Censored On JREF!!!

Robert Prey

unread,

Aug 22, 2012, 11:24:19 AM8/22/12

to

The shill moderators on JREF have closed down the JFK thread because
they don't want the truth about the assassination on their precious
discussion group.

It is well known that Randi has been CIA since at least 1970.

John King

unread,

Aug 22, 2012, 11:00:58 PM8/22/12

to

In article <7393-503...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>,

Oswa...@webtv.net (Robert Prey) wrote:

> The shill moderators on JREF have closed down the JFK thread because
> they don't want the truth about the assassination on their precious
> discussion group.

Nonsense. In the decade I've been posting here the moderators have
consistently allowed all sorts of claims to be made about the
assassination. The only reasons they reject posts are for completely
different things, such as calling another poster a liar or using extremely
foul language.

> It is well known that Randi has been CIA since at least 1970.

And see how the moderators let that through? If it was one of your own
posts that was rejected, what *reason* did the moderators give you in
email for it? The reason you were given had nothing whatsoever to do with
anything you said about the JFK assassination, correct? Instead, they
told you that it was rejected because you called another poster a liar, or
were overtly rude in your post, or something to that effect, right?

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 22, 2012, 11:03:45 PM8/22/12

to

Helms sent out a cable in 1967 telling all CIA officers to shut down
conspiracy talk.

Sandy McCroskey

unread,

Aug 22, 2012, 11:31:19 PM8/22/12

to

Too bad, that was one of the funniest threads I've ever read. For
example, the way you went on and on about the shadows in the backyard
photos of Oswald, and that utterly goofy photo you posted. You're right
up there with Ralph Cinque

How can you have been "censored" when it was one of the longest threads
in history and yet you did nothing but repeat the same ridiculous
notions you started with? You got anything new to say, really? Didn't
think so...

/sandy

Sandy McCroskey

unread,

Aug 22, 2012, 11:32:18 PM8/22/12

to

This thread ran to 7,735 replies.
Here's the link, for others' delectation:

(full view)
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=222556

(archive view)
http://forums.randi.org/archive/index.php/t-222556.html

/sm

claviger

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 12:03:44 AM8/23/12

to

So what? This is America so anyone can have a blog, even CIA
Agents.

Jason Burke

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 4:02:11 PM8/23/12

to

Wait a minute. You posted to the thread approximately 400 times, yet you
knew Randi is CIA, and has been for four decades?!?

Aren't you a bit worried? I hope your bed is on the floor, because, ya
know, otherwise there might be booger-monsters under it.

John King

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 4:03:59 PM8/23/12

to

Ugh. My apologies. You weren't talking about an article rejected here,
but on that blog. Looks like, however, from some of the other replies,
that you still greatly exaggerated your claim of censorship.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 4:09:07 PM8/23/12

to

All you WC defenders do is keep repeating the same old fictions from
1964 every single day. Never anything new from you guys.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 4:11:57 PM8/23/12

to

On 8/22/2012 11:00 PM, John King wrote:
> In article <7393-503...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net>,
> Oswa...@webtv.net (Robert Prey) wrote:
>
>> The shill moderators on JREF have closed down the JFK thread because
>> they don't want the truth about the assassination on their precious
>> discussion group.
>
> Nonsense. In the decade I've been posting here the moderators have
> consistently allowed all sorts of claims to be made about the
> assassination. The only reasons they reject posts are for completely
> different things, such as calling another poster a liar or using extremely
> foul language.

No. I was told that I was not allowed to criticize the President.

>
>> It is well known that Randi has been CIA since at least 1970.
>
> And see how the moderators let that through? If it was one of your own
> posts that was rejected, what *reason* did the moderators give you in

Why do you assume that moderates will explain themselves in an e-mail?

> email for it? The reason you were given had nothing whatsoever to do with
> anything you said about the JFK assassination, correct? Instead, they

Prove that they gave the reasons.

Sandy McCroskey

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 9:08:02 PM8/23/12

to

Hardly. We have seen many clarifications to the record since 1964, all
of which, it is true, merely firm up the case against Oswald.

Robert Prey, on the other hand, has been repeating the same kind of CT
nonsense that you yourself have been able to see through: for example,
the shadows under Oswald's nose in the backyard photo. You really should
check out the thread to see another die-hard CT in action.

/sandy

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 9:51:04 PM8/23/12

to

That alone does not make him a bad person. The fact that he is a habitual
liar with no respect for Constitutional rights makes him a bad person.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 10:11:18 PM8/23/12

to

I put booby trapped underbed storage under my platform bed to make sure
nothing gets in there.

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 23, 2012, 10:13:56 PM8/23/12

to

As if I hadn't already seen it 4,000 times before? You forget how long
I've been doing this online? I've seen every ridiculous argument hundreds
of times.

timstter

unread,

Aug 25, 2012, 8:20:30 PM8/25/12

to

Is it true, Marsh, that you always argue both sides of every argument,
just so you can claim to be always right?

Concerned Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

*...NOT ONE of the three experts was able to strike the head or the
neck of the target EVEN ONCE.* (Emphasis added).
Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, page 129, footnoted as: XVII 261-262.

And yet here IS WC XVII 261-262, showing hits to the head...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0144a.htm

X marks the spot where Mark Lane lied!

Anthony Marsh

unread,

Aug 26, 2012, 1:33:46 PM8/26/12

to

No. What is true is that you attack me no matter that I say.