.
Hardly any of these people can tell you, and even fewer of them can agree
on, exactly who they think was behind that conspiracy, and not one of them
has ever explained, with a convincing degree of detail, and without
begging the credulity of any person of mental maturity, how it is supposed
to have worked.

> I've noticed that as a person who is doing things on your "own terms",
> you choose the terms that keep you nice and safe from any emabrrassment in
> debate. If you're flittign in now anf then for a boost to the ego, by
> going at a few peopel that you feel that you can easily conquer, then I
> understand your "Terms" very well.
>
> I've made many comments here over a number of years, and you're welcome
> to jump in the mud with us and try debating any one of them. Especially
> the ones that are backed up by sworn testimony. Why not have a look at
> the bullet hole in the forehead of JFK? That one just scrams out for a
> safe LN to get at and prove it's a dumb idea.
>

[David Emerling]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:11:29 PM UTC-6, BOZ wrote:

> Americans should be embarrassed that they voted for Obama twice.

Yet, he did get elected ... TWICE! They weren't particularly close races,
either.

My guess is that you would say that the voters who elected Obama were
idiots and not well-versed in politics. Right?

I'm not going to express any opinion about whether Obama is a good or bad
president - that's irrelevant to the point I'm making with the original
post regarding polls and America's opinion about the Kennedy
assassination.

Based on your view of Obama's stranglehold on the Oval Office, you would
probably agree that when polls are taken with regards to whether a
conspiracy existed in the Kennedy assassination, most of the people who
are subjects of these polls probably are not equipped to make an
intelligent assessment. Consequently, they go with the popular and most
frequently heard answer - that there was "some kind" of conspiracy
involved.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[BOZ]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 9:37:03 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

If you were flying a Boeing 767 for Delta Airlines on the way to the
Middle East and you had to make an emergency landing ...which country
would you prefer to have a controlled crash in A/ Israel B/ Iraq C/ Saudi
Arabia D/Yemen. Delta doesn't fly to the Middle East.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 8:16:36 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7:40:04 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

> >
> > You bring up an excellent point with your observation that there is not
> > one conspiracy theory but many and none holds a majority status among the
> > population in general nor even in the universe of conspiracy believers.
> > Thus the lone assassin theory is just one of many theories about the death
> > of JFK and if compared to the myriad of conspiracy theories it would
> > easily be the plurality viewpoint.
> >
>
>
> Knowing that there was a conspiracy from an overview doesn't mean that
> the average person will come to the exact same conclusions as to how it
> was done and by whom as others will. Enough to say that so many agree in
> the overview.
>

The average American doesn't know the most rudimentary facts of the case
beyond the fact JFK got shot while riding in his limo in Dallas. I would
bet that most of what they think they know they "learned" from watching
Oliver Stone's movie. If you want to hang your hat on the fact a majority
of those people think there was a conspiracy, go right ahead.

[bigdog]

I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 as much as I voted against McCain. I did
it out of spite for the GOP for nominating that bag of shit. In 2012 I
held my nose and voted for Romney because I feared if given another term,
Obama might get to appoint two and maybe three more appointments to SCOTUS
giving us an Obama majority on the court for a generation. That would be
the end of the republic as we know it and was too bitter to contemplate.
Knock wood, that hasn't happen.

As for Trump, I could have lived with him until he started exhibiting his
religious bigotry. No way I could support that. Rand Paul is the only
Republican I could support enthusiastically. I would consider Rubio, Cruz,
or Kasich. Most likely, I'll go back to voting for the Libertarian
candidate. At least I'll be able to leave the voting booth with a clean
conscience.

[mainframetech]

AH! You noticed the irony of a load of opinion, taking up so much
space!

Use as a barometer the facts and sworn testimony I've shown you.
Sadly, you've failed trying to refute all of it in favor of the tired, old
WCR.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 8:37:03 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:22:39 PM UTC-6, BOZ wrote:
>
> > They do not trust the government(Do you trust Obama?)
>
> Yes, I do trust President Obama. That doesn't mean I agree with all his
> policies. Nonetheless, I trust him. Let me guess, you trust him because
> you think one or all of the following: 1) He was never born in the U.S.,
> 2) He is actually a Muslim, 3) He wants to bring Sharia Law to America.
>
> > They do not trust the media(Do you trust CNN?)
>
> I think CNN does a very good job of relaying the news. In fact, I think
> most all of the U.S. news programs do a decent job. That would include FOX
> News. We are very fortunate in this country to have a media that probes
> and is not a mouthpiece for a corrupt government. Unless you are familiar
> yourself with how bad the "news" agencies from other nations are, you
> cannot fully appreciate how good our news agencies are.
>

US news programs repeat what known politicians say and rarely do any
research into the words.

> > They do not trust Wall Street(Would you trust Bernie Madoff. He made off
> > with a lot of people's money.)
>
> Bernie Madoof was not "Wall Street" - he was a person. I think the United
> States financial market operates pretty darn well.
>

I guess you weren't here in 2007 when it all came down because the
regulations were relaxed by campaign funds showered over congress.

> > They do not trust big business(Do you trust Enron?)
>
> Enron is not the sole representative of "big business". Besides, Enron's
> problems were a result of a handful of corrupt people. There was nothing
> fundamentally wrong with Enron as a business entity. PEOPLE are corrupt.
> Businesses are inanimate and are neither good nor evil.
>

There is only ONE purpose for any corporation, and that is to make
money for the investors. There is NO other purpose, no matter how much
largesse they spread around. and in that singular purpose, many crimes
have been committed. Look to the news and see the fines levied on the
corporations.

> Do you think your life benefits in any way as a result of "big business"?
>
> > They do not trust foreigners(Do you trust foreigners who pledge allegiance to > Isis?)
>
> I don't trust anybody who vows to do harm to others - especially U.S.
> citizens. Are we knowingly allowing foreigners who pledge allegiance to
> ISIS into our country?
>

Doesn't matter if we let them in or not, they will get in through
Canada or Mexico. They will also be made into terrorists right where they
live through the internet.

> Thank you for your paranoid rant. It was quite entertaining. It really
> reveals the worldview of most conspiracy theorists and largely explains
> WHY they believe there is a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. They
> ignore the hard evidence and the corroborated testimony in favor of seeing
> things through their paranoid, grey-colored glasses. There is so much for
> them to distrust in the Kennedy assassination. As I said before, one of
> the hallmarks of those who are not-so-intelligent is that they feel
> victimized by those who have power. That includes the police, the FBI, the
> government, the military, the CIA, the wealthy ... etc.
>

Sadly, what proves the conspiracy is "evidence and the corroborated
testimony" of many witnesses. The masses ignore those facts and proof so
that they can rest comfortably in front of their TVs and eat their TV
dinners and watch their sitcoms and not be bothered that a major crime was
committted on the POTUS, and needs to be resolved.

> I choose not to live in your paranoid world with your cynical outlook. I'm
> a careful person who recognizes good and evil in the world. I take common
> sense precautions. I believe things based on evidence - not because I want
> it to conform with my worldview. I allow the world to mold my view instead
> of trying to force my view to mold the world.
>

This part of the world presented evidence to you and your response is
to ignore it. It was not allowed to "mold your view".

> I know you think that I'm a sucker and that I'm naive. You probably
> believe that I'm setting myself up for victimization and that you are wise
> as you hunker down in your basement with your 15 year supply of canned
> goods. Yet, I'm 58 yrs old and doing fine in life. And I'm happy! Thanks
> for enlightening me for all the things I should distrust. Duly noted.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

Yes, you need to distrust anyone that might upset your apple cart of
beliefs in the WCR. Facts and proof must be ignored so as not to disturb
one.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 8:14:41 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 8:15:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
>
> > I think when it comes down to it, more people believe that Oswald shot
> > Kennedy than any other possibility. Look at all the disagreement among the
> > CTers here on the best approach to make pretend Oswald was innocent.
>

> I believe you are correct.
>
> If the choice is only black & white - Was there a conspiracy or was there
> no conspiracy? - I believe most Americans would say that there was a
> conspiracy. Polls have consistently indicated that.
>
> But, if you broke it down into pieces, and divided the conspiracy theories
> into different parts, I think the "theory" that would have the highest
> percentage would be that Oswald shot Kennedy alone.
>
> For instance, what if people were asked to pick one of the following?
>
> John Kennedy was assassinated by ...
> (A) Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone without any support.
> (B) Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone but he had support from the CIA.
> (C) Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone but he had support from the pro-Castro
> Cubans.
> (D) Lee Harvey Oswald AND a Secret Service Agent who accidentally fired
> his AR-15.
> (E) Lee Harvey Oswald AND a shooter on the grassy knoll.
> (F) Lee Harvey Oswald AND a shooter hiding in a roadside sewer.
> (G) Lee Harvey Oswald along with multiple shooters around Dealey Plaza.
> (H) elements of the CIA - NOT Lee Harvey Oswald.
> (I) elements of the mafia - NOT Lee Harvey Oswald.
> (J) elements of the military industrial complex - NOT Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> Well, you get the idea. I could go on and on. Suffice it to say that this
> list would be very long.
>
> I think (A) would probably have the highest percentage compared to all the
> others. It might lose out to (E), however. It would be close. It wouldn't
> be a particularly large percentage because I think the selections would be
> spread out across the spectrum. As you can see, any selection OTHER than
> (A) would essentially be a vote for a conspiracy. The conspiracy community
> has certainly given people a lot to choice from. It's a veritable
> smorgasbord of conspiracies. Certainly there is ONE that fits somebody's
> taste. Besides, (A) is boring.
>
> The smallest group, by far, are those who think that Lee Harvey Oswald was
> completely innocent. Although, on the internet, where hardcore/fringe
> conspiracy theorists are quite active - one would not get that impression.
> These fringe conspiracy quacks are the squeaky wheels of the debate. Loud
> and shrill.
>
> Whenever I have a casual discussion about the Kennedy assassination with
> somebody who is not particularly well-versed in any of the details, BY
> FAR, the most common answer I get goes something like this, "I just don't
> see how Oswald could have done it all by himself. I think he must have had
> some kind of help." They believe that Oswald was a shooter, but they can
> never articulate what kind of help he had. They can't really explain WHY
> they believe that or WHO would have helped him. They just have this
> nagging sense that one man couldn't point a gun at the president, pull the
> trigger, and kill him so easily. Yet, ironically, that is how ALL the
> previous presidential assassinations have occurred. There are even many
> failed presidential assassination attempts, had they been successful, that
> would have added additional lone gunman scenarios to the assassination
> sagas.
>
> Richard Lawrence could have joined the ranks of presidential assassins had
> his pistol not misfired. Then he tried to use another pistol. It also
> misfired. President Andrew Jackson would have been a victim of a lone
> gunman.
>
> President William Taft was fortunate that a man concealing a handgun along
> the procession route in El Paso was discovered and disarmed by a Texas
> Ranger. He would've been a victim of a lone gunman.
>
> Theodore Roosevelt was actually shot by a lone gunman AFTER he had left
> office. He was fortunate to survive the shooting. The bullet hit Roosevelt
> in an area of his chest where he had folded over his lengthy speech in his
> breast pocket. Fortunately, his speech was nearly 50-pages long.
>
> Giuseppe Zangara could have been more famous that Lee Oswald if his aim
> was a little better. In Miami, Zangara fired five shots at President
> Franklin Roosevelt, missing with all five shots but hitting other
> bystanders.
>
> The list goes on and on. "Squeaky" Fromme could have been famous! John
> Hinckley could have been more famous than he is now.
>
> Oswald wasn't so special. He was just another brick in the wall.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN



As usual, nothing but OPINION. No effort to research anythintg or to
dispute facts, just opinion. anyone has an opinion.

CTs have multiple scenarios to explain something they KNOW was the
case, that there was a conspiracy. That is obvious to them, whether they
are evidence hawks like myself, or just see the overview and believe it
was a conspiracy. The difference from LNs is that LNs were given a nice
neat scenario concocted by the WC lawyers, theories and all. And it
hasn't stood the test of time. Bit by bit, evidence and facts have slowly
eaten away at the fabric of the phony WC theories, like the SBT and the
'lone nut'. FACTS, not opinion. Something that some LNs are both unable
and unwilling to dispute with their facts.

So easy to blow off opinions and pretned one is an intellect.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/10/2015 9:56 AM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> I hope the American people are intelligent enough to vote.
>
> When stupid people vote you get a stupid result. Quite frankly, our nation
> would be better off if stupid people did NOT vote. They might as well be
> pulling the handle of a slot machine for all that it contributes to the
> democratic process. Yet, in America, stupid people have rights. So, I
> support their RIGHT to vote but I do not support the notion that the more
> who vote - the better.
>

As always you extreme rightwingers want to restrict other people's
freedoms. You would keep ALL blacks from voting. Several years ago
election board workers went to a facility for the mentally challenged to
get them to vote. They were not verbal and could not write. So the worker
would hold up two pictures of the candidates and ask the person to point
to the one they like.

BTW, no one has still answered my other question. If a fetus is a human
being with voting rights, how do they vote? Kicks inside the womb?

> To keep this on topic: This is why I have always maintained that those who
> are polled on the Kennedy assassination (conspiracy vs no conspiracy) are
> usually not qualified to have an opinion. The poll ends up reflecting the
> pop culture view that a conspiracy DID exist.
>

Well, in your case and the other WC defenders that may be true, but the
poll takers can't know that until they start asking questions. Again you
have a fatal ignorance of polls. They are not IQ tests. They are only
opinion polls. You need to know the opinions of the morons too because
they also vote.

> Tomln criticizes everybody in this newsgroup for not reading the 26
> volumes; and yet, I would say that everybody in this group, whether CT or
> LN, knows a GREAT deal about the Kennedy assassination. I wonder what he

I would reiterate that most of the WC defenders in this newsgroup have
never even read the WC Report.

> would think of those who are polled about the existence of the Kennedy
> assassination. I bet not even 1% of them have even read a single word of

I like your poll question. Ask 25 million people if the assassination of
President Kennedy was a real event. I bet that you could find one, not
naming names here, who will say it wasn't real and it was just a hoax.
Like the kooks who claim that we never went to the moon.

Maybe the same kooks, not naming any names, but such a person marrs all
conspiracy researchers.

> the Warren Report. I'll bet less than 10% can name the OTHER person who
> was shot during the assassination. They're not qualified!
>

I bet you can't name the other person who was injured by a stray bullet.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>


PS. I couldn't believe that I'd ever see such open racism as we saw on the
Supreme Court yesterday. A Supreme Court Justice claims that blacks are
more comfortable going to a lower-tier college and only whites can go to
the upper-tier colleges.

[John McAdams]

On 10 Dec 2015 17:34:48 -0500, Anthony Marsh

Actually, blacks in upper tier colleges are often "uncomfortable"
since they are much less well prepared than their white cohorts
(because of affirmative action) and struggle. The failure and dropout
rates are quite high.

These black students are, in fact, the victims of white liberal
political correctness.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/10/2015 9:55 AM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7:06:59 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Oswald doesn't have to be innocent for it to be a conspiracy.
>
> I agree with that statement 100%! In fact, the only possible conspiracy is
> one that involves Oswald as shooter. I have always said that I am 100%
> certain that Oswald was the presidential assassin and 99% certain that he
> did without any outside help or sponsorship.
>

Yes, I still don't know how to phrase it so that you will understand it,
but I don't care if Oswald was part of the conspiracy or not. I seriously
doubt he was.

> The evidence is simply too overwhelming to assert that Oswald was
> completely innocent of the shooting. It requires a TON of evidence and
> corroborated testimony to be thrown out. That makes no sense.
>

You could have said the same thing about Drefyus if you were educated
enough to know who he was. In that case the evidence was rigged to frame
him. That is also what they did to Oswald. But you can frame a guilty man
sometimes. Such as OJ Simpson.

> So, if Oswald had "help" - who helped him? What is the evidence of this

Pedro Charles, according to Hoover. Do you know what a contract killing
is? Where did James Early Ray get all that money to travel all around
Europe?

> help? Obviously, nobody was helping him escape. He was clearly just

Unless, someone was assigned to shoot him before he could leave the TSBD
and a real cop got to him first.

> winging it on his own. If Oswald had something he could have told the
> authorities about some outside involvement, then it couldn't possibly have
> been part of their plan for him to be captured and interrogated for two
> days. Just who were these conspirators who are both brilliant and yet, at
> the same time, bumbling idiots?
>

That's why Ruby had to shoot him. To silence him. That is why people
thought it was a conspiracy.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I enjoy the fact that McAdams allows you to go off-topic to attack
rightwingers. I guess that's called being even handed.
But he still won't let me call George Bush a liar.

[BOZ]

I agree with Tom Rossley. Everyone should read the 26 volumes. I decided
to read the 26 volumes after Rossley mentioned them for the 999th time.
After reading the 26 volumes I am 100 percent sure that Oswald killed
Kennedy alone.

[BOZ]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 10:56:40 AM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

According to a new CBS news poll Trump is up 13 points since October.
The American people must be eating more fish oils. I hope you come to
your senses soon David.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2015 8:40 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 1:11:29 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:

>> Americans should be embarrassed that they voted for Obama twice.
>
> No argument there. I never thought much of Obama as Presidential timber
> but Trump is silly putty.
>

Why don't you vote for Ronald Reagan again?

[BOZ]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 10:56:40 AM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > I hope the American people are intelligent enough to vote.
>

> When stupid people vote you get a stupid result(OBAMA WON THE ELECTION FOR EXAMPLE) Quite frankly, our nation
> would be better off if stupid people did NOT vote(ROMNEY WOULD HAVE WON) They might as well be

> pulling the handle of a slot machine for all that it contributes to the

> democratic process(USA IS NOT A DEMOCRACY. IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC) Yet, in America, stupid people have rights. So, I

> support their RIGHT to vote but I do not support the notion that the more
> who vote - the better.
>
> To keep this on topic: This is why I have always maintained that those who
> are polled on the Kennedy assassination (conspiracy vs no conspiracy) are
> usually not qualified to have an opinion. The poll ends up reflecting the
> pop culture view that a conspiracy DID exist.
>
> Tomln criticizes everybody in this newsgroup for not reading the 26

> volumes;(TOM HAS READ 100s of CONSPIRACY BOOKS AND THAT IS WHY THAT THERE 1001 people WHO PLOTTED TO KILL JFK ACCORDING TO TOM) and yet, I would say that everybody in this group, whether CT or

> LN, knows a GREAT deal about the Kennedy assassination. I wonder what he
> would think of those who are polled about the existence of the Kennedy
> assassination. I bet not even 1% of them have even read a single word of
> the Warren Report. I'll bet less than 10% can name the OTHER person who

> was shot during the assassination. They're not qualified!(THIS LAST PART SOUNDS MORE ARROGANT THAN TRUMP. I HOPE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE INTELLIGENT
ENOUGH TO VOTE FOR TRUMP)
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

[Edward Bauer]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:56:40 AM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
> I bet not even 1% of them have even read a single word of
> the Warren Report. I'll bet less than 10% can name the OTHER person who
> was shot during the assassination. They're not qualified!
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

> I bet not even 1% of them have even read a single word of
> the Warren Report. I'll bet less than 10% can name the OTHER person who
> was shot during the assassination. They're not qualified!
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

Who's qualified is all a matter of degree. How many have decades of
experience in competitive rifle shooting? How many have similar
experience in film splicing/editing? If not, "They're not qualified!"

We could have asked the truly qualified 52 years ago. Instead we chose to
argue theory vs. theory without any real-world hands-on experience.
Isn't this fun?

http://www.thefinaltruth.net

[BOZ]

Who are you going to vote for McCroskey? Bernie Sanders?

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:56:40 AM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

Let'see. Who will be chosen to decide who is stupid and cannot
vote....?

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2015 8:37 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:22:39 PM UTC-6, BOZ wrote:
>
>> They do not trust the government(Do you trust Obama?)
>
> Yes, I do trust President Obama. That doesn't mean I agree with all his
> policies. Nonetheless, I trust him. Let me guess, you trust him because
> you think one or all of the following: 1) He was never born in the U.S.,
> 2) He is actually a Muslim, 3) He wants to bring Sharia Law to America.
>
>> They do not trust the media(Do you trust CNN?)
>
> I think CNN does a very good job of relaying the news. In fact, I think
> most all of the U.S. news programs do a decent job. That would include FOX
> News. We are very fortunate in this country to have a media that probes
> and is not a mouthpiece for a corrupt government. Unless you are familiar
> yourself with how bad the "news" agencies from other nations are, you
> cannot fully appreciate how good our news agencies are.
>

So you self-identify as an extreme rightwinger.
Are you a Dittohead?

>> They do not trust Wall Street(Would you trust Bernie Madoff. He made off
>> with a lot of people's money.)
>
> Bernie Madoof was not "Wall Street" - he was a person. I think the United
> States financial market operates pretty darn well.
>

They are ALL crooks, not just Bernie Madoff. He was just the one they
chose to prosecute as a warning.

>> They do not trust big business(Do you trust Enron?)
>
> Enron is not the sole representative of "big business". Besides, Enron's
> problems were a result of a handful of corrupt people. There was nothing
> fundamentally wrong with Enron as a business entity. PEOPLE are corrupt.
> Businesses are inanimate and are neither good nor evil.
>

So, did you believe Romney when he said corporations are people?

> Do you think your life benefits in any way as a result of "big business"?
>

Yes. Technology.

>> They do not trust foreigners(Do you trust foreigners who pledge allegiance to > Isis?)
>
> I don't trust anybody who vows to do harm to others - especially U.S.
> citizens. Are we knowingly allowing foreigners who pledge allegiance to
> ISIS into our country?
>

> Thank you for your paranoid rant. It was quite entertaining. It really
> reveals the worldview of most conspiracy theorists and largely explains

And some of the paranoia comes from extreme rightwingers.

> WHY they believe there is a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. They
> ignore the hard evidence and the corroborated testimony in favor of seeing

Never rely on the testimony.

> things through their paranoid, grey-colored glasses. There is so much for

Some people wear rose-colored glasses and never see the truth.

> them to distrust in the Kennedy assassination. As I said before, one of
> the hallmarks of those who are not-so-intelligent is that they feel
> victimized by those who have power. That includes the police, the FBI, the
> government, the military, the CIA, the wealthy ... etc.
>

Well, you want us to be victimized by people who don't have any power
over us? Explain how that works.

> I choose not to live in your paranoid world with your cynical outlook. I'm
> a careful person who recognizes good and evil in the world. I take common
> sense precautions. I believe things based on evidence - not because I want

You sound paranoid to me. Why should you have to take any precautions if
nothing bad ever happens?

> it to conform with my worldview. I allow the world to mold my view instead
> of trying to force my view to mold the world.
>

Why not work to mold a better world? Are you too lazy?

> I know you think that I'm a sucker and that I'm naive. You probably
> believe that I'm setting myself up for victimization and that you are wise
> as you hunker down in your basement with your 15 year supply of canned
> goods. Yet, I'm 58 yrs old and doing fine in life. And I'm happy! Thanks

CANNED goods? How passe!

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2015 8:19 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7:48:39 PM UTC-5, BT George wrote:

>> Pretty much spot on. Although I hate to admit that I'm something of a
>> conspiracy theorist when it comes to Trump. Perhaps it's a tiny one,
>> conceived and hatched in his own mind alone.
>>
>> Nevertheless, it's my belief he is running with the specific *intention*
>> of screwing up the Republican nomination process By getting himself and
>> the Party seen as a bunch of radically reactionary goofballs that are
>> unelectable in the general election. ...And probably with the added bonus
>> that he *loves* to get attention whether good or bad.
>>
>> BT George
>

> I haven't dismissed the idea that Trump is deliberately trying to screw

> things up for the GOP to ensure a Clinton victory. After all he

That's a little beyond the conspiracy theories I have heard. No one
claims yet that he is secretly working for Hillary. At least not out loud.

> contributed to her Senate campaign and invited the Clinton's to his last
> wedding (front pew seat no less) along with much of the New York liberal
> elites. I also wouldn't dismiss the idea that if Trump actually got
> nominated he might decide things turned out better than he imagined and
> double cross the Clintons by trying to beat them. I also wouldn't be

Well, maybe that's what he's worried about, that he might actually win
the nomination.

> surprised if he loses the nomination if he would run as a third party
> candidate effectively guaranteeing a Clinton victory.
>

If he plays it right he can get kicked out by the Republican
establishment and then blame when Hillary wins the general election.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2015 8:17 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 4:49:44 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
>> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:44:10 PM UTC-6, dwro...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I never
>>> paid too much attention to polls because history has shown that the
>>> majority of people have many times been wrong.
>>
>> Polling has become quite a sophisticated science over the years. They are
>> often falsely (in my opinion) accused of trying to advance a certain
>> agenda by inaccurately reporting results. This criticism usually comes
>> from people who do not like the polling results. I disagree with that
>> criticism. It's a business. They are in the business of being ACCURATE.
>> The Gallup polling agency wants the reputation for being MORE accurate
>> than the Harris polling agency, for instance. They really don't care what
>> the issue is. They just want to be accurate. They are in the accuracy
>> business.
>>
> I would agree with you that polling done by companies who are in that business (Gallup, Roper, Quinnipiac) are not deliberately skewed because their reputations depend on the accuracy of their results. However there are people who conduct polls who have a political agenda and it is easy enough for them to skew the results in their favor through sampling bias as well as how the questions are framed.
>
>> They have nothing to gain from being wrong. It's bad for business.
>>
>> I think polls generally show an accurate snapshot of sentiment. That
>> doesn't mean that the opinions expressed by the majority of those who are
>> subjects of these polls are correct, however. For instance, I think the
>> polls that consistently indicate that the majority of Americans believe
>> that there was a conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination are
>> accurate. I believe that the majority of Americans DO believe that.
>> They're wrong. But the poll is accurately conveying what the majority
>> believes.
>>
>>
>> In election years, people often cite how early polls are "wrong" because
>> there are so many examples of early leaders in the polls falling by the
>> wayside. But that doesn't mean the polls are wrong. It means the dynamics
>> of the election change over time. The polls accurately detect these
>> changes as they occur. Usually, the final poll, just prior to the final
>> election, is an accurate indicator of the final outcome.
>>
> This was illustrated in the 1980 presidential election. For most of the fall the polls showed Carter and Reagan neck and neck. However, in the last weekend there was a dramatic shift toward Reagan with most of the late deciders going to him. This came after the polling companies had conducted their final polls. Internal polling done by the Carter campaign however picked up this trend and his campaign manager told Carter he was going to lose big. Most people believe this was why Carter broke down and cried when giving a speech to the folks in his home town of Plains, Ga.
>

Do you even remember the Hostage Crisis and the secret deal that Reagan
made with the Iranians?

>> Election polls (Who are you going to vote for?) are different than opinion
>> polls (Was there a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination?).
>>
>> In the first type of poll, people determine the outcome regardless of
>> whether the candidate is the best one or not. The people determine
>> reality. In the second type of poll, they can be right or wrong. What the
>> majority thinks doesn't change the reality. There either WAS or was NOT a
>> conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. Just because a majority of people
>> think there was a conspiracy doesn't mean that there was a conspiracy. But
>> if a majority of people think Hillary Clinton should be the next president
>> - she WILL be the next president, regardless whether somebody else would
>> have been a better president.
>
> Unless of course the Electoral College says otherwise as in 2000.
>

Unless a crooked Supreme Court Justice rigs the system.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2015 8:15 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 8:06:59 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

>> On 12/7/2015 9:15 PM, Bud wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 8:21:52 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
>>>> At some point in time, in any protracted debate about the Kennedy
>>>> assassination, invariably, the conspiracy theorist is going to mention how
>>>> the majority of people (as indicated by polls) believe that a conspiracy
>>>> was involved. They use this as a building block to support their position.
>>>> It's their way of saying, "Most people agree with ME - therefore, the
>>>> probability that I'M correct is greater than the probability that YOU are
>>>> correct. Most people agree with ME!"
>>>
>>> I think when it comes down to it, more people believe that Oswald shot
>>> Kennedy than any other possibility. Look at all the disagreement among the
>>> CTers here on the best approach to make pretend Oswald was innocent. If
>>

>> Oswald doesn't have to be innocent for it to be a conspiracy.
>

> Look at all the disagreement among the CTers here on the best approach
> to make pretend Oswald was innocent.
>

Fine, but leave me out of it. I never claimed that Oswald was innocent.

>>> you took 10 conspiracy hobbyist who blame the CIA, on examination you
>>> would likely find wide disagreement on particulars. The people who believe
>>> Oswald acted alone are in total agreement on every major issue. They
>>

>> Wrong. You guys can't even agree on a frame for your many SBTs.
>> You can't even agree on which shot missed.

>
> The people who believe Oswald acted alone are in total agreement on
> every major issue.
>

>>> believe in the SBT. They believe Oswald brought his rifle to work in the
>>> paper bag. They believe Oswald killed Tippit. More people agree with me on
>>> what occurred than any CTer posting anywhere.
>>>
>>>> I'll bet there is not a single conspiracy theorist in this discussion
>>>> group who has not, at one time or another, made this argument; if not
>>>> directly, at least, indirectly. The irony, of course, is that the CTs
>>>> accuse the LNs of being naive, mindless sheep who blindly believe what
>>>> they are told by the Warren Commission when, in fact, the LNs are in the
>>>> minority. The majority of literature, by far, is conspiracy oriented. It
>>>> is the CTs who are in the majority. An argument can be made that it is
>>>> THEY who are the "sheep" and are the ones who are blindly following the
>>>> crowd.
>>>>
>>>> There is a thing called Godwin's Law - which states: "As an online
>>>> discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis
>>>> or Hitler approaches 1". I think the same can be said about references to
>>>> polls in the Kennedy assassination debate. Sooner or later, the CT is
>>>> going to raise the point that polls consistently indicate that the
>>>> majority of Americans believe in "some kind" of conspiracy. They do not
>>>> seem very concerned that there is no consensus on the nature of this
>>>> conspiracy, however.
>>>
>>> It`s cool to believe that something fishy happened in the JFK
>>> assassination, you can be totally ignorant but be seen as wise and "in the
>>> know" by voicing skepticism about Oswald`s guilt.
>>>
>>

>> Illogical.
>
> I know they are.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2015 8:14 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 8:15:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:
>

>> I think when it comes down to it, more people believe that Oswald shot
>> Kennedy than any other possibility. Look at all the disagreement among the
>> CTers here on the best approach to make pretend Oswald was innocent.
>

> I believe you are correct.
>
> If the choice is only black & white - Was there a conspiracy or was there
> no conspiracy? - I believe most Americans would say that there was a
> conspiracy. Polls have consistently indicated that.
>
> But, if you broke it down into pieces, and divided the conspiracy theories
> into different parts, I think the "theory" that would have the highest
> percentage would be that Oswald shot Kennedy alone.
>
> For instance, what if people were asked to pick one of the following?
>
> John Kennedy was assassinated by ...
> (A) Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone without any support.
> (B) Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone but he had support from the CIA.
> (C) Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone but he had support from the pro-Castro
> Cubans.
> (D) Lee Harvey Oswald AND a Secret Service Agent who accidentally fired
> his AR-15.
> (E) Lee Harvey Oswald AND a shooter on the grassy knoll.
> (F) Lee Harvey Oswald AND a shooter hiding in a roadside sewer.
> (G) Lee Harvey Oswald along with multiple shooters around Dealey Plaza.
> (H) elements of the CIA - NOT Lee Harvey Oswald.
> (I) elements of the mafia - NOT Lee Harvey Oswald.
> (J) elements of the military industrial complex - NOT Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
> Well, you get the idea. I could go on and on. Suffice it to say that this
> list would be very long.
>

And indeed some polls have done exactly that, but you would never know
about them. Because you never do research.
But why the bias in your choices?
Why did you intentionally leave out the Masons and Illuminati?
Prejudiced?

> I think (A) would probably have the highest percentage compared to all the
> others. It might lose out to (E), however. It would be close. It wouldn't
> be a particularly large percentage because I think the selections would be
> spread out across the spectrum. As you can see, any selection OTHER than
> (A) would essentially be a vote for a conspiracy. The conspiracy community
> has certainly given people a lot to choice from. It's a veritable
> smorgasbord of conspiracies. Certainly there is ONE that fits somebody's
> taste. Besides, (A) is boring.
>

Why don't you actually look at some real polls? Too much heavy lifting?

> The smallest group, by far, are those who think that Lee Harvey Oswald was
> completely innocent. Although, on the internet, where hardcore/fringe
> conspiracy theorists are quite active - one would not get that impression.
> These fringe conspiracy quacks are the squeaky wheels of the debate. Loud
> and shrill.
>

How many people does Ralph have on his side? 5? 10?
Out of thousands of conspiracy believers?

> Whenever I have a casual discussion about the Kennedy assassination with
> somebody who is not particularly well-versed in any of the details, BY
> FAR, the most common answer I get goes something like this, "I just don't
> see how Oswald could have done it all by himself. I think he must have had
> some kind of help." They believe that Oswald was a shooter, but they can
> never articulate what kind of help he had. They can't really explain WHY

Many people do until you press them for details.

> they believe that or WHO would have helped him. They just have this
> nagging sense that one man couldn't point a gun at the president, pull the
> trigger, and kill him so easily. Yet, ironically, that is how ALL the
> previous presidential assassinations have occurred. There are even many
> failed presidential assassination attempts, had they been successful, that
> would have added additional lone gunman scenarios to the assassination
> sagas.

SO according to your criteria we can not say it was a conspiracy even
though shots came from two different directions unless I can PROVE what
Frank Bender had for lunch?

>
> Richard Lawrence could have joined the ranks of presidential assassins had
> his pistol not misfired. Then he tried to use another pistol. It also
> misfired. President Andrew Jackson would have been a victim of a lone
> gunman.
>

I hate to break it to you, but many assassination conspiracies are done
by a lone shooter.

Booth was the only shooter. Try to claim that wasn't a conspiracy.
Are you the head of the Mary Surrat Innocence Campaign?

> President William Taft was fortunate that a man concealing a handgun along
> the procession route in El Paso was discovered and disarmed by a Texas
> Ranger. He would've been a victim of a lone gunman.
>
> Theodore Roosevelt was actually shot by a lone gunman AFTER he had left
> office. He was fortunate to survive the shooting. The bullet hit Roosevelt
> in an area of his chest where he had folded over his lengthy speech in his
> breast pocket. Fortunately, his speech was nearly 50-pages long.
>
> Giuseppe Zangara could have been more famous that Lee Oswald if his aim
> was a little better. In Miami, Zangara fired five shots at President
> Franklin Roosevelt, missing with all five shots but hitting other
> bystanders.
>
> The list goes on and on. "Squeaky" Fromme could have been famous! John
> Hinckley could have been more famous than he is now.
>

I won't go into details here, but there may be many more attempts than
actual assassinations that you'll never know about. And shouldn't.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2015 2:47 PM, BOZ wrote:

> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 8:48:39 PM UTC-4, BT George wrote:
>> On Monday, December 7, 2015 at 8:15:25 PM UTC-6, Bud wrote:

>>> On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 8:21:52 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
>>>> At some point in time, in any protracted debate about the Kennedy
>>>> assassination, invariably, the conspiracy theorist is going to mention how
>>>> the majority of people (as indicated by polls) believe that a conspiracy
>>>> was involved. They use this as a building block to support their position.
>>>> It's their way of saying, "Most people agree with ME - therefore, the
>>>> probability that I'M correct is greater than the probability that YOU are
>>>> correct. Most people agree with ME!"
>>>

>>> I think when it comes down to it, more people believe that Oswald shot
>>> Kennedy than any other possibility. Look at all the disagreement among the

>>> CTers here on the best approach to make pretend Oswald was innocent. If

>>> you took 10 conspiracy hobbyist who blame the CIA, on examination you
>>> would likely find wide disagreement on particulars. The people who believe
>>> Oswald acted alone are in total agreement on every major issue. They

>>> believe in the SBT. They believe Oswald brought his rifle to work in the
>>> paper bag. They believe Oswald killed Tippit. More people agree with me on
>>> what occurred than any CTer posting anywhere.
>>>
>>>> I'll bet there is not a single conspiracy theorist in this discussion
>>>> group who has not, at one time or another, made this argument; if not
>>>> directly, at least, indirectly. The irony, of course, is that the CTs
>>>> accuse the LNs of being naive, mindless sheep who blindly believe what
>>>> they are told by the Warren Commission when, in fact, the LNs are in the
>>>> minority. The majority of literature, by far, is conspiracy oriented. It
>>>> is the CTs who are in the majority. An argument can be made that it is
>>>> THEY who are the "sheep" and are the ones who are blindly following the
>>>> crowd.
>>>>
>>>> There is a thing called Godwin's Law - which states: "As an online
>>>> discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis
>>>> or Hitler approaches 1". I think the same can be said about references to
>>>> polls in the Kennedy assassination debate. Sooner or later, the CT is
>>>> going to raise the point that polls consistently indicate that the
>>>> majority of Americans believe in "some kind" of conspiracy. They do not
>>>> seem very concerned that there is no consensus on the nature of this
>>>> conspiracy, however.
>>>
>>> It`s cool to believe that something fishy happened in the JFK
>>> assassination, you can be totally ignorant but be seen as wise and "in the
>>> know" by voicing skepticism about Oswald`s guilt.
>>>

>> Pretty much spot on. Although I hate to admit that I'm something of a
>> conspiracy theorist when it comes to Trump. Perhaps it's a tiny one,
>> conceived and hatched in his own mind alone.
>>
>> Nevertheless, it's my belief he is running with the specific *intention*
>> of screwing up the Republican nomination process By getting himself and
>> the Party seen as a bunch of radically reactionary goofballs that are
>> unelectable in the general election. ...And probably with the added bonus
>> that he *loves* to get attention whether good or bad.
>>
>> BT George
>

> Trump is putting his own money into his campaign. Trump should mention
> that when Mohammed was 50 he married a 6 year old girl named Aisha.
> Mohammad's marriage was consummated in Medina when Aisha was 9. Mohammed
> was 53.
>

Good point. But never cite non-Muslim cases like St. John or some Jewish
sects or Hindi or David Koresh or Mormons. Make sure you ONLY attack
Muslims. They are the enemy of the month.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/9/2015 1:19 PM, BOZ wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 5:58:08 PM UTC-4, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:

>> Who was the last president that was a "businessman" ? The last president
>> who was an a**hole was Nixon..
>
> In March 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to London to negotiate
> with Tripoli's envoy, ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman (or Sidi Haji Abdul
> Rahman Adja). When they enquired "concerning the ground of the pretensions
> to make war upon nations who had done them no injury", the ambassador
> replied:
>
> "It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not
> acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of
> the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was
> slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the
> man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his
> share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every
> sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually
> struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."
> ("American Peace Commissioners to John Jay," March 28, 1786, "Thomas
> Jefferson Papers," Series 1. General Correspondence. 1651-1827, Library of
> Congress. LoC: March 28, 1786 (handwritten).)
>
> http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/005/0400/0430.jpg
>
>

Yes, we know the propoganda, but some of us know the facts.

[BOZ]

O J Simpson wasn't framed. Simpson left everything at the murder scene
but his Heismann trophy.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 5:22:19 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 8:16:36 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7:40:04 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>
> > >
> > > You bring up an excellent point with your observation that there is not
> > > one conspiracy theory but many and none holds a majority status among the
> > > population in general nor even in the universe of conspiracy believers.
> > > Thus the lone assassin theory is just one of many theories about the death
> > > of JFK and if compared to the myriad of conspiracy theories it would
> > > easily be the plurality viewpoint.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Knowing that there was a conspiracy from an overview doesn't mean that
> > the average person will come to the exact same conclusions as to how it
> > was done and by whom as others will. Enough to say that so many agree in
> > the overview.
> >
>
> The average American doesn't know the most rudimentary facts of the case
> beyond the fact JFK got shot while riding in his limo in Dallas. I would
> bet that most of what they think they know they "learned" from watching
> Oliver Stone's movie. If you want to hang your hat on the fact a majority
> of those people think there was a conspiracy, go right ahead.
>

As usual you spout a lot of opinion.

> >
> > >
> >
> > > As for me, I liked that Trump was saying politically incorrect things that
> > > moderate Republicans are afraid to say but he lost me when he started
> > > talking about closing down mosques. I am adamantly opposed to any form of
> > > religious persecution and could not in good conscience vote for someone
> > > who advocates such a thing.
> >
> >
> > There's a point for you! Now you're up to -573 from -574.
> >

> > > As for Trump, I don't think he believes half the things he says. I think
> > > he has shrewdly judged the mood of the Republican base voters and has
> > > tailored his rhetoric to tap into that. There is a disconnect between the
> > > rank and file Republicans and the more moderate Republican leadership and
> > > Trump is appealing to those voters to the dismay of the party leaders. I
> > > think it is going to be an interesting primary season. If Trump continues
> > > to remain popular with the base and wins most of the primaries and
> > > caucuses, he will be the delegate leader but he might not be able to
> > > garner a delegate majority since there are still delegates chosen the old
> > > fashioned way in the proverbial "smoke filled rooms" even though those
> > > rooms are now non-smoking areas. If Trump can't get enough of those
> > > delegates to gain a majority, we might actually see a convention that will
> > > be worth watching. I would love to see a brokered convention, something we
> > > haven't had in my lifetime. It would be good theater.
> > >
> >
> >
> > I doubt that Trump wants to be president. I think he's just playing it
> > for notoriety for his future projects. And he will get what he wants from
> > the Republican leaderships, who are even now talking about the fact that
> > Trump is a fascist based on many of his pronouncements. The job of
> > president leaves very little time to enjoy your wealth and position, and
> > Trump likes to enjoy. The only reason he's gotten this far is that
> > Republicans believe anything they hear from any seemingly official source,
> > like the WCR.
> >

The poor GOP is in a deep tizzie. They are very worried that Trump
will win the nomination and lose the election to a democrat. And worse,
if he doesn't win the nomination, he will go independent and ruin the
GOP's chances for any kind of election. Kiss the presidency goodbye for
another 8 years.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 4:03:51 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 9:37:03 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:22:39 PM UTC-6, BOZ wrote:
> >
> > > They do not trust the government(Do you trust Obama?)
> >
> > Yes, I do trust President Obama. That doesn't mean I agree with all his
> > policies. Nonetheless, I trust him. Let me guess, you trust him because
> > you think one or all of the following: 1) He was never born in the U.S.,
> > 2) He is actually a Muslim, 3) He wants to bring Sharia Law to America.
> >
> > > They do not trust the media(Do you trust CNN?)
> >
> > I think CNN does a very good job of relaying the news. In fact, I think
> > most all of the U.S. news programs do a decent job. That would include FOX
> > News. We are very fortunate in this country to have a media that probes
> > and is not a mouthpiece for a corrupt government. Unless you are familiar
> > yourself with how bad the "news" agencies from other nations are, you
> > cannot fully appreciate how good our news agencies are.
> >

> > > They do not trust Wall Street(Would you trust Bernie Madoff. He made off
> > > with a lot of people's money.)
> >
> > Bernie Madoof was not "Wall Street" - he was a person. I think the United
> > States financial market operates pretty darn well.
> >

> > > They do not trust big business(Do you trust Enron?)
> >
> > Enron is not the sole representative of "big business". Besides, Enron's
> > problems were a result of a handful of corrupt people. There was nothing
> > fundamentally wrong with Enron as a business entity. PEOPLE are corrupt.
> > Businesses are inanimate and are neither good nor evil.
> >

> > Do you think your life benefits in any way as a result of "big business"?
> >

> > > They do not trust foreigners(Do you trust foreigners who pledge allegiance to > Isis?)
> >
> > I don't trust anybody who vows to do harm to others - especially U.S.
> > citizens. Are we knowingly allowing foreigners who pledge allegiance to
> > ISIS into our country?
> >
> > Thank you for your paranoid rant. It was quite entertaining. It really
> > reveals the worldview of most conspiracy theorists and largely explains

> > WHY they believe there is a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. They
> > ignore the hard evidence and the corroborated testimony in favor of seeing

> > things through their paranoid, grey-colored glasses. There is so much for

> > them to distrust in the Kennedy assassination. As I said before, one of
> > the hallmarks of those who are not-so-intelligent is that they feel
> > victimized by those who have power. That includes the police, the FBI, the
> > government, the military, the CIA, the wealthy ... etc.
> >

> > I choose not to live in your paranoid world with your cynical outlook. I'm
> > a careful person who recognizes good and evil in the world. I take common
> > sense precautions. I believe things based on evidence - not because I want

> > it to conform with my worldview. I allow the world to mold my view instead
> > of trying to force my view to mold the world.
> >

> > I know you think that I'm a sucker and that I'm naive. You probably
> > believe that I'm setting myself up for victimization and that you are wise
> > as you hunker down in your basement with your 15 year supply of canned
> > goods. Yet, I'm 58 yrs old and doing fine in life. And I'm happy! Thanks

> > for enlightening me for all the things I should distrust. Duly noted.
> >
> > David Emerling
> > Memphis, TN
>

> Mr Emerling wrote "you trust him because" (I don't trust him)

>
> > you think one or all of the following: 1) He was never born in the U.S.,

> (Obama was born in Hawaii). I believe that Oswald acted alone.



Sorry to tell you...Hawaii is part of the USA. And it became a state
in 1959 while Obama was born there in 1961. Yiou might find a job with
the Trump organization.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:55:15 AM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
> On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 7:06:59 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> > Oswald doesn't have to be innocent for it to be a conspiracy.
>
> I agree with that statement 100%! In fact, the only possible conspiracy is
> one that involves Oswald as shooter. I have always said that I am 100%
> certain that Oswald was the presidential assassin and 99% certain that he
> did without any outside help or sponsorship.
>

> The evidence is simply too overwhelming to assert that Oswald was
> completely innocent of the shooting. It requires a TON of evidence and
> corroborated testimony to be thrown out. That makes no sense.
>

> So, if Oswald had "help" - who helped him? What is the evidence of this

> help? Obviously, nobody was helping him escape. He was clearly just

> winging it on his own. If Oswald had something he could have told the
> authorities about some outside involvement, then it couldn't possibly have
> been part of their plan for him to be captured and interrogated for two
> days. Just who were these conspirators who are both brilliant and yet, at
> the same time, bumbling idiots?
>

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN



Well, there's some more opinion to wade through. When there's a TON of
evidence and corroborated witnessing waiting for you proving there was a
conspiracy and Oswald wasn't a shooter in it.

Last time I started you with proof of a bullet hole in JFK's forehead,
which you deftly ran away from and avoided. This time I'll give you some
other facts and see what you do with them. Here's sworn testimony from a
member of the autopsy team (Jerrol Custer) who was about to take X-rays:

"When I lifted the body up to take films of
the torso, and the lumbar spine, and the pelvis,
this is when a king-size fragment - I'd say -
estimate around three, four sonometers - fell from
the back. And this is when Dr. Finck come over
with a pair of forceps, picked it up, and took -
That's the last time I ever saw it.
Now, it was big enough -That's about,
I'd say, an inch and a half. My finger-my small
finger. First joints."

From: http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/medical_testimony/pdf/Custer_10-28-97.pdf

Page 53

Sonometer = centimeter, and 3-4 centimeters is long enough to be many
types of bullet.


Hmm. That had to be the bullet from the back wound, so the 'single
bullet' theory is dead based on Custer seeing the bullet fall out of the
back. Nothing else was gojng to fall out of the back when you consider
that the prosectors all said "There's NO EXIT" for the back wound bullet
from the body. That comes from the sworn testimony of Jame sSibert (FBI
agent) who was observing the autopsy. Here's some corroboration of that
'short shot' to the back from Paul O'Connor, Bethesda Technologist and
autopsy team member:

"He agrees with Jenkins that the probe placed into the back wound did not
penetrate the pleura, going in at most 1'/4 inches. (Under oath, Kennedy's
chief pathologist, James J. Humes, confirmed this to the ARRB.)"

From: "In the Eyes of History" by William Matson Law, interview of Paul
O'Connor.

Also from the same document, statements from Paul O'Connor speaking of
the back wound and its bullet:

"So we used a malleable probe and bent it a little bit and found out that
the bullet entered the body, went through the intercostal muscles--the
muscles in between the ribs. The bullet went in through the muscles,
didn't touch any of the ribs, arched downwards, hit the back of the
pleural cavity, which encases the lungs, both front and back. It bounced
off that cavity and stopped. It actually went down and stopped. So we
didn't know the track of the bullet until we eviscerated the body later.
That's what happened at that time. We traced the bullet path down and
found out it didn't traverse the body. It did not go in one side and come
out the other side of the body.

Law: It was just from the probe then?
O'Connor: Oh yes.
Law: And these doctors knew that?
O'Connor: Absolutely.
Law: While it happened?
O'Connor: Absolutely."

The doctors (prosectors) had to be under orders to find only what they
put in the Autopsy Report (AR) because this information here should have
been there but was left out in its entirety.

It's obvious why you'll not deal with these witnesses and the facts
they bring forth, all of which fit the full story of the back wound.
When these witnesses were talked to early on, they were under an 'order of
silence' and couldn't dare to speak of anything that happened that night
or suffer court martial. They all had to sign a statement that they
understood that order.

So we have a 'short shot' in the back. It never traveled more than an
inch or so into the body. And they followed that path to the pleura where
the bullet stopped. It left bruises in the pleura and the right lung, but
NO punctures or tears, so it didn't go through.

Now THAT'S evidence and proof, and not opinion. See if you can contest
it with proof, or just go back to your corner and watch.

Chris

[David Emerling]

On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 7:19:55 PM UTC-6, bigdog wrote:

> I haven't dismissed the idea that Trump is deliberately trying to screw
> things up for the GOP to ensure a Clinton victory.

Nah, Trump is far too narcissistic. He's not in this to help somebody ELSE
win. He's in this to WIN! As unrealistic as that may be, I believe he
actually would LOVE to be the President of the United States.

Trump is a kook. You may recall that he was quite vocal about Obama never
having been born in the United States. He's a birther! He still wants to
"look into" where Obama was born and whether he's really Muslim. Yeah -
right. Get right on that, Donald.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/424271/donald-trumps-birther-moment-tells-us-about-donald-trump-and-not-much-else-charles-c

I'll bet you Trump believes that Kennedy was killed as a result of a
conspiracy. I'd be interested to know if he has ever expressed an opinion
on that ... [googling]

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 4:26:22 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:

> US news programs repeat what known politicians say and rarely do any
> research into the words.

I somewhat disagree. Sure, they'll report what they say - but if it is
outrageous, they will certainly fact check it. I have seen lengthy,
post-debate segments on nothing but FACT CHECKING.

The press is very quick to point out when a candidate says something that
is wrong. Now, whether the public accepts it or even cares is another
matter. At a minimum, they will usually debate the matter.

For instance, Trump has recently claimed that he plans on banning all
Muslim immigration. That is being aggressively challenged and debated on
all the news programs. There are some who claim it is unconstitutional
and, yet, there are some who claim there is some precedent for this -
specifically with Jimmy Carter. I don't know the answer but I DO know that
that the new programs are not gracefully accepting it as you seem to be
claiming they do with whatever the candidates say.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John McAdams]

On 11 Dec 2015 12:25:35 -0500, David Emerling

<davide...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 4:26:22 PM UTC-6, mainframetech wrote:
>
>> US news programs repeat what known politicians say and rarely do any
>> research into the words.
>
>I somewhat disagree. Sure, they'll report what they say - but if it is
>outrageous, they will certainly fact check it. I have seen lengthy,
>post-debate segments on nothing but FACT CHECKING.
>
>The press is very quick to point out when a candidate says something that
>is wrong. Now, whether the public accepts it or even cares is another
>matter. At a minimum, they will usually debate the matter.
>
>For instance, Trump has recently claimed that he plans on banning all
>Muslim immigration. That is being aggressively challenged and debated on
>all the news programs. There are some who claim it is unconstitutional
>and, yet, there are some who claim there is some precedent for this -
>specifically with Jimmy Carter.

I probably *would* be constitutional, since the courts have upheld the
power of the power of the president to determine who can come into the
country. The Constitution protects U.S. citizens and U.S. nationals,
and not foreigners.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261062/carter-banned-iranians-coming-us-during-hostage-daniel-greenfield

Of course, that's not to say doing that would be a good idea.

I think if Obama was suggesting some things much more aggressive than
he has (but more reasonable than what Trump is saying) he could co-op
the issue.

But he's ideologically immobilized.

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

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:43:17 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Booth was the only shooter. Try to claim that wasn't a conspiracy.
> Are you the head of the Mary Surrat Innocence Campaign?

I believe there was a conspiracy in the Lincoln assassination. The reason
I believe that is because there is solid evidence of it. Nonetheless, it
was a lone gunman.

I know you're not saying that Oswald was a lone gunman; yet, was part of a
conspiracy. So, I'm wondering why you mention the Lincoln assassination in
this context?

I didn't say I didn't believe in conspiracies. My point was simply that
lone gunmen are common. We don't see too many conspiracies in the United
States like the one that ended the life of President Anwar Sadat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ol7EgxFx3o

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Sandy McCroskey]

I will certainly vote for Bernie in the primary.

[BOZ]

Chris do you have ADD? I wrote "Obama was born in Hawaii." I agree that
Hawaii was part of the USA before Obama was born. I would love to work
for Donald Trump.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Trump was asked about the assassination in August and he said that he
thinks Oswald alone killed JFK.

"[Report John] Heilemann also asked Trump to weigh in on two historical
questions: whether he believes that Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F.
Kennedy alone and whether he believes Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas over Anita Hill, the woman who accused him of sexual harassment.

"I believe he acted alone," Trump said of Oswald. "I think he probably
acted alone."

To change the saying slightly, even a crazy squirrel can find an acorn now
and then.

Although it's hard to decide when he's really crazy and when he's just
being provocative for the sake of it. There is a method behind most of his
madness, I think. Most but not all.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/26/donald-trump-repudiates-david-duke-says-lee-harvey-oswald-acted-alone/#ixzz3u2HF36CP

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, most people do not understand the differences between a state and
a territory.
Puerto Rico is part of the United States, but it is not a state (yet).
Those who advocate statehood for Puerto Rico are called terrorists.
BTW, I was born in the United States, but I was not born in a state.
I posed this conundrum to the newsgroup a few years ago and only Ken
Rahn figured out the correct answer.
During the election I had a lot of fun teasing the Nazis about the FACT
that McCain was not born in the United States so he could run for
President, but not be elected.

[Anthony Marsh]

We've been over this before. The glove was dropped over the fence by
detective Vannatter and one of them poured OJ's sample blood, preserved
with EDTA onto the socks.

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 8:47:14 AM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> No, the way polls work is that they are correct if you like what they
> say and incorrect if you don't like what they say.

Then how do you explain that I'm disappointed that most Americans do not
understand their country's history properly and believe that their 35th
president was killed as a result of a conspiracy - maybe even a conspiracy
hatched (or covered-up) by their own government; and yet, I accept that
those polls are accurate?

I believe the polls on this matter are accurate. I believe that most
Americans DO believe that there was "some kind" of conspiracy. My point is
this, however: I do not believe those who are polled are in a position to
have an educated opinion. Further, the Kennedy assassination has
penetrated the psyche of America as a metaphor for ALL conspiracies.

This post started off making the point that most conspiracy theorists, at
some point in time, assert that MOST Americans agree with them - that
there WAS a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination. I think that is a
foolish argument.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/10/2015 10:31 PM, BOZ wrote:

> According to a new CBS news poll Trump is up 13 points since October.
> The American people must be eating more fish oils. I hope you come to
> your senses soon David.
>

How about this conspiracy theory: Trump is paying the terrorists to make
these attacks to help him rise in the polls? On sale this week for $1.25.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/10/2015 10:30 PM, BOZ wrote:
> On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 10:56:40 AM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> I hope the American people are intelligent enough to vote.
>>
>> When stupid people vote you get a stupid result. Quite frankly, our nation
>> would be better off if stupid people did NOT vote. They might as well be
>> pulling the handle of a slot machine for all that it contributes to the
>> democratic process. Yet, in America, stupid people have rights. So, I
>> support their RIGHT to vote but I do not support the notion that the more
>> who vote - the better.
>>
>> To keep this on topic: This is why I have always maintained that those who
>> are polled on the Kennedy assassination (conspiracy vs no conspiracy) are
>> usually not qualified to have an opinion. The poll ends up reflecting the
>> pop culture view that a conspiracy DID exist.
>>
>> Tomln criticizes everybody in this newsgroup for not reading the 26
>> volumes; and yet, I would say that everybody in this group, whether CT or
>> LN, knows a GREAT deal about the Kennedy assassination. I wonder what he
>> would think of those who are polled about the existence of the Kennedy
>> assassination. I bet not even 1% of them have even read a single word of
>> the Warren Report. I'll bet less than 10% can name the OTHER person who
>> was shot during the assassination. They're not qualified!
>>
>> David Emerling
>> Memphis, TN
>

> I agree with Tom Rossley. Everyone should read the 26 volumes. I decided
> to read the 26 volumes after Rossley mentioned them for the 999th time.
> After reading the 26 volumes I am 100 percent sure that Oswald killed
> Kennedy alone.
>


When did you read them, last night?
Make sure you don't read the unpublished reports, transcripts of the
executive sessions or the internal memos.

[BOZ]

https://grrrgraphics.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/bernie_sanders_ben_garrison.jpg

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, December 10, 2015 at 9:40:39 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> > them to distrust in the Kennedy assassination. As I said before, one of
> > the hallmarks of those who are not-so-intelligent is that they feel
> > victimized by those who have power. That includes the police, the FBI, the
> > government, the military, the CIA, the wealthy ... etc.
> >
>
> Well, you want us to be victimized by people who don't have any power
> over us? Explain how that works.

I think it's fair to say that John Kennedy, as President of the United
States, had power over Lee Oswald, who was a stock boy in a warehouse.
Yet, that didn't stop Oswald from putting a bullet into Kennedy's head.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/10/2015 5:37 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2015 17:34:48 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/2015 9:56 AM, David Emerling wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:13:48 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> PS. I couldn't believe that I'd ever see such open racism as we saw on the
>> Supreme Court yesterday. A Supreme Court Justice claims that blacks are
>> more comfortable going to a lower-tier college and only whites can go to
>> the upper-tier colleges.
>>
>
> Actually, blacks in upper tier colleges are often "uncomfortable"
> since they are much less well prepared than their white cohorts
> (because of affirmative action) and struggle. The failure and dropout
> rates are quite high.
>

Are you channeling Scalia or trying to quote him? It doesn't bother you
that you know he is lying?

Garre said the court had already rejected that argument in the past.


But you still believe it anyway?


> These black students are, in fact, the victims of white liberal
> political correctness.
>

It this what you white guys call reverse discrimination?

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

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/10/2015 5:23 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 8:40:37 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
>> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 1:11:29 PM UTC-5, BOZ wrote:
>
>>> Americans should be embarrassed that they voted for Obama twice.
>>
>> No argument there. I never thought much of Obama as Presidential timber
>> but Trump is silly putty.
>
> I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 as much as I voted against McCain. I did

I understand. Because McCain wasn't born in the United States of
America. Stand on principle.

> it out of spite for the GOP for nominating that bag of shit. In 2012 I
> held my nose and voted for Romney because I feared if given another term,
> Obama might get to appoint two and maybe three more appointments to SCOTUS
> giving us an Obama majority on the court for a generation. That would be
> the end of the republic as we know it and was too bitter to contemplate.
> Knock wood, that hasn't happen.
>

So, how did that go? Do you think he has time to replace Scalia? Do you
understand the confirmation process?

> As for Trump, I could have lived with him until he started exhibiting his
> religious bigotry. No way I could support that. Rand Paul is the only

You didn't notice it until yesterday?
Ever watch TV?

> Republican I could support enthusiastically. I would consider Rubio, Cruz,

Only because he's at 1%. It's called a sympathy vote.

> or Kasich. Most likely, I'll go back to voting for the Libertarian
> candidate. At least I'll be able to leave the voting booth with a clean
> conscience. And dirty underwear.

>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 12/10/2015 4:26 PM, David Emerling wrote:

> On Wednesday, December 9, 2015 at 12:11:29 PM UTC-6, BOZ wrote:
>
>> Americans should be embarrassed that they voted for Obama twice.
>

> Yet, he did get elected ... TWICE! They weren't particularly close races,
> either.
>

Consider who was running against him. They weren't even trying. Just
going through the motions.

> My guess is that you would say that the voters who elected Obama were
> idiots and not well-versed in politics. Right?
>
> I'm not going to express any opinion about whether Obama is a good or bad
> president - that's irrelevant to the point I'm making with the original
> post regarding polls and America's opinion about the Kennedy
> assassination.
>

Correct. The American public has voted for a lot of idiots.

> Based on your view of Obama's stranglehold on the Oval Office, you would
> probably agree that when polls are taken with regards to whether a
> conspiracy existed in the Kennedy assassination, most of the people who
> are subjects of these polls probably are not equipped to make an
> intelligent assessment. Consequently, they go with the popular and most
> frequently heard answer - that there was "some kind" of conspiracy
> involved.
>

Did you hear that they had to set a higher limit on the number of people
who could sign a petition to get action on an issue? It was too easy to
get 25,000 idiots to sign a petition to require Congressmen & Senators to
wear logos of their financial backers on their clothing, much like NASCAR
drivers do.


> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>
>
>

[Anthony Marsh]

It's not a history quiz, it's only an OPINION poll.

[mainframetech]

There is another factor involved. The press has a stake in this, and
doesn't want to see Trump make it to the presidency. They, more than
most, know what a disaster that would be. Worse than George Bush going to
the Chancellor of Germany and massaging her shoulders on world TV like a
cheap lothario looking to put on the make. I was neve more embarrassed
for my country when he did that. Even when he showed that his golf was
more important than world terrorism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_lm7tQomXQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3p9y_OEAdc

Chris

[mainframetech]

Trumnp is too lazy to be president. He wants to enjoy his money and
position. He doesn't want to work for it, and be on call every minute.
He's playing this to the hilt as long as he can to build more recognition
for his future endeavors.

Chris

[BOZ]

The fact that Trump believes that Oswald acted alone proves that he will
be the greatest President since George Washington.

[BOZ]

I have the answer. Marsh was born in the Panama Canal Zone. You are the
original strong man.