Oswald and his 12 Handlers
John Blubaugh
of spooks and covert operations.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/oswald-and-12-handlers.html
JB
Chuck Schuyler
Lemme guess...this is another one of your "just trying to see if we're
paying attention" posts, right?
John Blubaugh
Nope. I have no idea how accurate it might be. See, all you have to do
is ask.
JB
bigdog
Why do you post things if you don't believe them? It's not like there
is a shortage of assassination myths. If we really thought we needed
more, I don't think any of us would have any trouble finding them.
bigdog
Well this schmuck has really upped the ante. We've been told for years
about how Oswald's handlers got him to do all the things he needed to do
to make himself look guilty. Most of us thought two or three handlers
would be enough for that chore, but his guy has got 12 of them for poor
little old LHO. It's a good thing they didn't try to pull this thing off
with just 11 handlers or the whole thing could have blown up in their
faces.
How does one get to be a handler? What are the qualifications? How does a
handler get the handlee to do all the things they need him to do to make
the frame up work. I suppose if I was a handler, I would know those
things.
Sandy McCroskey
Which is not responsible posting.
But I'll tell you right now: it's highly inaccurate.
And guess what, John?
It comes from a right-wing "libertarian" site.
/sm
John Blubaugh
I'm pretty sure it is more accurate than any of the crap you post
every day.
JB
Anthony Marsh
Why do you buy a book if you don't believe it is 100% accurate. The word
you are looking for is "glean."
bigdog
12 handlers? Accurate? 'nuff said.
John Blubaugh
Hey, you guys quote the WCR and Bugs all of the time and what could be
more inaccurate than that. I was honest, I can't vouch for the accuracy of
this or anything else that is posted. I have no way of knowing. So what if
it was from a "libertarian" site? Are they not allowed to do research and
voice their ideas and theories? So point out how it is inaccurate.
Jason Burke
> On Feb 21, 7:39 pm, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 10:19 am, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 21, 12:44 am, Chuck Schuyler<chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Feb 20, 9:24 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> This is a very interesting article and it highlights the tangled world
>>>>> of spooks and covert operations.
>>
>>>>> http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/oswald-and-12-handlers.html
>>
>>>>> JB
>>
>>>> Lemme guess...this is another one of your "just trying to see if we're
>>>> paying attention" posts, right?
>>
>>> Nope. I have no idea how accurate it might be.
>>
>> Which is not responsible posting.
>> But I'll tell you right now: it's highly inaccurate.
>> And guess what, John?
>> It comes from a right-wing "libertarian" site.
>> /sm
>
> Hey, you guys quote the WCR and Bugs all of the time and what could be
> more inaccurate than that. I was honest, I can't vouch for the accuracy of
> this or anything else that is posted.
You certainly can't vouch for the accuracy of ANYTHING you have posted.
John Blubaugh
>
Did you bother to read it? Why, of course you didn't. But not knowing
anything about the things you talk about has never stopped you has it?
JB
bigdog
> On Feb 21, 7:39 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 10:19 am, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 12:44 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 20, 9:24 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > This is a very interesting article and it highlights the tangled world
> > > > > of spooks and covert operations.
>
> > > > >http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/oswald-and-12-handlers.html
>
> > > > > JB
>
> > > > Lemme guess...this is another one of your "just trying to see if we're
> > > > paying attention" posts, right?
>
> > > Nope. I have no idea how accurate it might be.
>
> > Which is not responsible posting.
> > But I'll tell you right now: it's highly inaccurate.
> > And guess what, John?
> > It comes from a right-wing "libertarian" site.
> > /sm
>
> Hey, you guys quote the WCR and Bugs all of the time and what could be
> more inaccurate than that.
Just about everything else.
> I was honest, I can't vouch for the accuracy of
> this or anything else that is posted.
There may be hope for you, slim as it may be.
> I have no way of knowing. So what if
> it was from a "libertarian" site? Are they not allowed to do research and
> voice their ideas and theories? So point out how it is inaccurate.
It appears my fellow libertarians can be as gullible as anybody else.
bigdog
I read to the part where he said we may never know who fired the shots.
Anybody who can't figure out something as simple as that isn't worth
wasting time on.
Sandy McCroskey
> On Feb 21, 7:39 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 10:19 am, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 21, 12:44 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 20, 9:24 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > This is a very interesting article and it highlights the tangled world
> > > > > of spooks and covert operations.
>
> > > > >http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl2/oswald-and-12-handlers.html
>
> > > > > JB
>
> > > > Lemme guess...this is another one of your "just trying to see if we're
> > > > paying attention" posts, right?
>
> > > Nope. I have no idea how accurate it might be.
>
> > Which is not responsible posting.
> > But I'll tell you right now: it's highly inaccurate.
> > And guess what, John?
> > It comes from a right-wing "libertarian" site.
> > /sm
>
> Hey, you guys quote the WCR and Bugs all of the time and what could be
> more inaccurate than that. I was honest, I can't vouch for the accuracy of
> this or anything else that is posted.
You can say that again.
I, however, wouldn't post anything if I didn't feel it was
substantially accurate.
It's been clear for a long time that your criteria are different.
> I have no way of knowing.
You can say that again.
> So what if
> it was from a "libertarian" site?
Right-wing "libertarian." "Pro-market," in his own words.
> Are they not allowed to do research and
> voice their ideas and theories?
Sure, but you're the one who's always insisting that LNs are all
"right-wingers" (which isn't true), as if that disqualifies anything
an LN says.
> So point out how it is inaccurate.
Yawwwwwwnnnnn... It's been a long day.
Maybe I will, if and when I find the time.
But I didn't put it out there. It's really not my responsibility.
/sm
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Then you only bother with about a dozen or so people in the world who
agree with you and they are all here. That is convenient. The entire rest
of the world doesn't know who the shooter was including me and you waste
time with me every day.
JB
Anthony Marsh
When is the last time you ever posted any documents? Never?
When have you ever gotten documents declassified via FOIA?
That is not your role here. You are here only to attack and everyone
knows it.
>> I have no way of knowing.
>
> You can say that again.
>
>> So what if
>> it was from a "libertarian" site?
>
> Right-wing "libertarian." "Pro-market," in his own words.
>
>> Are they not allowed to do research and
>> voice their ideas and theories?
>
> Sure, but you're the one who's always insisting that LNs are all
> "right-wingers" (which isn't true), as if that disqualifies anything
> an LN says.
>
No one said all. Most admit it.
And all WC defenders are disqualified by the fact that they refuse to
look at the evidence.
claviger
JB,
Have you read all the installments on this article? I can only find 5
parts and not able to locate part 6. From what I can tell not all parts
are on the same website above. Interesting story so far, but yet to make
any connection. I'm assuming Simpich will try to connect Oswald and
Webster as his double.
To read part 5 had to go to another website:
http://qwstnevrythg.com/2010/12/double-dangle/
How many parts are there?
bigdog
1. Those who are ignorant of the body of evidence.
2. Those who can't add 2 + 2.
Sandy McCroskey
I'm sure you have a special meaning in mind for "documents" that allows
you to make such a statement in good conscience. I've posted documentation
for virtually every assertion I've made here.
And then I've rolled on the floor laughing at the attempts of my
interlocutors to get around the plain evidence. To take an egregious
example, Blubaugh doesn't even accept the fact that I'm a leftist, and
despite the prominence of Vincent Bugliosi as a LN, continues to repeat
his mantra that anyone who doesn't believe there was a conspiracy (which
is the sole CT credo, for lack of any coherent conspiracy theory) must be
a right-winger.
As for you, well, we're agreed, aren't we, that there was one head shot
(not two, nearly simultaneous)? OK! And that shot hit between Z-frames 312
and 313: who could argue the contrary?
It is also evident and uncontrovertible that JFK's head continued to move
forward between those frames, not backward, and that the bullet has
already left his brain in 313. Now, you and others who insist that a shot
from the front is indicated by JFK's backward motion starting in frame 314
have no argument against this. All you can do is try to obfuscate the
issue. Your supposed exploding bullet, detonated "nanoseconds after
impact," is obviously no argument against what anybody can see in frames
312 and 313. Whatever you do, Marsh, don't think about it too much!
> When have you ever gotten documents declassified via FOIA?
> That is not your role here. You are here only to attack and everyone
> knows it.
>
Since I don't expect any diehard CT who has (sadly) wasted his life
looking for "documents" with any tangential bearing on a case that was
solved lonnnng ago to *ever* face the cold light of dawn, I guess I am
here mainly to amuse myself... but, even if only secondarily, I am also
here to alert any innocent newbies by pointing out the CTs' endless non
sequiturs, faults of logic and baseless assertions.
All of which is the stuff of comedy. What could be more ridiculous than
the notion that Richard Helms offed the president just because he was
afraid of losing his job? Keep 'em coming!
/sandy
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Those who think that they do know who shot JFK:
1. Don't care about the truth.
2. Accept government propaganda at every turn.
JB
Anthony Marsh
Neither do I. I have seen several people from the Nation speaking out
about and supporting the protests in Madison, some on live TV from the
site of the protests, but nothing from you.
> despite the prominence of Vincent Bugliosi as a LN, continues to repeat
> his mantra that anyone who doesn't believe there was a conspiracy (which
> is the sole CT credo, for lack of any coherent conspiracy theory) must be
> a right-winger.
>
Not all WC defenders are rightwingers. Some rightwingers are conspiracy
believers.
> As for you, well, we're agreed, aren't we, that there was one head shot
> (not two, nearly simultaneous)? OK! And that shot hit between Z-frames 312
> and 313: who could argue the contrary?
>
> It is also evident and uncontrovertible that JFK's head continued to move
> forward between those frames, not backward, and that the bullet has
> already left his brain in 313. Now, you and others who insist that a shot
Yes, it is evident and incontrovertible that JFK's head was moving
forward for several frames before 313.
> from the front is indicated by JFK's backward motion starting in frame 314
> have no argument against this. All you can do is try to obfuscate the
> issue. Your supposed exploding bullet, detonated "nanoseconds after
> impact," is obviously no argument against what anybody can see in frames
> 312 and 313. Whatever you do, Marsh, don't think about it too much!
>
>> When have you ever gotten documents declassified via FOIA?
>> That is not your role here. You are here only to attack and everyone
>> knows it.
>>
>
> Since I don't expect any diehard CT who has (sadly) wasted his life
> looking for "documents" with any tangential bearing on a case that was
> solved lonnnng ago to *ever* face the cold light of dawn, I guess I am
You seem to be unaware that real researchers who just happen to be WC
defenders like Todd Vaughan and Ken Rahn have wasted a lot of their lives
visiting the archives and getting documents declassified. You, nothing.
> here mainly to amuse myself... but, even if only secondarily, I am also
> here to alert any innocent newbies by pointing out the CTs' endless non
> sequiturs, faults of logic and baseless assertions.
>
But never read the declassified documents.
> All of which is the stuff of comedy. What could be more ridiculous than
> the notion that Richard Helms offed the president just because he was
> afraid of losing his job? Keep 'em coming!
>
He was protecting the Agency.
> /sandy
bigdog
You mean like the HSCA conclusion of a probable conspiracy? Which one of
us accepts that?
Jason Burke
Oh! Oh! I know! It's Blubaugh! But he only accepts it because it's been
totally debunked.
John Blubaugh
I agree with that little part of it but with very little else.
JB
Sandy McCroskey
Ha ha. Now, that's funny!
The entire staff of the magazine can't drop everything and run around
the country. We have a magazine and a website to produce.
One thing I do at The Nation is copy-edit the blogs that are posted by
those reporters and commentators you've been seeing on TV.
> > despite the prominence of Vincent Bugliosi as a LN, continues to repeat
> > his mantra that anyone who doesn't believe there was a conspiracy (which
> > is the sole CT credo, for lack of any coherent conspiracy theory) must be
> > a right-winger.
>
> Not all WC defenders are rightwingers. Some rightwingers are conspiracy
> believers.
>
> > As for you, well, we're agreed, aren't we, that there was one head shot
> > (not two, nearly simultaneous)? OK! And that shot hit between Z-frames 312
> > and 313: who could argue the contrary?
>
> > It is also evident and uncontrovertible that JFK's head continued to move
> > forward between those frames, not backward, and that the bullet has
> > already left his brain in 313. Now, you and others who insist that a shot
>
> Yes, it is evident and incontrovertible that JFK's head was moving
> forward for several frames before 313.
>
You crack me up. You just can't say it, but it's evident and
incontrovertible that JFK's head continued to move forward after he
was hit, before frame 313 and after frame 312.
> > from the front is indicated by JFK's backward motion starting in frame 314
> > have no argument against this. All you can do is try to obfuscate the
> > issue. Your supposed exploding bullet, detonated "nanoseconds after
> > impact," is obviously no argument against what anybody can see in frames
> > 312 and 313. Whatever you do, Marsh, don't think about it too much!
>
> >> When have you ever gotten documents declassified via FOIA?
> >> That is not your role here. You are here only to attack and everyone
> >> knows it.
>
> > Since I don't expect any diehard CT who has (sadly) wasted his life
> > looking for "documents" with any tangential bearing on a case that was
> > solved lonnnng ago to *ever* face the cold light of dawn, I guess I am
>
> You seem to be unaware that real researchers who just happen to be WC
> defenders like Todd Vaughan and Ken Rahn have wasted a lot of their lives
> visiting the archives and getting documents declassified. You, nothing.
>
The study of history is certainly worthwhile.
But it's not necessary to do original research to know the answers to
the two main questions, Who killed Kennedy? and Is there evidence of
conspiracy?
No unearthed document is going to exonerate Oswald or show that he was
somebody's puppet.
> > here mainly to amuse myself... but, even if only secondarily, I am also
> > here to alert any innocent newbies by pointing out the CTs' endless non
> > sequiturs, faults of logic and baseless assertions.
>
> But never read the declassified documents.
Wrong.
>
> > All of which is the stuff of comedy. What could be more ridiculous than
> > the notion that Richard Helms offed the president just because he was
> > afraid of losing his job? Keep 'em coming!
>
> He was protecting the Agency.
>
Says Tony Marsh.
Prove it.
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Nice excuse. So your entire department would come screeching to a halt if
you were out on the road for one day? Is that what happens when you spend
a weekend at the Koch brothers retreat?
>
>
>>> despite the prominence of Vincent Bugliosi as a LN, continues to repeat
>>> his mantra that anyone who doesn't believe there was a conspiracy (which
>>> is the sole CT credo, for lack of any coherent conspiracy theory) must be
>>> a right-winger.
>>
>> Not all WC defenders are rightwingers. Some rightwingers are conspiracy
>> believers.
>>
>>> As for you, well, we're agreed, aren't we, that there was one head shot
>>> (not two, nearly simultaneous)? OK! And that shot hit between Z-frames 312
>>> and 313: who could argue the contrary?
>>
>>> It is also evident and uncontrovertible that JFK's head continued to move
>>> forward between those frames, not backward, and that the bullet has
>>> already left his brain in 313. Now, you and others who insist that a shot
>>
>> Yes, it is evident and incontrovertible that JFK's head was moving
>> forward for several frames before 313.
>>
>
> You crack me up. You just can't say it, but it's evident and
> incontrovertible that JFK's head continued to move forward after he
> was hit, before frame 313 and after frame 312.
>
You crack me up. You just can't say it, but it's evident and
incontrovertible that JFK's head continued to move forward BEFORE he
> was hit, before frame 313.
>>> from the front is indicated by JFK's backward motion starting in frame 314
>>> have no argument against this. All you can do is try to obfuscate the
>>> issue. Your supposed exploding bullet, detonated "nanoseconds after
>>> impact," is obviously no argument against what anybody can see in frames
>>> 312 and 313. Whatever you do, Marsh, don't think about it too much!
>>
>>>> When have you ever gotten documents declassified via FOIA?
>>>> That is not your role here. You are here only to attack and everyone
>>>> knows it.
>>
>>> Since I don't expect any diehard CT who has (sadly) wasted his life
>>> looking for "documents" with any tangential bearing on a case that was
>>> solved lonnnng ago to *ever* face the cold light of dawn, I guess I am
>>
>> You seem to be unaware that real researchers who just happen to be WC
>> defenders like Todd Vaughan and Ken Rahn have wasted a lot of their lives
>> visiting the archives and getting documents declassified. You, nothing.
>>
>
> The study of history is certainly worthwhile.
> But it's not necessary to do original research to know the answers to
> the two main questions, Who killed Kennedy? and Is there evidence of
> conspiracy?
> No unearthed document is going to exonerate Oswald or show that he was
> somebody's puppet.
>
Then how do you explain some WC defenders who do actual research? If the
WC has all the answers then why so many subsequent investigations? I
unearthed the Pedro Charles letters which is what made Hoover and LBJ
think that Oswald was Castro's puppet.
Sandy McCroskey
I can't believe how silly you're being.
Actually, something always does get bollixed up when I go on
vacation... part of which usually involves a stay at the home of
Jeanne Singer on Rue de Bièvre in Paris. That's the widow of Daniel
Singer. See danielsinger.org.
I have participated in protests that go on in NYC, and I've marched
with protesters in Paris, for that matter.
That's as a private citizen, not on assignment from the magazine.
But I don't eat, sleep, and breathe politics. I have to save some time
to attend shows by artist friends and fellow obscure composers.
>
>
>
> >>> despite the prominence of Vincent Bugliosi as a LN, continues to repeat
> >>> his mantra that anyone who doesn't believe there was a conspiracy (which
> >>> is the sole CT credo, for lack of any coherent conspiracy theory) must be
> >>> a right-winger.
>
> >> Not all WC defenders are rightwingers. Some rightwingers are conspiracy
> >> believers.
>
> >>> As for you, well, we're agreed, aren't we, that there was one head shot
> >>> (not two, nearly simultaneous)? OK! And that shot hit between Z-frames 312
> >>> and 313: who could argue the contrary?
>
> >>> It is also evident and uncontrovertible that JFK's head continued to move
> >>> forward between those frames, not backward, and that the bullet has
> >>> already left his brain in 313. Now, you and others who insist that a shot
>
> >> Yes, it is evident and incontrovertible that JFK's head was moving
> >> forward for several frames before 313.
>
> > You crack me up. You just can't say it, but it's evident and
> > incontrovertible that JFK's head continued to move forward after he
> > was hit, before frame 313 and after frame 312.
>
> You crack me up. You just can't say it, but it's evident and
> incontrovertible that JFK's head continued to move forward BEFORE he
> > was hit, before frame 313.
>
You're full of it.
I took care to say *exactly* that. I said his head "continues" to move
forward after he was hit, between frames 312 and 313.
>
> >>> from the front is indicated by JFK's backward motion starting in frame 314
> >>> have no argument against this. All you can do is try to obfuscate the
> >>> issue. Your supposed exploding bullet, detonated "nanoseconds after
> >>> impact," is obviously no argument against what anybody can see in frames
> >>> 312 and 313. Whatever you do, Marsh, don't think about it too much!
>
> >>>> When have you ever gotten documents declassified via FOIA?
> >>>> That is not your role here. You are here only to attack and everyone
> >>>> knows it.
>
> >>> Since I don't expect any diehard CT who has (sadly) wasted his life
> >>> looking for "documents" with any tangential bearing on a case that was
> >>> solved lonnnng ago to *ever* face the cold light of dawn, I guess I am
>
> >> You seem to be unaware that real researchers who just happen to be WC
> >> defenders like Todd Vaughan and Ken Rahn have wasted a lot of their lives
> >> visiting the archives and getting documents declassified. You, nothing.
>
> > The study of history is certainly worthwhile.
> > But it's not necessary to do original research to know the answers to
> > the two main questions, Who killed Kennedy? and Is there evidence of
> > conspiracy?
> > No unearthed document is going to exonerate Oswald or show that he was
> > somebody's puppet.
>
> Then how do you explain some WC defenders who do actual research?
What exactly requires explaining?
They were curious about something, so they looked into it.
/sm
Sandy McCroskey
Why aren't *you* in Madison, then, Tony, if it is every leftist's duty?
Why should you be any less obligated than I, just because help produce a
political magazine/website and you drive a city bus? What difference does
that make?
/sm
Anthony Marsh
Because I am too poor.
> Why should you be any less obligated than I, just because help produce a
> political magazine/website and you drive a city bus? What difference does
> that make?
>
> /sm
I also produce a political website. I don't drive a city bus. Why is it
that you never bother to learn any facts but instead spend all your time
here making personal attacks?
John Blubaugh
>
That is because he is not capable of doing anything else.
JB
Sandy McCroskey
Yes, I can see the intense work that you put into that, on a daily
basis.
/sm
Sandy McCroskey
So your staying put doesn't mean that you're not a leftist?
> > Why should you be any less obligated than I, just because help produce a
> > political magazine/website and you drive a city bus? What difference does
> > that make?
>
> > /sm
>
> I also produce a political website. I don't drive a city bus. Why is it
> that you never bother to learn any facts but instead spend all your time
> here making personal attacks?
I wasn't aware that you had stopped driving the bus. (That it was a
"city" bus was admittedly an assumption.)
For all I know, or care, you do nothing now but post here... which
posting you amusingly call "political," though it's not helping any
imaginable leftist cause.
/sm
Sandy McCroskey
You need to learn what a "fact" is. It's true that I haven't, like you,
served up incredible factoids that belong in News of the World, but only
true facts, along with logical conclusions, all of which apparently you
find boring and somehow easy to ignore. Not that the fact that you have no
workable answers when I challenge your sorry excuses for a "theory" has
anything to do with this.
/sm
Sandy McCroskey
>
> JB
Ha ha.
This post *of yours* is nothing but a personal attack and contains no
fact whatsoever.
But the irony is no doubt unintentional.
/sm
John Blubaugh
>
That was not an attack. It was an observation.
JB
Sandy McCroskey
It was indeed an excellent indication of your powers of observation.
/sm