What the FBI knew about Omar Marteen

[David Emerling]

This is probably a somewhat embarrassing moment for the FBI - although
they are doing a good job of deflecting it. Omar Marteen, the Orlando
shooter, was on the FBI's radar for a long time. They even interviewed him
and specifically asked him about his association/allegiance to Islamic
terrorist organizations. They found him to be no threat. And then THIS
happens!

Now, let's rewind back to the early 60's, when things were not so easily
traced because almost everything was on paper - not computers. The press
wasn't as sophisticated or as capable of ferreting out information back
then - like they are today. On top of that, put an overly protective FBI
Director at the helm, like J. Edgar Hoover, and you would have the perfect
recipe for a cover-your-ass cover-up.

As wrong as it would be, couldn't you at least UNDERSTAND the motivation
behind the FBI had they not revealed their prior interest in Omar Marteen?
Let's say they covered that up. Would that imply that the FBI was involved
in the Orlando shooting or that they had pre-knowledge that Omar Marteen
would do this? No!

That's exactly what happened in the Kennedy assassination. The FBI had no
involvement in the assassination or cover-up. What the FBI was "guilty" of
was being less than forthcoming about what they knew about Oswald and
Ruby.

Eventually, the FBI came forward that Ruby was, technically, listed as an
"informant" - but it was not something they did very quickly. And we all
know the story about the note Oswald left Agent Hosty.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

Now it's getting worse for the FBI. A gun store owner informed the FBI of
suspicious activity when Omar Marteen came in wanting large quantities of
bullets and, more notably, high-grade body armor. The FBI claims they
never received such a call. The gun store owner is adamant that they
reported it to the FBI. Now the FBI is refusing to comment on the matter.

See how this crap works? If it's proven that the FBI is lying about this -
would you conclude that the FBI was involved in the shooting?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John McAdams]

On 17 Jun 2016 00:09:47 -0400, David Emerling

I don't think we can know whether the FBI might have stopped this
until we know how many people much like Marteen existed in the U.S.

Putting at 24 hour tail on anybody is a huge demand on resources.

A "sting" operation, where a terrorist is suckered into planning and
engaging in an overt act in furtherance of a terrorist conspiracy is a
more efficient use of manpower. But it's not guaranteed to work.

Where the JFK assassination is concerned, I think it's clear the FBI
really had no reasonable chance to stop it.

The Orlando case may or may not be the same.

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

[bigdog]

It's easy to say in hindsight that this guy was on their radar and they
should have kept closer tabs on him. That statement could apply to Oswald
or Mateen. Once these guys choose to strike and we find out the FBI knew
about them in advance, it is only natural to wonder why something wasn't
done to stop them before they acted. But let's be realistic. How many such
people were of similar interest to the FBI. Dozens. Hundreds. How could
anyone know who the ones were who were really dangerous as opposed to just
being Oswald. Other than the altercation with Cuban nationals in New
Orleans, there was no record of violence by Oswald. We know now he was a
wife beater. We know now he had taken a shot at Walker. The FBI didn't
know about those things prior to 11/22/63. So why would Oswald have stood
out as someone who warranted special attention? The same is true of
Mateen. Since he was able to obtain a CCW he apparently didn't have a
criminal record. They had been alerted by people who knew him that he
might be a threat but given the admonition "If you see something, say
something", how many other people had they received similar warnings
about. Why would they have thought Mateen was any more dangerous than any
of the others they had been warned about. They checked him out. They
couldn't find anything that indicated he was any more dangerous than any
of the other people they received warnings about. How could anyone have
known IN ADVANCE that he might carry out such a horrific attack?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/16/2016 3:34 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> This is probably a somewhat embarrassing moment for the FBI - although
> they are doing a good job of deflecting it. Omar Marteen, the Orlando
> shooter, was on the FBI's radar for a long time. They even interviewed him
> and specifically asked him about his association/allegiance to Islamic
> terrorist organizations. They found him to be no threat. And then THIS
> happens!
>

WAY off topic.
Couldn't you find some way to relate it to the JFK assassination?
Or did you forget which newsgroup you were posting to today?
Or maybe they don't have a newsgroup up yet about Orlando?
So, let me help you out. Which way did you come in?

It was definitely a very embarrassing moment for the FBI - although
they did a good job of covering it up - when Oswald was named the
assassin of the President and the FBI remember that they had just
recently taken his name off the Watchlist.
But at least they tried to interview him, although they weren't smart
enough to figure where he lived. And gave up trying.
Maybe they should have been a little more interested in Oswald after he
left a threatening note for them at their office. But no, they had more
important cases to solve.

> Now, let's rewind back to the early 60's, when things were not so easily
> traced because almost everything was on paper - not computers. The press

Trace what?

> wasn't as sophisticated or as capable of ferreting out information back
> then - like they are today. On top of that, put an overly protective FBI
> Director at the helm, like J. Edgar Hoover, and you would have the perfect
> recipe for a cover-your-ass cover-up.
>

I think I explained maybe about 40 million times before that the cover-up
was mainly a cover-your-ass. What Hosty called a benign cover-up.

> As wrong as it would be, couldn't you at least UNDERSTAND the motivation
> behind the FBI had they not revealed their prior interest in Omar Marteen?

Sure. Why don't you make up a meme that they did not investigate him
because he was a homosexual and they wanted to be politically correct?

> Let's say they covered that up. Would that imply that the FBI was involved
> in the Orlando shooting or that they had pre-knowledge that Omar Marteen
> would do this? No!
>

Neither would the CIA covering up knowing about Oswald mean they ordered
Oswald to kill the President.

> That's exactly what happened in the Kennedy assassination. The FBI had no
> involvement in the assassination or cover-up. What the FBI was "guilty" of
> was being less than forthcoming about what they knew about Oswald and
> Ruby.
>

Something like that. What exactly did the FBI know about Ruby?
You mean the gunrunning or the Mafia connections or is this a homosexual
allusion?

> Eventually, the FBI came forward that Ruby was, technically, listed as an
> "informant" - but it was not something they did very quickly. And we all
> know the story about the note Oswald left Agent Hosty.
>

Huh?
Not much of an informant. Prove it. Some kook alleged that Oswald was an
FBI informant. So do you have to believe that as well?

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 3:34:08 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

The problem for law enforcement is to discern a real threat from a
non-threat. The vast majority of the people watched will never act out
violently. The ones who do look a lot like the ones that don`t. bigdog
mentioned Columbine in another post and I went to Wikipedia to look
something up about that event (I knew the shooters exchanged shots with a
school security guard and wanted to look into the particulars. I found
what I was looking for, had the security guard succeeded in putting these
two creeps down there would have been only two killed and ten injured). In
looking into that I came across something I was unaware of...

"In 1996, Eric Harris created a private website on America Online.
Harris initially created the site to host gaming levels he and his friend
Dylan Klebold created for use in the video game Doom, primarily for
friends. On this site, Harris began a blog, which included jokes and short
journal entries with thoughts on parents, school, and friends. By the end
of the year, the site contained instructions on how to cause mischief, as
well as instructions on how to make explosives, and blogs in which he
described the trouble he and Klebold were causing. Beginning in early
1997, the blog postings began to show the first signs of Harris's
ever-growing anger against society.

Harris's site attracted few visitors, and caused no concern until late
1997. Klebold gave the web address to Brooks Brown, a former friend of
Harris. Brown's mother had filed numerous complaints with the Jefferson
County Sheriff's office concerning Harris, as she thought he was
dangerous. The website contained numerous death threats directed against
Brown: Klebold knew that if Brooks accessed the address, he would discover
the content and inform his parents, and likely the authorities would be
notified. After Brown's parents viewed the site, they contacted the
Jefferson County Sheriff's Office. The investigator Michael Guerra was
told about the website.[14] When he accessed it, Guerra discovered
numerous violent threats directed against the students and teachers of
Columbine High School. Other material included blurbs that Harris had
written about his general hatred of society, and his desire to kill those
who annoyed him.

Harris had noted on his site that he had made pipe bombs. In addition, he
mentioned a gun count and compiled a hit list of individuals (he did not
post any plan on how he intended to attack targets). As Harris had posted
on his website that he possessed explosives, Guerra wrote a draft
affidavit, requesting a search warrant of the Harris household. He never
filed it. The affidavit was concealed by the Jefferson County Sheriff's
Office and not revealed until September 2001, resulting from an
investigation by the TV show 60 Minutes.

After the revelation about the affidavit, a series of grand jury
investigations were begun into the cover-up activities of Jefferson County
officials. The investigation revealed that high-ranking county officials
had met a few days after the massacre to discuss the release of the
affidavit to the public. It was decided that because the affidavit's
contents lacked the necessary probable cause to have supported the
issuance of a search warrant for the Harris household by a judge, it would
be best not to disclose the affidavit's existence at an upcoming press
conference, although the actual conversations and points of discussion
were never revealed to anyone other than the Grand Jury members. Following
the press conference, the original Guerra documents disappeared. In
September 1999, a Jefferson County investigator failed to find the
documents during a secret search of the county's computer system. A second
attempt in late 2000 found copies of the document within the Jefferson
County archives. The documents were reconstructed and released to the
public in September 2001, but the original documents are still missing.
The final grand jury investigation was released in September 2004."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre

[Anthony Marsh]

There are lots of reasons for lying. Just lying does not prove guilt.
Mainly covering your ass, the way the CIA did in the JFK assassination.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe if they had more cooperation from other agencies. The DPD
complained that the FBI did not tell them about Oswald. The CIA did not
tell the FBI about Oswald.

[David Emerling]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:33:35 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> WAY off topic.
> Couldn't you find some way to relate it to the JFK assassination?
> Or did you forget which newsgroup you were posting to today?
> Or maybe they don't have a newsgroup up yet about Orlando?
> So, let me help you out. Which way did you come in?

But I *did* relate to the Kennedy assassination! That was the whole point.
I was making an analogy about how the FBI (or any investigative body)
might engage in cover-your-ass activity without necessarily being involved
in the crime itself.

Many CTs accuse the FBI of covering up the crime, framing Oswald, or
actually being the architects (mostly J. Edgar Hoover in concert with LBJ)
of the assassination.

The FBI is going to get a lot of criticism thrown in its direction
regarding Omar Marteen. It has already started. I can understand why they
would not view him as an immediate threat in much the same way as the FBI
never considered Oswald much of a threat.

The POINT I'm making is that CTs do not seem to understand this dynamic.
In their world, if the FBI covers something up, it MUST mean that they
have involvement in the assassination plot or the cover-up of the plot.

> What exactly did the FBI know about Ruby?

Night club owners, since they had involvement with unsavory, underworld
characters, were routinely used as informants. Ruby was no different. Yet,
Ruby never seemed to provide anything of significance.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10488#relPageId=92

Pat yourself on the back for understanding this "benign cover-up" concept.
You have to admit, there are a lot of your CT brethren who certainly do
NOT believe it to be "benign" and do NOT see it as a cover-your-ass issue.
Hell, entire books have been written pointing the finger directly at J.
Edgar Hoover as a main instrument of the assassination plot who had
pre-knowledge.

Tony, I can't come up with ONE thing that is universal for all CTs. That's
because the CT world is so varied. After over half-a-century, their
opinions continue to diverge, not coalesce.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edward Bauer]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 3:34:08 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

A cover-up of crime-related information does not prove guilt of the crime
itself. There’s always a scapegoat— just make sure
you’re not the one they pick. Cover your rear from the get-go.

In the recent incident, it was CYA by the FBI. But in ’63 it was
CTSSA (cover the Secret Service’s ass). National security
implications were infinitely greater then due to the Cold War climate and
the serious nature of the crime. The cover-up by the Hoover FBI--
including destruction of evidence, deliberate splicing of films, twisting
the words of witnesses and outright lying to the Warren Commission-- was
meant to convince the public that it would be no less difficult getting
through that cordon of Presidential protection. All covering up by the
FBI was done to that end.

[bigdog]

Buying large quantities of ammo isn't that unusual but the fact he also
wanted body armor was a huge red flag to the gun store owner and should
have been to the FBI. I wonder if he contacted local law enforcement as
well.

[bigdog]

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 12:09:50 AM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

I should have added to my previous post that "If you see something, say
something" becomes pointless if law enforcement isn't going to do
something.

[Anthony Marsh]

See something, Say something is often a form of racism, harassment and of
course religious persecution. We had a security alert up here because some
idiots saw some other idiots praying and called the police to tell them
there was a terrorist attack.

Up here in Massachusetts you can be shot and killed for praying.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/17/2016 2:21 PM, bigdog wrote:

So what if he did contact the FBI? That is useless.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/17/2016 2:17 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 11:33:35 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> WAY off topic.
>> Couldn't you find some way to relate it to the JFK assassination?
>> Or did you forget which newsgroup you were posting to today?
>> Or maybe they don't have a newsgroup up yet about Orlando?
>> So, let me help you out. Which way did you come in?
>
> But I *did* relate to the Kennedy assassination! That was the whole point.

No, you just wanted to spew your Trump hate campaign.
I tried to help you relate it to the JFK assassination.

> I was making an analogy about how the FBI (or any investigative body)
> might engage in cover-your-ass activity without necessarily being involved
> in the crime itself.
>

Oh, so now you're copying me? Not very polite.
And people will call you a conspiracy kook.

> Many CTs accuse the FBI of covering up the crime, framing Oswald, or

Sure, and some CTer accuse the aliens, and some accuse the CIA, and some
accuse the Cuban exiles, and some accuse the Mafia. New to this?
I even know one kook who claims a SS agent shot JFK in the head!!

> actually being the architects (mostly J. Edgar Hoover in concert with LBJ)
> of the assassination.
>

A lot of kooks claim that LBJ was the real mastermind and Hoover just
went along with it.
I can't recognize Hoover as the grassy knoll shooter.

> The FBI is going to get a lot of criticism thrown in its direction
> regarding Omar Marteen. It has already started. I can understand why they

Nope, no one ever takes the blame.

> would not view him as an immediate threat in much the same way as the FBI
> never considered Oswald much of a threat.
>

Now, THAT's a direct comparison and very apt. Congrats.

> The POINT I'm making is that CTs do not seem to understand this dynamic.

The point is that I write about it all the time and you call ME a kook.
Welcome to my club.

> In their world, if the FBI covers something up, it MUST mean that they
> have involvement in the assassination plot or the cover-up of the plot.

Some people always think that. There is also the corollary that if
someone is covering up something that alone proves that it was a
conspiracy. Just a simple accident will not satisfy them. If there is a
hurricane, they say it must be a conspiracy.

>
>> What exactly did the FBI know about Ruby?
>
> Night club owners, since they had involvement with unsavory, underworld
> characters, were routinely used as informants. Ruby was no different. Yet,
> Ruby never seemed to provide anything of significance.
>

Well, we are not allowed to ask. What did they know about his gunrunning
and meeting with a Mafioso in Cuba?

> http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10488#relPageId=92
>
> Pat yourself on the back for understanding this "benign cover-up" concept.
> You have to admit, there are a lot of your CT brethren who certainly do
> NOT believe it to be "benign" and do NOT see it as a cover-your-ass issue.

So, why can't you just accept Hosty's theory about the benign cover-up?
Didn't you read my article about Hoover and LBJ really thinking it was
Castro so they covered that up to prevent WWIII?
He wouldn't lie about a thing like that, would he?

> Hell, entire books have been written pointing the finger directly at J.
> Edgar Hoover as a main instrument of the assassination plot who had
> pre-knowledge.
>

Yeah, I like it. How about Hoover being part of the homosexual thrill
killing plot that Garrison mentioned? Maybe we could compare that the
the massacre in Orlando. Oh, oops, forgot that Hoover is dead.
Well, maybe SOMETHING like that.

> Tony, I can't come up with ONE thing that is universal for all CTs. That's
> because the CT world is so varied. After over half-a-century, their
> opinions continue to diverge, not coalesce.
>

How about just the FACT that it was a conspiracy, regardless of which
flavor.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Edward Bauer]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 3:34:08 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

From a practical standpoint, what can law enforcement do? Hold Oswald,
Marteen and all Red Flags like them indefinitely without charges? As far
as I know, it’s not a crime to buy guns or body armor. Would 24/7
surveillance of all these Red Flags, even if that were possible, have
prevented their crimes?

If we could comb their past threats and get convictions, how long can they
reasonably be expected to be incarcerated for a threat? Isn’t
that just kicking the can?

[Edward Bauer]

Destruction of the Hosty note was, of course, pure CYA by the FBI. The
rest of the Hoover FBI’s cover-up was to uphold the image of
Secret Service impenetrability, and was, at least in their own minds, for
the good of the country.

[Mark OBLAZNEY]

I hear they use nanodust to track people now. That's why ISIS is losing,
and that's how "they" know where Anthony is at ALL times of the day (and
night).

[Bud]

Didn`t realize New England was so advanced.

[bigdog]

Putting 24/7 surveillance on these all these red flags isn't feasible. I
guess the question is how many reports does the FBI get about people
buying large quantities of ammo AND body armor. A handful? A few dozen? A
few hundred? If it is just a handful then I think certainly those few
people should be priorities. It might be sufficient probable cause to get
a warrant to do electronic surveillance of him. Perhaps putting a tracking
device on his car to monitor his movements. Of course if he was just a
lone wolf he might not have given advance indications of his intentions.
But maybe he would have tipped his hand in some way that would have
allowed his arrest and prosecution.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well, something like that. It's called nano RFID. The slang term is
dust. They don't need that to track me.

[Anthony Marsh]

Now, wait a minute. You say the FBI engaged in the cover-up to protect
the Secret Service? Then did the CIA engage in the cover-up to protect
the FBI? Then did the Secret Service engage in the cover-up to protect
the CIA? Why wasn't Forestry service helping in the cover-up to protect
somebody?

[John Paul Jones]

[John Paul Jones]

On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 12:34:08 PM UTC-7, David Emerling wrote:

Im hearing that Jeh Johnson ordered the files relative to muslims to be
erased so as not to offend the terrorists.

[Anthony Marsh]

Are you crazy or just naive. They don't need no damn stinkin warrant. I
explained this he in this newsgroup even before 9/11. Everyone and
everything is always under surveillance all the time. No warrants.
You seem to forget that my father worked for the NSA. It's the only
government agency which actually listens to you.

> device on his car to monitor his movements. Of course if he was just a
> lone wolf he might not have given advance indications of his intentions.

Oh, you mean like traveling to Saudi Arabia twice for training by al
Qaeda. You think everyone normally does that?
Or do you like writing messages in this newsgroup saying that he's
opposed to assassination? That's enough to get him on a watchlist and
investigated by the FBI.
Or you mean like handing out Hands Off Cuba leaflets? That's enough to
get Oswald on the watchlist. But meeting with the KGB head of
assassinations was not?

> But maybe he would have tipped his hand in some way that would have
> allowed his arrest and prosecution.
>

Arrest for what?
For praying?

[Anthony Marsh]

You hear voices in your head. They're not real.

[Anthony Marsh]

Not exactly.

[David Emerling]

On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 10:09:16 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> No, you just wanted to spew your Trump hate campaign.
> I tried to help you relate it to the JFK assassination.

Trump? What the hell are you talking about? I never said a thing about
Trump in this thread - nor even hinted at it. I think the man doth protest
too much.

> > I was making an analogy about how the FBI (or any investigative body)
> > might engage in cover-your-ass activity without necessarily being involved
> > in the crime itself.
> >
>
> Oh, so now you're copying me? Not very polite.
> And people will call you a conspiracy kook.

Copying you? Don't flatter yourself. I don't read 99% of what you write. I
don't live in this forum like you do.

> How about just the FACT that it was a conspiracy, regardless of which
> flavor.

Ahh - the old anti-theory theory. You don't know WHAT happened, you only
know what DIDN'T happen. Yeah, that's brilliant. This gives you the luxury
of splitting hairs with the Warren Commission without having to produce a
reasonable alternative. That's not research. It hardly amounts to an
opinion. It sounds more like a hunch.

Basically, with all the conspiracy crap out there ... you're basically
saying "Where there's smoke, there's fire. So, obviously, there must be
SOME kind of conspiracy. I don't know what it was ... but there must be
one." We would disagree what amounts to "smoke", however.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 10:31:43 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> Are you crazy or just naive. They don't need no damn stinkin warrant. I
> explained this he in this newsgroup even before 9/11. Everyone and
> everything is always under surveillance all the time. No warrants.
> You seem to forget that my father worked for the NSA. It's the only
> government agency which actually listens to you.

This is best example of a mindset that predominates in the conspiracy
community. It reveals their inherent paranoia and cynicism - an aspect of
their worldview that nearly all of them share. Big brother is watching. We
are all being held down by "the man".

Yes, we're aware that many U.S. cities have cameras on the street corners
these days. Cameras are in stores. Cameras are nearly in all areas where
the public frequents. To what extent that the somebody is actually
reviewing hours and hours of this footage - I don't know. I suspect they
only look at it when an "event" occurs.

If your father shared with you the inner-workings of the NSA, he wasn't
very good at his job. Because, here you are now, telling us about how the
NSA is pervasive in our lives. Was that the message your father wanted to
send you so that you could warn others on the internet?

My dad was in the Navy during WWII. He told me a lot of his "war stories".
I doubt half of them were true. But it was certainly entertaining.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/21/2016 11:18 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 10:31:43 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Are you crazy or just naive. They don't need no damn stinkin warrant. I
>> explained this he in this newsgroup even before 9/11. Everyone and
>> everything is always under surveillance all the time. No warrants.
>> You seem to forget that my father worked for the NSA. It's the only
>> government agency which actually listens to you.
>
> This is best example of a mindset that predominates in the conspiracy
> community. It reveals their inherent paranoia and cynicism - an aspect of
> their worldview that nearly all of them share. Big brother is watching. We
> are all being held down by "the man".
>

Exactly. One has to be paranoid to think that conspiracies ever happen. To
be sane you have to accept whatever the government says. So there was not
a breakin at Watergate and Saddam Hussein still has nuclear weapons. Thank
you Big Brother for curing us of our thought crimes.

> Yes, we're aware that many U.S. cities have cameras on the street corners
> these days. Cameras are in stores. Cameras are nearly in all areas where
> the public frequents. To what extent that the somebody is actually
> reviewing hours and hours of this footage - I don't know. I suspect they
> only look at it when an "event" occurs.
>

Well, it's worse that that. Often the don't even look until something
bad happens. They just record over the old tape. Just like the CIA did
in Mexico city. Sometimes they don't even translate tapes until many
years later. It took them 5 years before they translated the tape where
Osama bin Laden gave the order for 9/11.
Your tax dollars at work.

> If your father shared with you the inner-workings of the NSA, he wasn't
> very good at his job. Because, here you are now, telling us about how the

Silly. NSA officers are allowed to reveal to their families the fact
that they work at the NSA. He did not share the details until many years
after he resigned.

> NSA is pervasive in our lives. Was that the message your father wanted to

Not just the NSA. There is a whole alphabet soup. My father was the
liaison to almost all of them.

> send you so that you could warn others on the internet?

No silly. It was his chance to tell someone he could trust would know
what to do with the information.

>
> My dad was in the Navy during WWII. He told me a lot of his "war stories".
> I doubt half of them were true. But it was certainly entertaining.
>

So, as usual when you are confronted with the truth your only way out is
to call the person a liar. In violation of the rules here.
Perfect.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/21/2016 11:18 PM, David Emerling wrote:

> On Monday, June 20, 2016 at 10:31:43 AM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> Are you crazy or just naive. They don't need no damn stinkin warrant. I
>> explained this he in this newsgroup even before 9/11. Everyone and
>> everything is always under surveillance all the time. No warrants.
>> You seem to forget that my father worked for the NSA. It's the only
>> government agency which actually listens to you.
>
> This is best example of a mindset that predominates in the conspiracy
> community. It reveals their inherent paranoia and cynicism - an aspect of
> their worldview that nearly all of them share. Big brother is watching. We
> are all being held down by "the man".
>
> Yes, we're aware that many U.S. cities have cameras on the street corners
> these days. Cameras are in stores. Cameras are nearly in all areas where
> the public frequents. To what extent that the somebody is actually
> reviewing hours and hours of this footage - I don't know. I suspect they
> only look at it when an "event" occurs.
>
> If your father shared with you the inner-workings of the NSA, he wasn't
> very good at his job. Because, here you are now, telling us about how the
> NSA is pervasive in our lives. Was that the message your father wanted to
> send you so that you could warn others on the internet?
>

Is that what they call an anachronism? My father resigned from the NSA
in the spring of 1954. But the Internet, as we know it today, was not
deployed until 1983.

Or do you mean when he broke away from the CIA?
I am not allowed to tell you the exact date, but it was just after the
Hostage crisis. Watch the movie Argo. The CIA leaked his identity and
got a friend of his killed.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/21/2016 11:15 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Friday, June 17, 2016 at 10:09:16 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
>> No, you just wanted to spew your Trump hate campaign.
>> I tried to help you relate it to the JFK assassination.
>
> Trump? What the hell are you talking about? I never said a thing about
> Trump in this thread - nor even hinted at it. I think the man doth protest
> too much.
>

I said you are copying his style. Do you also have a comb over?

>>> I was making an analogy about how the FBI (or any investigative body)
>>> might engage in cover-your-ass activity without necessarily being involved
>>> in the crime itself.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, so now you're copying me? Not very polite.
>> And people will call you a conspiracy kook.
>
> Copying you? Don't flatter yourself. I don't read 99% of what you write. I
> don't live in this forum like you do.
>

Then why are you here? Just to attack conspiracy believers.
Not much of a job, but I guess it's better than welfare.

>> How about just the FACT that it was a conspiracy, regardless of which
>> flavor.
>
> Ahh - the old anti-theory theory. You don't know WHAT happened, you only
> know what DIDN'T happen. Yeah, that's brilliant. This gives you the luxury

That's not the way it works. We can know that it was a crime without
knowing who did it. Basic logic.

> of splitting hairs with the Warren Commission without having to produce a
> reasonable alternative. That's not research. It hardly amounts to an

I don't split hairs. I destroy.
Did YOU prove that the Zapruder film is authentic?
Have you ever proved anything in your life?
You can't even prove what your real name is. Maybe it's been so long ago
that you forgot.

> opinion. It sounds more like a hunch.
>
> Basically, with all the conspiracy crap out there ... you're basically
> saying "Where there's smoke, there's fire. So, obviously, there must be
> SOME kind of conspiracy. I don't know what it was ... but there must be
> one." We would disagree what amounts to "smoke", however.
>

I think I complained about that a long time ago. Where there's smoke
there's Oliver Stone's special effects team on the grassy knoll. We
disagree on what type of smoke. Steve and I agree it was cigarette smoke.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[BOZ]

Make sure you vote for Trump EMERLING. I told you he would win. Start
listening.

[Anthony Marsh]

Jeez, do you really have to admit that you are a Trump supporter?

[BOZ]

Jeez, do you really have to admit that your ancestor was on THE FORTUNE?