Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
JFK political correctness today
128 views
Skip to first unread message
Ralph Cinque
Mar 3, 2017, 10:26:29 PM3/3/17
to
Let's look at the state of political correctness today concerning the JFK
assassination. Basically, there is no tolerance for dissent from the
official story that Oswald did it and did it alone. The only departure
from it that is semi-tolerated is if you say that it's hard for you to
believe that Oswald acted alone, that someone may have helped him in some
way, but you don't know who or how. As long as you leave it vague and
don't suggest that anyone connected to the US government was involved, you
may get away with it. After all, the government's own investigators, the
HSCA, came to that conclusion, and really it is Government Story #2, for
those who aren't happy with Government Story #1.
But, if you try, in any way, shape, or form, to suggest that Oswald was
innocent, that he didn't do it, then you've had it. You're in trouble. You
will lose your job. If you work for the federal government, and you are
vocal about it, you will lose your job.
And I can give you an example about that except that it pertained to 9/11
truth rather than JFK truth. I am speaking of Van Johnson, who worked at
Obama's Green Secretary. It was discovered that he had signed a 9/11 truth
petition years before. He tried to disavow it, saying that people are
constantly shoving things into his hand to sign. But, soon afterwards, he
resigned, which is to say that he was told that he could either resign or
be fired. So, he chose to resign.
And here is an example pertaining to JFK except it involves the media
rather than the government, which is scary in itself because the media is
supposed to be free of political correctness. I am referring to Judge
Andrew Napolitano who had a show on Fox called Freedom Watch. I saw and
heard what happened live.
Judge Napolitano had a guest on and they were discussing financial matters
including the Federal Reserve. On national television, Judge Napolitano
said:
"The last President to stand up to and challenge the power of the Federal
Reserve was John Kennedy, and you know what happened to him."
Wow! You have to understand how politically incorrect that was. It was
equivalent to saying that the government killed Kennedy. And, he didn't
even mention Oswald, implying that Oswald had nothing to do with it. You
have realize how bad this was, how threatening and damning it was to the
official story. It was was as threatening and damning to the official
story as anything I have ever said, including Oswald in the doorway.
And the result was, he lost his job; he lost his show. Even though it was
successful; even though it was profitable; even though the audience was
growing and expanding, FOX pulled the plug. Why did they do that?
They did it because they are a news organization, and 90% of the news is
government news. What did the government do today? What new law did they
pass? What new data did they release? What new person did they appoint?
What new grant did they award? Who'd they kill? That's most of the news.
Government is what provides news organization with most of their fodder.
So, news organization tend to be very pro-government,
pro-official-stories, pro-official-explanations, etc. And, there is a lot
of traffic between government and media. George Stephanopoulos started as
a campaign operative for Bill Clinton and then, in his administration,
became his Communications Director and Policy Adviser which he did until
1996. Today, he is the top political correspondent for ABC News. The role
of media today is to spoon-feed government dictums to the people. There is
no independent media. There is no fourth estate. Look what happened in the
lead-up to the Gulf War. All the media stations supported George W. Bush's
war. And if they invited someone on to debate it, to denounce it, who was
it? An actor like Mike Farrell. A comediane like Jeanene Garofalo. And
hey, I appreciate what these individuals tried to do, which was stop the
war. But, they walked into a trap. They were invariably outnumbered and
made to look fringe, alien, and out of touch. And, I think they held up
very well under the circumstances. Still, they were used and abused.
But, it wasn't always that way. There were plenty of Northern newspapers-
not just Southern ones but Northern ones- that denounced Lincoln's war and
really trashed him for it. Of course, Lincoln responded by shutting down
newspapers and locking up editors and throwing away the keys. Habeus
corpus rights? Forget about it. Chief Justice Roger Taney was so appalled,
he stated publicly that what Lincoln was doing was unconstitutional. And
how did Lincoln respond? He ordered U.S. marshals to arrest the Chief
Justice Taney and haul him off in shackles. Fortunately, the marshals
refused to do it, and the matter ended there.
There was more tolerance for open debate on the JFK assassination in the
early days than there is today. The televised debate between Mark Lane and
William F. Buckley (for which wide sentiment said Lane won) was historic,
looking back on it.
Do you realize that such a thing could NEVER happen today? No way. Not
even during the 50th anniversary, when there was a lot of JFK programming,
did such a thing happen. They invited Cyril Wecht on, who gave his spiel
about the Single Bullet Theory being impossible, that there was definitely
a shot from the front, hence multiple shooters, hence conspiracy, but hey,
that fits with Government Story #2, as I said at the beginning. Cyril
Wecht NEVER claims Oswald innocence. In fact, he usually expresses his
acceptance of Oswald being A shooter, but that there had to be someone
besides Oswald. Cyril Wecht defends Oswald about as much as Joseph Backes
does, which is to say: not at all. And that's why they put Wecht on tv. He
is put there as the "opposition" but he espouses most of the official
story, including the part about Oswald doing it. So, he is really helping
them because he is helping to paint the picture that the JFK debate
involves Lone Nut Oswald accusers having it out against
Oswald-did-it-with-help accusers. Yet, the fact is that most JFK
conspiracy theorists, today, believe that Oswald was innocent.
What a nauseating display of tribute to lies the pomp and circumstance in
Dealey Plaza was for the 50th anniversary. But, behind the barriers were a
swarm of people protesting that smug exercise in denialism. And that was
uplifting. The swarm of protesters was uplifting.
There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to end, and
it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
assassination. Basically, there is no tolerance for dissent from the
official story that Oswald did it and did it alone. The only departure
from it that is semi-tolerated is if you say that it's hard for you to
believe that Oswald acted alone, that someone may have helped him in some
way, but you don't know who or how. As long as you leave it vague and
don't suggest that anyone connected to the US government was involved, you
may get away with it. After all, the government's own investigators, the
HSCA, came to that conclusion, and really it is Government Story #2, for
those who aren't happy with Government Story #1.
But, if you try, in any way, shape, or form, to suggest that Oswald was
innocent, that he didn't do it, then you've had it. You're in trouble. You
will lose your job. If you work for the federal government, and you are
vocal about it, you will lose your job.
And I can give you an example about that except that it pertained to 9/11
truth rather than JFK truth. I am speaking of Van Johnson, who worked at
Obama's Green Secretary. It was discovered that he had signed a 9/11 truth
petition years before. He tried to disavow it, saying that people are
constantly shoving things into his hand to sign. But, soon afterwards, he
resigned, which is to say that he was told that he could either resign or
be fired. So, he chose to resign.
And here is an example pertaining to JFK except it involves the media
rather than the government, which is scary in itself because the media is
supposed to be free of political correctness. I am referring to Judge
Andrew Napolitano who had a show on Fox called Freedom Watch. I saw and
heard what happened live.
Judge Napolitano had a guest on and they were discussing financial matters
including the Federal Reserve. On national television, Judge Napolitano
said:
"The last President to stand up to and challenge the power of the Federal
Reserve was John Kennedy, and you know what happened to him."
Wow! You have to understand how politically incorrect that was. It was
equivalent to saying that the government killed Kennedy. And, he didn't
even mention Oswald, implying that Oswald had nothing to do with it. You
have realize how bad this was, how threatening and damning it was to the
official story. It was was as threatening and damning to the official
story as anything I have ever said, including Oswald in the doorway.
And the result was, he lost his job; he lost his show. Even though it was
successful; even though it was profitable; even though the audience was
growing and expanding, FOX pulled the plug. Why did they do that?
They did it because they are a news organization, and 90% of the news is
government news. What did the government do today? What new law did they
pass? What new data did they release? What new person did they appoint?
What new grant did they award? Who'd they kill? That's most of the news.
Government is what provides news organization with most of their fodder.
So, news organization tend to be very pro-government,
pro-official-stories, pro-official-explanations, etc. And, there is a lot
of traffic between government and media. George Stephanopoulos started as
a campaign operative for Bill Clinton and then, in his administration,
became his Communications Director and Policy Adviser which he did until
1996. Today, he is the top political correspondent for ABC News. The role
of media today is to spoon-feed government dictums to the people. There is
no independent media. There is no fourth estate. Look what happened in the
lead-up to the Gulf War. All the media stations supported George W. Bush's
war. And if they invited someone on to debate it, to denounce it, who was
it? An actor like Mike Farrell. A comediane like Jeanene Garofalo. And
hey, I appreciate what these individuals tried to do, which was stop the
war. But, they walked into a trap. They were invariably outnumbered and
made to look fringe, alien, and out of touch. And, I think they held up
very well under the circumstances. Still, they were used and abused.
But, it wasn't always that way. There were plenty of Northern newspapers-
not just Southern ones but Northern ones- that denounced Lincoln's war and
really trashed him for it. Of course, Lincoln responded by shutting down
newspapers and locking up editors and throwing away the keys. Habeus
corpus rights? Forget about it. Chief Justice Roger Taney was so appalled,
he stated publicly that what Lincoln was doing was unconstitutional. And
how did Lincoln respond? He ordered U.S. marshals to arrest the Chief
Justice Taney and haul him off in shackles. Fortunately, the marshals
refused to do it, and the matter ended there.
There was more tolerance for open debate on the JFK assassination in the
early days than there is today. The televised debate between Mark Lane and
William F. Buckley (for which wide sentiment said Lane won) was historic,
looking back on it.
Do you realize that such a thing could NEVER happen today? No way. Not
even during the 50th anniversary, when there was a lot of JFK programming,
did such a thing happen. They invited Cyril Wecht on, who gave his spiel
about the Single Bullet Theory being impossible, that there was definitely
a shot from the front, hence multiple shooters, hence conspiracy, but hey,
that fits with Government Story #2, as I said at the beginning. Cyril
Wecht NEVER claims Oswald innocence. In fact, he usually expresses his
acceptance of Oswald being A shooter, but that there had to be someone
besides Oswald. Cyril Wecht defends Oswald about as much as Joseph Backes
does, which is to say: not at all. And that's why they put Wecht on tv. He
is put there as the "opposition" but he espouses most of the official
story, including the part about Oswald doing it. So, he is really helping
them because he is helping to paint the picture that the JFK debate
involves Lone Nut Oswald accusers having it out against
Oswald-did-it-with-help accusers. Yet, the fact is that most JFK
conspiracy theorists, today, believe that Oswald was innocent.
What a nauseating display of tribute to lies the pomp and circumstance in
Dealey Plaza was for the 50th anniversary. But, behind the barriers were a
swarm of people protesting that smug exercise in denialism. And that was
uplifting. The swarm of protesters was uplifting.
There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to end, and
it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 4, 2017, 9:27:49 PM3/4/17
to
JFK was not a threat to the Federal Reserve and the Federal Reserve did
not assassinate him. Nor did the steel companies. JFK had lots of enemies,
but few were able to carry out a political assassination.
claviger
Mar 4, 2017, 9:34:24 PM3/4/17
to
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:26:29 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>
> There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
> way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
> Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
> The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
> doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to end, and
> it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
Supposedly we will find out October 26, 2017. I predict the truth will
>
> There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
> way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
> Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
> The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
> doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to end, and
> it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
not make LNs or CTs happy. It may not happen if President Trump succumbs
to appeals from the Kennedy family to postpone release for another decade.
bigdog
Mar 4, 2017, 9:39:46 PM3/4/17
to
On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 10:26:29 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Let's look at the state of political correctness today concerning the JFK
> assassination. Basically, there is no tolerance for dissent from the
> official story that Oswald did it and did it alone. The only departure
> from it that is semi-tolerated is if you say that it's hard for you to
> believe that Oswald acted alone, that someone may have helped him in some
> way, but you don't know who or how. As long as you leave it vague and
> don't suggest that anyone connected to the US government was involved, you
> may get away with it. After all, the government's own investigators, the
> HSCA, came to that conclusion, and really it is Government Story #2, for
> those who aren't happy with Government Story #1.
>
Do you think it is intolerant to tell somebody they are wrong?
> Let's look at the state of political correctness today concerning the JFK
> assassination. Basically, there is no tolerance for dissent from the
> official story that Oswald did it and did it alone. The only departure
> from it that is semi-tolerated is if you say that it's hard for you to
> believe that Oswald acted alone, that someone may have helped him in some
> way, but you don't know who or how. As long as you leave it vague and
> don't suggest that anyone connected to the US government was involved, you
> may get away with it. After all, the government's own investigators, the
> HSCA, came to that conclusion, and really it is Government Story #2, for
> those who aren't happy with Government Story #1.
>
> But, if you try, in any way, shape, or form, to suggest that Oswald was
> innocent, that he didn't do it, then you've had it. You're in trouble. You
> will lose your job. If you work for the federal government, and you are
> vocal about it, you will lose your job.
>
the opinion that Oswald was innocent?
dominates the cable news ratings, far ahead of both CNN and MSNBC so I'm
sure they have high expectations for programming and apparently Judge
Napolitano was not meeting those expectations. The other possibility is
the demographics. Advertisers want the younger viewers not because they
spend more but because they haven't settled on their brand choices to the
degree older viewers have Most 40 year olds don't change what beer they
drink. Advertisers want to get younger viewers hooked because they want
them to settle on their brand.
While Judge Napolitano lost his show, he is still a frequent guest on
their shows. His view are more libertarian as opposed to the mainstream
conservatism which is Fox's core audience. The Fox Business Channel is
where the libertarians seem to gravitate to (Stossel, Kennedy, Dobbs) and
that is where you will see Judge Napolitano appearing quite often.
> They did it because they are a news organization, and 90% of the news is
> government news. What did the government do today? What new law did they
> pass? What new data did they release? What new person did they appoint?
> What new grant did they award? Who'd they kill? That's most of the news.
> Government is what provides news organization with most of their fodder.
> So, news organization tend to be very pro-government,
bandwagon.
> pro-official-stories, pro-official-explanations, etc. And, there is a lot
> of traffic between government and media. George Stephanopoulos started as
> a campaign operative for Bill Clinton and then, in his administration,
> became his Communications Director and Policy Adviser which he did until
> 1996. Today, he is the top political correspondent for ABC News. The role
> of media today is to spoon-feed government dictums to the people. There is
> no independent media. There is no fourth estate. Look what happened in the
> lead-up to the Gulf War. All the media stations supported George W. Bush's
> war.
hear MSNBC say one positive thing about him.
> And if they invited someone on to debate it, to denounce it, who was
> it? An actor like Mike Farrell. A comediane like Jeanene Garofalo. And
> hey, I appreciate what these individuals tried to do, which was stop the
> war. But, they walked into a trap. They were invariably outnumbered and
> made to look fringe, alien, and out of touch. And, I think they held up
> very well under the circumstances. Still, they were used and abused.
>
> But, it wasn't always that way. There were plenty of Northern newspapers-
> not just Southern ones but Northern ones- that denounced Lincoln's war and
> really trashed him for it.
> Of course, Lincoln responded by shutting down
> newspapers and locking up editors and throwing away the keys. Habeus
> corpus rights? Forget about it. Chief Justice Roger Taney was so appalled,
> he stated publicly that what Lincoln was doing was unconstitutional. And
> how did Lincoln respond? He ordered U.S. marshals to arrest the Chief
> Justice Taney and haul him off in shackles. Fortunately, the marshals
> refused to do it, and the matter ended there.
>
> There was more tolerance for open debate on the JFK assassination in the
> early days than there is today. The televised debate between Mark Lane and
> William F. Buckley (for which wide sentiment said Lane won) was historic,
> looking back on it.
>
anything.
> Do you realize that such a thing could NEVER happen today? No way. Not
> even during the 50th anniversary, when there was a lot of JFK programming,
> did such a thing happen. They invited Cyril Wecht on, who gave his spiel
> about the Single Bullet Theory being impossible, that there was definitely
> a shot from the front, hence multiple shooters, hence conspiracy, but hey,
> that fits with Government Story #2, as I said at the beginning. Cyril
> Wecht NEVER claims Oswald innocence. In fact, he usually expresses his
> acceptance of Oswald being A shooter, but that there had to be someone
> besides Oswald. Cyril Wecht defends Oswald about as much as Joseph Backes
> does, which is to say: not at all. And that's why they put Wecht on tv. He
> is put there as the "opposition" but he espouses most of the official
> story, including the part about Oswald doing it. So, he is really helping
> them because he is helping to paint the picture that the JFK debate
> involves Lone Nut Oswald accusers having it out against
> Oswald-did-it-with-help accusers. Yet, the fact is that most JFK
> conspiracy theorists, today, believe that Oswald was innocent.
>
even if they do believe it was a conspiracy.
> What a nauseating display of tribute to lies the pomp and circumstance in
> Dealey Plaza was for the 50th anniversary. But, behind the barriers were a
> swarm of people protesting that smug exercise in denialism. And that was
> uplifting. The swarm of protesters was uplifting.
>
> There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
> way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
> Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
> The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
> doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to end, and
> it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
bigdog
Mar 5, 2017, 9:30:38 PM3/5/17
to
the files indicates that there actually was a conspiracy to kill the JFK I
would want to know that. The fact I would have to change my long held
beliefs would not negatively affect the quality of my life in any
meaningful way. I suppose we would have to tolerate the gloating of
whichever conspiracy theorist had been right all along. Since most of them
have differing theories, they can't all be right.
If I were to make a prediction it would be that the release of these files
will have no more significance than what was released by the ARRB and that
conspiracy hobbyists will continue to claim that the files were scrubbed
of evidence of a conspiracy that they know exists.
I do hope that Trump doesn't intervene and prolong this beyond October no
matter what the Kennedy family wants. Caroline is the only immediate
family member still alive and since she was Obama's ambassador to Japan I
doubt Trump owes her any favors. Why would the Kennedy family care about
the release of these files unless they contain more negative stories about
JFK and/or Bobby.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 6, 2017, 10:32:48 AM3/6/17
to
On 3/4/2017 9:39 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 10:26:29 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> Let's look at the state of political correctness today concerning the JFK
>> assassination. Basically, there is no tolerance for dissent from the
>> official story that Oswald did it and did it alone. The only departure
>> from it that is semi-tolerated is if you say that it's hard for you to
>> believe that Oswald acted alone, that someone may have helped him in some
>> way, but you don't know who or how. As long as you leave it vague and
>> don't suggest that anyone connected to the US government was involved, you
>> may get away with it. After all, the government's own investigators, the
>> HSCA, came to that conclusion, and really it is Government Story #2, for
>> those who aren't happy with Government Story #1.
>>
>
> Do you think it is intolerant to tell somebody they are wrong?
>
>> But, if you try, in any way, shape, or form, to suggest that Oswald was
>> innocent, that he didn't do it, then you've had it. You're in trouble. You
>> will lose your job. If you work for the federal government, and you are
>> vocal about it, you will lose your job.
>>
>
> Can you document that anybody has lost their job because they expressed
> the opinion that Oswald was innocent?
>
"Innocent?" Is that the criterion? How about just that it was a
> On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 10:26:29 PM UTC-5, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>> Let's look at the state of political correctness today concerning the JFK
>> assassination. Basically, there is no tolerance for dissent from the
>> official story that Oswald did it and did it alone. The only departure
>> from it that is semi-tolerated is if you say that it's hard for you to
>> believe that Oswald acted alone, that someone may have helped him in some
>> way, but you don't know who or how. As long as you leave it vague and
>> don't suggest that anyone connected to the US government was involved, you
>> may get away with it. After all, the government's own investigators, the
>> HSCA, came to that conclusion, and really it is Government Story #2, for
>> those who aren't happy with Government Story #1.
>>
>
> Do you think it is intolerant to tell somebody they are wrong?
>
>> But, if you try, in any way, shape, or form, to suggest that Oswald was
>> innocent, that he didn't do it, then you've had it. You're in trouble. You
>> will lose your job. If you work for the federal government, and you are
>> vocal about it, you will lose your job.
>>
>
> Can you document that anybody has lost their job because they expressed
> the opinion that Oswald was innocent?
>
conspiracy? Not necessarily the same thing.
>> Do you realize that such a thing could NEVER happen today? No way. Not
>> even during the 50th anniversary, when there was a lot of JFK programming,
>> did such a thing happen. They invited Cyril Wecht on, who gave his spiel
>> about the Single Bullet Theory being impossible, that there was definitely
>> a shot from the front, hence multiple shooters, hence conspiracy, but hey,
>> that fits with Government Story #2, as I said at the beginning. Cyril
>> Wecht NEVER claims Oswald innocence. In fact, he usually expresses his
>> acceptance of Oswald being A shooter, but that there had to be someone
>> besides Oswald. Cyril Wecht defends Oswald about as much as Joseph Backes
>> does, which is to say: not at all. And that's why they put Wecht on tv. He
>> is put there as the "opposition" but he espouses most of the official
>> story, including the part about Oswald doing it. So, he is really helping
>> them because he is helping to paint the picture that the JFK debate
>> involves Lone Nut Oswald accusers having it out against
>> Oswald-did-it-with-help accusers. Yet, the fact is that most JFK
>> conspiracy theorists, today, believe that Oswald was innocent.
>>
>
> No one who wants to be taken seriously would claim Oswald was innocent
> even if they do believe it was a conspiracy.
>
concentration camp.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 6, 2017, 10:33:48 AM3/6/17
to
files related to Russia. I warned President Obama about it and he told
me not to worry about it. He has spread around thousands of extra copies
and they can't find them all to destroy them, just like the CIA's report
on the Castro assassination plots using the Mafia.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 6, 2017, 4:06:55 PM3/6/17
to
On 3/5/2017 9:30 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 9:34:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>> On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:26:29 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
>>> way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
>>> Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
>>> The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
>>> doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to end, and
>>> it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
>>
>> Supposedly we will find out October 26, 2017. I predict the truth will
>> not make LNs or CTs happy. It may not happen if President Trump succumbs
>> to appeals from the Kennedy family to postpone release for another decade.
>
> Why should the truth make anyone unhappy. If miraculously the release of
Is that a rhetorical question?
> On Saturday, March 4, 2017 at 9:34:24 PM UTC-5, claviger wrote:
>> On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:26:29 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
>>> way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
>>> Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
>>> The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
>>> doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to end, and
>>> it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
>>
>> Supposedly we will find out October 26, 2017. I predict the truth will
>> not make LNs or CTs happy. It may not happen if President Trump succumbs
>> to appeals from the Kennedy family to postpone release for another decade.
>
> Why should the truth make anyone unhappy. If miraculously the release of
We have the same dilemma right now about Trump.
He claims that Obama personally bugged his phone.
Is he lying or just paranoid? Is either answer good for the country?
Is it good for the country to think that the President can bug his
political opponents? Are you old enough to remember Watergate?
> the files indicates that there actually was a conspiracy to kill the JFK I
> would want to know that. The fact I would have to change my long held
> beliefs would not negatively affect the quality of my life in any
> meaningful way. I suppose we would have to tolerate the gloating of
Oh, sorry, I forgot, THIS is NOT your country. But in general, stop
being so selfish.
> whichever conspiracy theorist had been right all along. Since most of them
> have differing theories, they can't all be right.
>
conflict with each other, but you are creating a false dichotomy. If you
say that the CIA didn't do it so therefore the Mafia did it, you are
falsely ruling out the possibility that it was a joint operation. Or that
the CIA hired the Mafia to do it as in the Castro plots.
> If I were to make a prediction it would be that the release of these files
> will have no more significance than what was released by the ARRB and that
and then here you are citing them as evidence that the WC didn't have.
> conspiracy hobbyists will continue to claim that the files were scrubbed
> of evidence of a conspiracy that they know exists.
>
they become unredacted. Can you tell me the 3 words that the FBI scratched
out on one document? They wouldn't matter to you, because you don't know
the evidence, but they could suggest an additional bullet. Maybe if you
embraced it that could be your miss.
> I do hope that Trump doesn't intervene and prolong this beyond October no
> matter what the Kennedy family wants. Caroline is the only immediate
The only thing the Kennedy family controls is the medical evidence like
the autopsy photos and X-rays. No intelligence documents.
Trump will interfere to destroy the Russian documents to protect Putin.
> family member still alive and since she was Obama's ambassador to Japan I
> doubt Trump owes her any favors. Why would the Kennedy family care about
> the release of these files unless they contain more negative stories about
> JFK and/or Bobby.
>
To protect Oswald? No. Addison's Disease.
Jason Burke
Mar 7, 2017, 10:54:25 AM3/7/17
to
On 3/6/2017 7:33 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 3/4/2017 9:34 PM, claviger wrote:
>> On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:26:29 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
>>> way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
>>> Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
>>> The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
>>> doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to
>>> end, and
>>> it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
>>
>> Supposedly we will find out October 26, 2017. I predict the truth will
>> not make LNs or CTs happy. It may not happen if President Trump succumbs
>> to appeals from the Kennedy family to postpone release for another
>> decade.
>>
>>
>
>
> I predict that Trump, if he is still around, will have destroyed all
> files related to Russia. I warned President Obama about it
Was this when you and O were out on the links, Anthony Anthony, or
> On 3/4/2017 9:34 PM, claviger wrote:
>> On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:26:29 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>
>>> There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
>>> way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
>>> Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
>>> The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
>>> doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to
>>> end, and
>>> it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
>>
>> Supposedly we will find out October 26, 2017. I predict the truth will
>> not make LNs or CTs happy. It may not happen if President Trump succumbs
>> to appeals from the Kennedy family to postpone release for another
>> decade.
>>
>>
>
>
> I predict that Trump, if he is still around, will have destroyed all
> files related to Russia. I warned President Obama about it
during a bridge game?
I trust you didn't have to drop Daddy-Os CIA connections to get an
audience with The Man.
bigdog
Mar 7, 2017, 8:37:09 PM3/7/17
to
On Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at 10:54:25 AM UTC-5, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 3/6/2017 7:33 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 3/4/2017 9:34 PM, claviger wrote:
> >> On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:26:29 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
> >>> way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
> >>> Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
> >>> The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
> >>> doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to
> >>> end, and
> >>> it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
> >>
> >> Supposedly we will find out October 26, 2017. I predict the truth will
> >> not make LNs or CTs happy. It may not happen if President Trump succumbs
> >> to appeals from the Kennedy family to postpone release for another
> >> decade.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I predict that Trump, if he is still around, will have destroyed all
> > files related to Russia. I warned President Obama about it
>
> Was this when you and O were out on the links, Anthony Anthony, or
> during a bridge game?
>
> I trust you didn't have to drop Daddy-Os CIA connections to get an
> audience with The Man.
>
Tony's warning is probably why Obama decided to tap Trump's phones.
> On 3/6/2017 7:33 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> > On 3/4/2017 9:34 PM, claviger wrote:
> >> On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:26:29 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
> >>> way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
> >>> Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
> >>> The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
> >>> doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to
> >>> end, and
> >>> it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
> >>
> >> Supposedly we will find out October 26, 2017. I predict the truth will
> >> not make LNs or CTs happy. It may not happen if President Trump succumbs
> >> to appeals from the Kennedy family to postpone release for another
> >> decade.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > I predict that Trump, if he is still around, will have destroyed all
> > files related to Russia. I warned President Obama about it
>
> Was this when you and O were out on the links, Anthony Anthony, or
> during a bridge game?
>
> I trust you didn't have to drop Daddy-Os CIA connections to get an
> audience with The Man.
>
Anthony Marsh
Mar 8, 2017, 10:09:45 AM3/8/17
to
On 3/7/2017 10:54 AM, Jason Burke wrote:
> On 3/6/2017 7:33 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/4/2017 9:34 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:26:29 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
>>>> way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
>>>> Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
>>>> The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
>>>> doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to
>>>> end, and
>>>> it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
>>>
>>> Supposedly we will find out October 26, 2017. I predict the truth will
>>> not make LNs or CTs happy. It may not happen if President Trump
>>> succumbs
>>> to appeals from the Kennedy family to postpone release for another
>>> decade.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I predict that Trump, if he is still around, will have destroyed all
>> files related to Russia. I warned President Obama about it
>
> Was this when you and O were out on the links, Anthony Anthony, or
> during a bridge game?
>
Links? You mean golf? I don't play golf any more. I did when I was a
> On 3/6/2017 7:33 AM, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 3/4/2017 9:34 PM, claviger wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 3, 2017 at 9:26:29 PM UTC-6, Ralph Cinque wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is no doubt about how this is going to end. It's going to end the
>>>> way all State lies eventually end. It was true of the Soviet lies, the
>>>> Nazi lies, and it will be true of U.S. lies too, including the JFK lie.
>>>> The only question is when. But, there is too much already out there to
>>>> doubt that the official story is going to collapse. It's going to
>>>> end, and
>>>> it's going to end badly. I'm looking forward to it.
>>>
>>> Supposedly we will find out October 26, 2017. I predict the truth will
>>> not make LNs or CTs happy. It may not happen if President Trump
>>> succumbs
>>> to appeals from the Kennedy family to postpone release for another
>>> decade.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I predict that Trump, if he is still around, will have destroyed all
>> files related to Russia. I warned President Obama about it
>
> Was this when you and O were out on the links, Anthony Anthony, or
> during a bridge game?
>
kid. When a golfer asked me what my handicap is, I said, "My handicap is
that I don't know how to play golf."
Obama does not know how to play bridge. Nor does he have the technical
skills to hack Trump's phone.
I wrote him a a letter and he wrote me a letter.
> I trust you didn't have to drop Daddy-Os CIA connections to get an
> audience with The Man.
>
to Colby that he would be prosecuted for perjury if he did not testify
truthfully.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 8, 2017, 3:07:28 PM3/8/17
to
My letter was ONLY about the JFK files. Are you confirming that they
contain information about Russia being involved in the JFK assassination?
Was Putin the shooter on the grassy knoll?
(just to satisfy the new McAdams rule that every message must relate
directly to the JFK assassination)
Message has been deleted
Mark OBLAZNEY
Mar 8, 2017, 10:23:04 PM3/8/17
to
Little Flower Church in Bethesda, MD, not that there's anything wrong with
that.
Mark OBLAZNEY
Mar 9, 2017, 9:00:27 AM3/9/17
to
coincidence?
Anthony Marsh
Mar 9, 2017, 12:26:37 PM3/9/17
to
On 3/8/2017 7:46 PM, Mark OBLAZNEY wrote:
> Does this mean Tony is 'Deep Throat' lite?
>
I did not give the President insider information. That would be rather
presumptuous. I just warned him of the danger of letting the new
President be in charge of classified documents.
>
I did not give the President insider information. That would be rather
presumptuous. I just warned him of the danger of letting the new
President be in charge of classified documents.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 10, 2017, 12:26:33 AM3/10/17
to
Was her letter about the JFK assassination? No.
Mine was. I did not name Trump.
Mark OBLAZNEY
Mar 10, 2017, 6:54:41 PM3/10/17
to
here, and we're still reading.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 11, 2017, 3:34:55 PM3/11/17
to
But he took my point and scattered documents all over the place so that
Trump couldn't destroy everything.
stevemg...@yahoo.com
Mar 15, 2017, 9:26:25 PM3/15/17
to
a number of responses by Mr. Marsh on various topics that are quite
interesting, smart, and often make good points.
But that that was then and this is now. At this point - sadly - he's a
caricature of a JFK conspiracy believer.
Maybe he got bored, tired, whatever.
Anthony Marsh
Mar 16, 2017, 6:57:01 PM3/16/17
to
0 new messages