Fetzer on the Education Forum
Bud
Saw this exchange on the Education Forum.
Fetzer claims no plane hit the Pentagon.
Someone points out that the bodies of passengers was found in the
wreckage.
Fetzer says that since no plane hit the Pentagon, any passenger bodies
must have been planted. Says the plane went over the Pentagon. You`d think
that would be something people would notice.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17284
It`s bound to happen when poor thinking is allowed to flourish and is
encouraged like it has been in the JFK arena that the circus would move to
other towns. The same methodology developed in the JFK assassination by
CTers is employed by the conspiracy mongers in the 9-11 conspiracy cult.
Start with the premise that Oswald was a patsy, and all information must
be folded, bent or mutilated towards that "truth". Any evidence that goes
against that premise in invalidated, said to be planted, ignored. Not a
quest for truth but a faith fueled by desire. They desire that people not
responsible be held accountable for what others have done.
WhiskyJoe
Fetzer's doing a lot better. He has stopped
claiming the Jews conspired to cause Germany to
lose World War I. Almost any theory he pushes is
better than that.
Disappearing airliners that don't crash is a vast
improvement. And maybe he got the idea from
watching the TV show "Lost".
Barb Junkkarinen
Please don't paint all CTers with the same wide brush. Fetzer, for
example, is hardly a mainstream CTer. "Any" and "all" doesn't fit all
CTers on just about anything in the JFK case. Same is true with LNs
.... though there is less flexibility in what they believe, there is
no end to tortured logic, blind faith, misstatememt of facts, folding
and bending information, poor reasoning skills, etc .... but that
certainly is not a blanket that covers all LNs ... anymore than a
blanket "CTers" statement can be a valid blanket, for we are not many
bodies attached to one befuddled brain. :-)
Chuck Schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud is making a general point, and it's a good one, and an accurate
one.
Your research on JFK related topics is rock solid. It's hard to
understand why you're a JFK CT. From what I've gathered by reading
your infrequent posts on what you specifically believe happened on
11/22/63, you're not even sure Oswald killed Tippit. Correct me if I'm
wrong, and I hope I am wrong about that statement.
You're definitely more reasonable and capable of better research than
the CTs who post at alt.conspiracy.jfk, but in the end, you occupy the
same basic spot on the JFK conspiracy map: It was a conspiracy,
everyone covered it up, and America hasn't been the same since.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Hi Chuck!
>
>Bud is making a general point, and it's a good one, and an accurate
>one.
Too general .... accurate for some CT think, definitely not accurate
overall. And I get it but when it is pushed as the overall truth about
CTs .... it gets old ... and is really not accurate.
>
>Your research on JFK related topics is rock solid.
Thank you. :-)
>It's hard to
>understand why you're a JFK CT.
Because of my research on JFK related topics. <g>
>From what I've gathered by reading
>your infrequent posts on what you specifically believe happened on
>11/22/63, you're not even sure Oswald killed Tippit. Correct me if I'm
>wrong, and I hope I am wrong about that statement.
Consider yourself wrong and corrected. I think the evidence shows
Oswald did kill Tippit. And I have said so for years.
>
>You're definitely more reasonable and capable of better research than
>the CTs who post at alt.conspiracy.jfk, but in the end, you occupy the
>same basic spot on the JFK conspiracy map:
And you are not a pig headed arrogant unknowledgeable LN as many are,
but there you are on the LN map. :-) But I see and appreciate the
diference between you and others and try not to paint unnecessarily in
demeaning or condescending generalites. One brush does not fit all in
this arena no matter what one believes is the bottomline. That's all I
was saying. I respect the difference, and I respect those who hold
their beliefs based on having done some actual research and coming to
their own conclusions, who can discuss them and argue them, etc ....
whether they agree with me or not. We all gain when people can meet on
the evidence.
> It was a conspiracy,
Yes.
>everyone covered it up,
Not "everyone" Nor did "everyone" do it.
> and America hasn't been the same since.
Well, it hasn't, but most of us didn't know it til years later when we
found out that what we thought in the first place was really not the
way things were in the first place.<g> And that's not a CT vs LN
thing, imo.
Cheers,
Barb :-)
Bud
> On 23 Jan 2011 21:43:31 -0500, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Saw this exchange on the Education Forum.
>
> > Fetzer claims no plane hit the Pentagon.
>
> > Someone points out that the bodies of passengers was found in the
> >wreckage.
>
> > Fetzer says that since no plane hit the Pentagon, any passenger bodies
> >must have been planted. Says the plane went over the Pentagon. You`d think
> >that would be something people would notice.
>
> > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17284
>
> > It`s bound to happen when poor thinking is allowed to flourish and is
> >encouraged like it has been in the JFK arena that the circus would move to
> >other towns. The same methodology developed in the JFK assassination by
> >CTers is employed by the conspiracy mongers in the 9-11 conspiracy cult.
> >Start with the premise that Oswald was a patsy, and all information must
> >be folded, bent or mutilated towards that "truth". Any evidence that goes
> >against that premise in invalidated, said to be planted, ignored. Not a
> >quest for truth but a faith fueled by desire. They desire that people not
> >responsible be held accountable for what others have done.
>
> Please don't paint all CTers with the same wide brush.
Gotta call them like I see them.
> Fetzer, for
> example, is hardly a mainstream CTer. "Any" and "all" doesn't fit all
> CTers on just about anything in the JFK case. Same is true with LNs
> .... though there is less flexibility in what they believe
Of course there is less flexibility when you are constrained by
reality.
>, there is
> no end to tortured logic, blind faith, misstatememt of facts, folding
> and bending information, poor reasoning skills, etc ....
I don`t see this at all. I see CTers wishing this were so, claiming this
is so, but that isn`t how it plays out here in these forums. This isn`t
two sides of the same coin. In the real world people want to see the
murderer(s) of their President brought to justice. In the real word the
cops want to catch the guy who killed one of their own. In the real world
complex schemes unravel when the threads are pulled on (check this article
for all the leads the author turned up in the Iran- Contra affair...
http://consortiumnews.com/2011/011511.html ). In the real world guilty
people flee the scene of the crime. In the real world guilty people resist
arrest. In this case, many, many such "norms" are somehow subverted by
things thats can`t be shown.
> but that
> certainly is not a blanket that covers all LNs ... anymore than a
> blanket "CTers" statement can be a valid blanket, for we are not many
> bodies attached to one befuddled brain. :-)
I`m going by what I see represented in these forums. I don`t see a large
"Oswald was part of a conspiracy" contingent represented. That Oswald was
a patsy is an article of faith, a doctrine, a starting point to be worked
from, not arrived at. I see the CTers in these newsgroups acting just
like Fetzer did with the bodies, claiming they were planted when their
existence conflicted with what he wanted to believe, and I come to the
conclusion that there isn`t a spits worth of difference between the JFK
conspiracy camp and the 9-11 truthers.
imsam2021
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Saw this exchange on the Education Forum.
>
> > Fetzer claims no plane hit the Pentagon.
>
> > Someone points out that the bodies of passengers was found in the
> >wreckage.
>
> > Fetzer says that since no plane hit the Pentagon, any passenger bodies
> >must have been planted. Says the plane went over the Pentagon. You`d think
> >that would be something people would notice.
>
> > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17284
>
> > It`s bound to happen when poor thinking is allowed to flourish and is
> >encouraged like it has been in the JFK arena that the circus would move to
> >other towns. The same methodology developed in the JFK assassination by
> >CTers is employed by the conspiracy mongers in the 9-11 conspiracy cult.
> >Start with the premise that Oswald was a patsy, and all information must
> >be folded, bent or mutilated towards that "truth". Any evidence that goes
> >against that premise in invalidated, said to be planted, ignored. Not a
> >quest for truth but a faith fueled by desire. They desire that people not
> >responsible be held accountable for what others have done.
>
> Please don't paint all CTers with the same wide brush. Fetzer, for
> example, is hardly
Barb,
What exactly is "a mainstream CTer" ?
imsam
>"Any" and "all" doesn't fit all
> CTers on just about anything in the JFK case. Same is true with LNs
> .... though there is less flexibility in what they believe, there is
> no end to tortured logic, blind faith, misstatememt of facts, folding
> and bending information, poor reasoning skills, etc .... but that
> certainly is not a blanket that covers all LNs ... anymore than a
> blanket "CTers" statement can be a valid blanket, for we are not many
curtjester1
As usual, Bud starts opining from his premise that all conspiracy's
must be 'poor thinking' and some malfunction of the human
personality. There has been much written on the Pentagon attack, and
it's easy to see why, when it just doesn't look like a big plane could
have been apart of what went on. The passengers and 'feedback' have
been a quandry too, just as the one pic was that was 'to show' what
happened when there were tons of equipement that should have. Did
anyone see a plane or planes in the vicinity at the time, and even
leaving circa the impact? Yes.
I just read a book by Dean Hartwell. It's called Planes Without
Passengers. Instead of focusing on black boxes and planes fitting
through small holes and such, he focuses on one aspect, just like it's
appreciated when people do that for the JFK case, instead of getting
all sideways and turning into a soapbox of generalizations. He was
kind enough to send me the link where he used the footnotes in his
recent book.
CJ
Sandy McCroskey
I'm extremely curious about something, Barb. I've read many eminently
reasonable posts by you here, and it seems that most of the time you
are arguing against some of the wilder notions raised by certain CTs.
Yet I know you yourself think there was a conspiracy, though I have no
idea why. Could you tell me what is the prime bit of evidence that
convinces you of that?
Thanks,
Sandy
John Canal
says...
>>> On 23 Jan 2011 21:43:31 -0500, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > ?Fetzer claims no plane hit the Pentagon.
>>>
>>> > ?Someone points out that the bodies of passengers was found in the
>>> >wreckage.
>>>
>>> > ?Fetzer says that since no plane hit the Pentagon, any passenger bodies
>>> >must have been planted. Says the plane went over the Pentagon. You`d think
>>> >that would be something people would notice.
>>>
>>>
>>> > ?It`s bound to happen when poor thinking is allowed to flourish and is
Hi Barb,
Not to butt in, but here's something bothers me. This "everyone covered it
up" and/or "everyone did it" mentality.
There's another possibility...there certainly was a conspiracy to
minipulate certain evidence [cover-up, if you will] by certain individuals
and/or groups of individuals....in all liklihood most often acting
separately from one another. These individuals "thought" there had been an
assassination conspiracy and thought it in the nations' best not to allow
the evidence to point in that direction. I mean, considering Lee's
background and the fact that the cold war was alive and well (Bay of Pigs,
Cuban Missile Crisis, etc.)...would a practical person really think it
prudent, for example, to officially announce that JFK's wounds suggested
there had been a frontal shooter as well as one firing from the TSBD?
It's obvious that many in positions that could make a difference thought
that was the case and acted accordingly, if not responsibly, imo....you
know many instances and I do too. I could list dozens of examples but
what's the use...you're about the only one who listens.
For the life of me I can't understand why that scenario is apparently so
incomprehensible to most LNs and even to most CTs...it's all or nothing
with the wide brush strokes.
And then you have the closet LNs who realize this scenario is plausible
but, because they have posted their "all or nothing theory" here, they are
bound and determined to defend it until the cows come home...regardless.
I once participated frequently on this NG, but it's a lost cause,
practically a waste of time.....it's frustrating when there are those with
doctorates that are unwilling to give one micrometer from positions they
took decades ago when there has been an abundance of new information and
testimony that has surfaced since they took those positions. Is it really
possible that new information, etc. didn't affect anyone's postion one
iota? You'd think so from the way these individuals post.
As you say, "sigh".
And I say to that, "amen"!
Bests,
:-)
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Bud
> On Jan 23, 9:43 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Saw this exchange on the Education Forum.
>
> > Fetzer claims no plane hit the Pentagon.
>
> > Someone points out that the bodies of passengers was found in the
> > wreckage.
>
> > Fetzer says that since no plane hit the Pentagon, any passenger bodies
> > must have been planted. Says the plane went over the Pentagon. You`d think
> > that would be something people would notice.
>
> > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17284
>
> > It`s bound to happen when poor thinking is allowed to flourish and is
> > encouraged like it has been in the JFK arena that the circus would move to
> > other towns. The same methodology developed in the JFK assassination by
> > CTers is employed by the conspiracy mongers in the 9-11 conspiracy cult.
> > Start with the premise that Oswald was a patsy, and all information must
> > be folded, bent or mutilated towards that "truth". Any evidence that goes
> > against that premise in invalidated, said to be planted, ignored. Not a
> > quest for truth but a faith fueled by desire. They desire that people not
> > responsible be held accountable for what others have done.
>
> As usual, Bud starts opining from his premise that all conspiracy's
> must be 'poor thinking' and some malfunction of the human
> personality.
I didn`t start there, I arrived there after reading these
newsgroups. I didn`t know such thinking existed until I got a computer
and started surfing.
> There has been much written on the Pentagon attack, and
> it's easy to see why, when it just doesn't look like a big plane could
> have been apart of what went on.
Yah, theres the poor thinking.
1. "It doesn`t look to me like it should look if a plane made the
hole (even though the person hasn`t a clue how it should look if a
plane made the hole).
2. This means it wasn`t a plane that made the hole.
3. Since I`ve decided a plane couldn`t make the hole, anything that
contradicts my conclusion must be lies, faked evidence, planted
evidence, ect.
> The passengers and 'feedback' have
> been a quandry too, just as the one pic was that was 'to show' what
> happened when there were tons of equipement that should have. Did
> anyone see a plane or planes in the vicinity at the time, and even
> leaving circa the impact? Yes.
>
> I just read a book by Dean Hartwell. It's called Planes Without
> Passengers. Instead of focusing on black boxes and planes fitting
> through small holes and such, he focuses on one aspect, just like it's
> appreciated when people do that for the JFK case, instead of getting
> all sideways and turning into a soapbox of generalizations. He was
> kind enough to send me the link where he used the footnotes in his
> recent book.
>
> http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2011/01/footnotes-in-the-new-bo...
>
> CJ
Bud
I don`t know which idea I despise more, that Oswald could have all the
evidence and indications of his guilt and him be innocent, or that he
could be at two murder scenes in less than one hour, and be guilty of the
second one (a cop, no less) but not the first.
davidemerling
> Please don't paint all CTers with the same wide brush. Fetzer, for
> example, is hardly a mainstream CTer. "Any" and "all" doesn't fit all
> CTers on just about anything in the JFK case. Same is true with LNs
> .... though there is less flexibility in what they believe, there is
> no end to tortured logic, blind faith, misstatememt of facts, folding
> and bending information, poor reasoning skills, etc .... but that
> certainly is not a blanket that covers all LNs ... anymore than a
> blanket "CTers" statement can be a valid blanket, for we are not many
> bodies attached to one befuddled brain. :-)
Although there may be *some* CTs who are not completely irrational and
whose view of the evidence is not completely warped. I would say the
"rational" ones represent such a minority that they are statistically
insignificant, thus making the generalization, generally TRUE.
On the other hand, "irrational" LNs are quite few in number. Most of the
LNs are on the same page; their disagreements are usually on non-
substantive matters that have little or no impact on the overall issue at
hand. CTs have a vast array of wild theories, many of which are mutually
exclusive. They are all over the place, much like taking a paint brush and
flicking it onto a blank wall - each paint speck representing a different
conspiracy theory.
One of my all time favorite quotes, from the book "Oswald's Game" (by Jean
Davison"
"The conspiracists' methods produce a surreal world. Every discrepancy is
interpreted as a crack in the official stone wall through which one may
glimpse the ugly truth of what happened. Behind the wall are disconnected
scenes, each with its own set of conspirators. On close examination, many
of these scenes evaporate."
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
cdddra...@mail.com
I focus on your cosmic like reply, I really liked it in sooo many
ways, I'll try and enumerate :
"for we are not many bodies attached to one befuddled brain"
* Is this a blanket comment about how the bodies were delivered on
9/11, zip lock body bags like?
"Same is true with LNs .... though there is less flexibility in what
they believe"
* This would seem to indicate you'd like to see many lone nut
theories? I'll see if I can drum up an old post that places tomnln on
the grassy knoll?
"there is no end to tortured logic, blind faith, misstatememt of facts,
folding and bending information, poor reasoning skills, etc"
CTer's have made their fair share and more than their fair share of
bloopers, but I wouldn't blame it all on them.
tl
cdddra...@mail.com
"America hasn't been the same since"
JFK got done fouling up the White House into a shambles. For
example ....
JFK 'Racketeersman of the New Frontier' !
Q : What Was JFK's 'Anti-Racketeering Crusade' All About?
A : It Was Actually His Own Personal Protection Racket and Here's How
It Worked.
Mafia who gave money and backed (R) Nixon for President, Jimmy Hoffa and
Dave Beck, etc, were hounded into prison on trumped up charges while Mafia
who gave money and backed (D) JFK for President, Walter & Victor Reuther
etc, were allowed to commit crimes with impunity.
Google Ralph de Toledano Hoffa Frame-Up.
I Too Love Irish Mobsters !
tl
cdddra...@mail.com
"These individuals "thought" there had been an assassination
conspiracy and thought it in the nations' best not to allow the
evidence to point in that direction"
Really? What happened here?
WR Conspires for Jean Hill .... !
Conspiracy champion "Jean Hill was deposed by WCR Specter & Hill
testified:
"There was a man holding Mary's arm she was crying he had hold of her
camera trying to take it w/him"
"Who was that?" Specter asked her.
HILL "Featherstone of the Times Herald".."He was telling us we had to
go with him".."HE put us in this little room we couldn't leave".."He
let cameraman in & they were shooting things in our faces...."
And ....
A grassy knoll assassin, Jack Ruby running across Dealey Plaza blah
blah blah .... Needless to say Featherstone didn't testify because
Moorman had dissed liar Jean Hill.
This is another good example of how the WR can't be used as a tool for
promoting conspiracy. USG reports contain innuendo, contradictions in
evidence & testimony, hearsay (disqualified for use in the Clay Shaw
trial) & apparently liars such as JEAN HILL!
"Had the Warren Commission been interested only in squelching dissent,
it would have been wise to call Jim Featherston to testify or not to
depose Jean Hill at all.
Instead, for whatever reason, Hill's testimony went unchallenged".
tl
cdddra...@mail.com
officially announce that JFK's wounds suggested
there had been a frontal shooter as well as one firing from the TSBD?"
Q : I would think it would be very impractible to suggest that JFK had
a shooter in FRONT of him to frame a "patsy" whose gun would be found
BEHIND his victim, don't you think?
cdddra...@mail.com
>
> I don`t know which idea I despise more, that Oswald could have all the
> evidence and indications of his guilt and him be innocent, or that he
> could be at two murder scenes in less than one hour, and be guilty of the
> second one (a cop, no less) but not the first.
>
>
Rex Murphy says his piece on conspiracy theories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u_4B6JDcgE
cdddra...@mail.com
that has surfaced since they took those positions"
Same story :
John Locke :
"The central conclusion of the WC--that LHO alone committed the crime--
remains unchallenged by responsible, competent scholarship. The
countless conspiracy books which strenuously argue to the contrary
constitute the largest body of fraudulent work ever created. They have
much more to offer in the way of intrigue and excitement than the
truth",
Which to them has as much use as a marriage license would have for an
alley cat .
Matt
Personally I don't think it is fair to assume that just because we do
not believe the WC version of the Kennedy assasination that we are the
same as every wild eyed illogical conspiracy theory out there. The
truther movement makes about as much sense to me as the single bullet
theory. Neither version of the particular event is logically possible
in my mind.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 23, 11:15 pm, Barb Junkkarinen<barb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 23 Jan 2011 21:43:31 -0500, Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Saw this exchange on the Education Forum.
>>
>>> Fetzer claims no plane hit the Pentagon.
>>
>>> Someone points out that the bodies of passengers was found in the
>>> wreckage.
>>
>>> Fetzer says that since no plane hit the Pentagon, any passenger bodies
>>> must have been planted. Says the plane went over the Pentagon. You`d think
>>> that would be something people would notice.
>>
>>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17284
>>
>>> It`s bound to happen when poor thinking is allowed to flourish and is
>>> encouraged like it has been in the JFK arena that the circus would move to
>>> other towns. The same methodology developed in the JFK assassination by
>>> CTers is employed by the conspiracy mongers in the 9-11 conspiracy cult.
>>> Start with the premise that Oswald was a patsy, and all information must
>>> be folded, bent or mutilated towards that "truth". Any evidence that goes
>>> against that premise in invalidated, said to be planted, ignored. Not a
>>> quest for truth but a faith fueled by desire. They desire that people not
>>> responsible be held accountable for what others have done.
>>
>> Please don't paint all CTers with the same wide brush. Fetzer, for
>> example, is hardly
>
>
> Barb,
>
> What exactly is "a mainstream CTer" ?
>
Josiah Thompson. Someone who doesn't propose kooky theories.
John Canal
cdddra...@mail.com says...
Either I wasn't clear or you jumped to the wrong conclusion after skimming
through my post.
There's no one here that believes more than I (as I advanced in my book,
published by Paragon House, that I started researching over two decades ago) LHO
ALONE assassinated JFK.
That said, imo, if you don't think there were many in the early going that
"thought" (I say mistakenly) there had been multiple shooters and an
assassination conspiracy.....and that certain evidence was minipulated (with
good intentions, but in many cases with poor planning)......so that it did not
point in that directon, you've not done a whole lot of reading re. this case.
John Canal
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
curtjester1
all others fall into a 'retard category'.
> > There has been much written on the Pentagon attack, and
> > it's easy to see why, when it just doesn't look like a big plane could
> > have been apart of what went on.
>
> Yah, theres the poor thinking.
>
Do tell? The big plane couldn't fit. Even if it were flat on the
ground it would have nosed about a story higher. Then this plane that
sqeezes in defying the laws of physics, burrows, and creates a huge
hole on the other side...when the nose part isn't particularly an
object that would do anything like that. Of course the engines that
might...that have some weight and mass, didn't.
> 1. "It doesn`t look to me like it should look if a plane made the
> hole (even though the person hasn`t a clue how it should look if a
> plane made the hole).
>
> 2. This means it wasn`t a plane that made the hole.
>
No, it means a large plane couldn't.
> 3. Since I`ve decided a plane couldn`t make the hole, anything that
> contradicts my conclusion must be lies, faked evidence, planted
> evidence, ect.
>
>
No, it could have been a smaller plane with a bomb. It could have
been a missile. It could have been set bombs going off. See how easy
it is to actually think, instead of being 'a Bud'?
CJ
>
> > The passengers and 'feedback' have
> > been a quandry too, just as the one pic was that was 'to show' what
> > happened when there were tons of equipement that should have. Did
> > anyone see a plane or planes in the vicinity at the time, and even
> > leaving circa the impact? Yes.
>
> > I just read a book by Dean Hartwell. It's called Planes Without
> > Passengers. Instead of focusing on black boxes and planes fitting
> > through small holes and such, he focuses on one aspect, just like it's
> > appreciated when people do that for the JFK case, instead of getting
> > all sideways and turning into a soapbox of generalizations. He was
> > kind enough to send me the link where he used the footnotes in his
> > recent book.
>
> >http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2011/01/footnotes-in-the-new-bo...
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
jas
>
> > 3. Since I`ve decided a plane couldn`t make the hole, anything that
> > contradicts my conclusion must be lies, faked evidence, planted
> > evidence, ect.
>
> No, it could have been a smaller plane with a bomb. It could have
> been a missile. It could have been set bombs going off. See how easy
> it is to actually think, instead of being 'a Bud'?
>
> CJ
So, where did American Airlines flt. 77 go? To the signpost up ahead
called The Twilight Zone?
Please.
Bud
Where is the lack of logic in proposing that two people wounded
very closely together who were lined up one in front of the other from
where a person was seen shooting at the time could have been struck by
the same bullet? I suppose you are going to claim that the bullet
found in Parkland isn`t damaged enough. You have no idea how the
bullet should look, just like the 9-11 truthers have no idea how the
hole in the Pentagon should look, it`s just clung to to resist
accepting what you don`t want to believe.
Barb Junkkarinen
"Could have" being the key words there. No lack of logic there. But
what did they find when they investigated? One would expect all in
this arena are aware that the original finding after the two day long
meetings examining the Z-film in April 1964, that included ballistic
guys from Aberdeen, some of the physicians, the Connally's, members of
the WC, FBI, SS, etc resulted in a memo reporting that they expected
to report that there were three shots and three hits ... the first
into JFK's back, the second into Connally's back, and the third into
JFK's head. But they weren't sure how that would fit with other
evidence ... and lo and behold, that did NOT fit with the timing
constraints of the rifle according to the number of seconds they were
told they had. The Warren Report itself says they had to consider
things within the timing constrsaints of the rifle. You are aware of
all that, right? The documents and complete quotes have been posted
many times before.
Barb :-)
>
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Jan 24, 10:43 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> Saw this exchange on the Education Forum.
>>
>> Fetzer claims no plane hit the Pentagon.
>>
>> Someone points out that the bodies of passengers was found in the
>> wreckage.
>>
>> Fetzer says that since no plane hit the Pentagon, any passenger bodies
>> must have been planted. Says the plane went over the Pentagon. You`d think
>> that would be something people would notice.
>>
>> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17284
>>
>> It`s bound to happen when poor thinking is allowed to flourish and is
>> encouraged like it has been in the JFK arena that the circus would move to
>> other towns. The same methodology developed in the JFK assassination by
>> CTers is employed by the conspiracy mongers in the 9-11 conspiracy cult.
>> Start with the premise that Oswald was a patsy, and all information must
>> be folded, bent or mutilated towards that "truth". Any evidence that goes
>> against that premise in invalidated, said to be planted, ignored. Not a
>> quest for truth but a faith fueled by desire. They desire that people not
>> responsible be held accountable for what others have done.
>
>Personally I don't think it is fair to assume that just because we do
>not believe the WC version of the Kennedy assasination that we are the
>same as every wild eyed illogical conspiracy theory out there.
Exactly right, Matt. It's that "many bodies connected to one befuddled
brain" thing that many LNs apply to thise who believe there was a
conspiracy in the JFK assassination. If you believe one conspiracy,
you must believe them all .... no logic in that at all, arrogant and
condescending besides, but that's what many do. In my experience,
those that can meet others on the evidence ... do so; some of those
that can't, drag out the wide brush and drag in every crazy thing as
if applies to all. Whatever one believes is just a starting point ...
it's what they can offer and argue on the evidence that matters.
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
>On Jan 23, 9:15 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I focus on your cosmic like reply, I really liked it in sooo many
>ways, I'll try and enumerate :
>
>"for we are not many bodies attached to one befuddled brain"
>
>* Is this a blanket comment about how the bodies were delivered on
>9/11, zip lock body bags like?
Ahhh, you demonstrate the point so well! Can you please provide any
comment I have ever made that would make anyone think that I, in any
way, think there is any validity to the 9/11 nonsense?
Of course you cannot, because I never have. I think it is beyond
ridiculous and often more than a tad offensive. But you drag out the
brush as if believing in a JFK consoiracy somehow means one also
believes in the 9/11 nonsense.
>
>"Same is true with LNs .... though there is less flexibility in what
>they believe"
>
>* This would seem to indicate you'd like to see many lone nut
>theories?
That really can't have been over your head, now could it? LOL
>I'll see if I can drum up an old post that places tomnln on
>the grassy knoll?
>
>"there is no end to tortured logic, blind faith, misstatememt of facts,
>folding and bending information, poor reasoning skills, etc"
>
>CTer's have made their fair share and more than their fair share of
>bloopers, but I wouldn't blame it all on them.
And that is the point. Wide brushes do not apply. I don't blame LNs at
large for the ridiculousness of some their more vocal number ... and
no one should do that with CTs either.
Barb :-)
>
>tl
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Jan 23, 11:15 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Please don't paint all CTers with the same wide brush. Fetzer, for
>> example, is hardly a mainstream CTer. "Any" and "all" doesn't fit all
>> CTers on just about anything in the JFK case. Same is true with LNs
>> .... though there is less flexibility in what they believe, there is
>> no end to tortured logic, blind faith, misstatememt of facts, folding
>> and bending information, poor reasoning skills, etc .... but that
>> certainly is not a blanket that covers all LNs ... anymore than a
>> blanket "CTers" statement can be a valid blanket, for we are not many
>> bodies attached to one befuddled brain. :-)
>
>Although there may be *some* CTs who are not completely irrational and
>whose view of the evidence is not completely warped. I would say the
>"rational" ones represent such a minority that they are statistically
>insignificant, thus making the generalization, generally TRUE.
The majority of CTs who are the mainstream, do not participate in
assorted forums as much as the fringies. Same is true of LNs ... the
more outrageous name-calling ones are usually a smaller presence on
newsgroups.
>
>On the other hand, "irrational" LNs are quite few in number.
Ahhh, but they make the most noise. And are usually easy to spot
because they really have no depth of knowledge and are unequipped to
argue their case. There was a real influx of that after Case Closed
came out.
CT or LN ... those who fit the more outrageous molds really do their
own cause more harm than good, imo. And they are one main reason more
and more of the knowledgeable and reasonable LNs and CTs do less and
less on forums, imo. Much more goes on between ALL these people in
e-mail groups.
>Most of the
>LNs are on the same page; their disagreements are usually on non-
>substantive matters that have little or no impact on the overall issue at
>hand. CTs have a vast array of wild theories, many of which are mutually
>exclusive. They are all over the place, much like taking a paint brush and
>flicking it onto a blank wall - each paint speck representing a different
>conspiracy theory.
That's what I meant. :-) LNs don't have the lattitude .... CTs do.
There is a whole spectrum of LNs and CTs. And it is not what anyone
believes that matters ... unless they can back it up, present it and
argue it. What some forums descend into, and this one of late is no
exception, is more bandwith about one another than about the case, the
evidence. Which goes back to why many involved in this arena for a
long time...don't bother with the forums that much anymore. Too bad,
imo, it used to be great. People watch, but, as is quite noticeable,
just pop in and out for the most part unless involved in a particular
discussion.
>
>One of my all time favorite quotes, from the book "Oswald's Game" (by Jean
>Davison"
>
>"The conspiracists' methods produce a surreal world. Every discrepancy is
>interpreted as a crack in the official stone wall through which one may
>glimpse the ugly truth of what happened. Behind the wall are disconnected
>scenes, each with its own set of conspirators. On close examination, many
>of these scenes evaporate."
It is true in some cases, but a tad too generalized for me. Jean and I
have been in groups together for more years than either one of us
probably wants to remember. And though we are decidedly at odds on the
bottom line, we have had some great discussions over the years, we
developed a mutual respect and are on quite friendly terms and help
one another find documents, etc when needed ... and we've have had a
few exchanges on people from "our side" that we'd be willing to trade
to one another. HA! Jean is well aware of wild-eyed types of both
persuasions. She is a very smart and very knowledgeable lady. And like
many of us, she is one who, a regualar presence for years, now just
pops in from time to time.
I don't think she believes that rhetoric that serves to promote
divisiveness, rather than promote discussion and exchange of ideas on
the evidence, is a good thing. And that was my point in what I said.
Barb :-)
>David Emerling
>Memphis, TN
>
Bud
Not "all others", I`m not the only LNer posting in these newsgroups.
But I don`t think that all thinking is the same, and that all ideas are
equal. That the Pentagon was either hit by a plane or a missile are not
equal propositions. When you have to go to the length of suggesting that
the bodies of passengers found in the wreckage were planted you are only
saying "My bad ideas require this, so this is what must have happened".
> > > There has been much written on the Pentagon attack, and
> > > it's easy to see why, when it just doesn't look like a big plane could
> > > have been apart of what went on.
>
> > Yah, theres the poor thinking.
>
> Do tell? The big plane couldn't fit. Even if it were flat on the
> ground it would have nosed about a story higher. Then this plane that
> sqeezes in defying the laws of physics, burrows, and creates a huge
> hole on the other side...when the nose part isn't particularly an
> object that would do anything like that. Of course the engines that
> might...that have some weight and mass, didn't.
Of course the 9-11 truthers can imagine reasons why it couldn`t be a
plane that made the hole, it`s what they focussed their creative energies
on. It isn`t surprising that people who really want to believe something
can set out creating justifications for their beliefs, it couldn`t be any
other way.
> > 1. "It doesn`t look to me like it should look if a plane made the
> > hole (even though the person hasn`t a clue how it should look if a
> > plane made the hole).
>
> > 2. This means it wasn`t a plane that made the hole.
>
> No, it means a large plane couldn't.
<snicker> You declare it impossible in order to pretend that your
truly impossible ideas are on an equal footing. They aren`t.
> > 3. Since I`ve decided a plane couldn`t make the hole, anything that
> > contradicts my conclusion must be lies, faked evidence, planted
> > evidence, ect.
>
> No, it could have been a smaller plane with a bomb. It could have
> been a missile. It could have been set bombs going off. See how easy
> it is to actually think, instead of being 'a Bud'?
See how easy it is for the conspiracy monger to convince himself
that all ideas are equal?
Barb Junkkarinen
Hiya,
There are many wild theories in the CT world, most have few
proponents, some have none except the person promoting it.
There are the fringies, where anything and everything is some
purposeful part of a grand overall conspiracy, where nearly every
document, especially from the WC or FBI is not to be trusted, where
nothing can be written off to incompetence or just a screw up or bad
info, where legions of people were killed and some still fear for
their lives, and with shooters and abort teams in every bush, manhole,
sewer - no matter what has long ago been completely debunked or shown
not to work with other documented evidence, etc.
Mainstream conspiracy believers are basically the opposite of that.<g>
And most that I know and work with, anyway, are mainstreamers. By and
large, and unfortunately, the biggest percentage no longer participate
in many groups on a regular basis because of all the nonsense, but
work together exchanging info and ideas, writing articles, reviewing
manuscripts, through other means.
It's an interesting arena ... all types with all sorts of opinions and
abilities and beliefs ... to which every one is entitled, of course.
Some are just not helpful to reasoned evaluation and consideration of
evidence and trying to sort ot all out.
I have always likened the assassination to a jigsaw puzzle. Say it is
a 1000 piece puzzle, but there are 3000 pieces in the box. The
challenge is to sort through the pieces and throw out the ones that,
even if true pieces of something, do not belong in this particular
puzzle. Those that can work together .... whether declared as CT or LN
... can help solve the puzzle.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Hi Sandy,
Specific areas I believe show conspiracy, in short:
1. Medical evidence
2. Shot sequence
There are others, but these are the two main areas I find the most
compelling and have dug the deepest in over the years... and have
posted lots and lots of material on over the years as well. Have had
my head in other pursuits over the last couple of years .... but plan
to be finished with those in a couple of months. Then I might get back
into some medical and shot sequence discussions if there are any good
ones happening.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Hi John!
I hear ya. How many hours have you and I spent on the phone and in
email, and snail mail, going over so many things ... especially with
you getting into taking a good hard look at the medical evidence. And,
wah-lah ... just look at all you have found and done. By and large,
people have no idea what tremendous work you have done on the medical
evidence. Those that do know, appreciate you so very much ... and
hopefully, some day, all will.
The "all or nothing" mentality, as you know, makes me crazy too. But,
of course, you and I come at it from different points of view as the
bottomline...
You see what the medical evidence spells out, but believe it was
manipulated because there were those who FEARED it meant there HAD
BEEN a conspiracy, but they were in fact wrong and there was no
conspiracy.
I, on the other hand, see what the medical evidence spells out (you
and I are almost in complete agreement on that, save a little detail
or idea here or there, but I believe it was manipulated because they
realized there WAS a conspiracy, and given the tenor of the times,
found that too scary to deal with so covered it up.
Fair assessment?
My hope, the one I think actually has a snowball's chance of
happening, is that other diehard LNs like yourself, will learn the
medical evidence like you did, understand it the way you have laid it
out, and concede that, by golly, Hill in DP, Parkland and Bethesda
were all correct as regards a nasty wound in the right rear of the
head .... but that there being a gaping wound in that locations does
NOT, in and of itself, mean a shot had to have come from the front.
That ear, I think, is the biggest stumbling block to all of us being
able to come to some well founded conclusions on the medical evidence.
And, also agree it's almost not worth the time in this type of venue
anymore as knee jerk reactions and refusal to look long enough to
understand and consider, etc has become more the norm than the
exception, from people on both sides of the knoll. Maybe it can get
back to the good old days of robust discussion some day. Would be nice
... sigh.
Hope you are well, we haven't talked in awhile .... you know how crazy
it gets here. Now have 24 hrs to finish up several things (not JFK
related) and get packed and ready to head out for a couple of days.
Will try to peek in here again before I go.
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
>Bests,
>
>:-)
Peter Fokes
<bar...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I don't blame LNs at
>large for the ridiculousness of some their more vocal number ... and
>no one should do that with CTs either.
John McAdams wrote in the thread JFK and the Madness of the American
Right
<quote on>
The left has just never been able to accept that one of their own
killed Kennedy.
<quote off>
His followers learn by example.
The chief spokesman of the LN side uses a broadbrush time and time
again, so his cohorts lower on the totem pole naturally feel it is a
legitimate tactic.
I responded to McAdams comment by writing:
<quote on>
You see, here we have an example of the difficulty people get
themselves into when they overgeneralize.
Sandy McCroskey posts here, and has no problem saying Oswald is
guilty.
Such overgeneralization is a partisan tactic, and certainly spins the
truth.
<quote off>
Then one LN named SLATS had the gall to post this message:
<quote on>
Did I stutter? You're a leftist. So was the assassin. Your camp owns
him. His political predilictions don't scream "right," do they?
<quote off>
Slats is wrong. I am not a leftist, but how would he know ... he
doesn't know me. I have never met slats, never talked to slats. He
knows diddly squat about me or my life.
But that is a digression. Lets get back to his comment. Slats is
implying that ANYONE WHO HAS A POLITICAL VIEW TO THE RIGHT OF CENTRE
IS ASSOCIATED WITH LEE HARVEY OSWALD. He even makes the absurd claim
leftists "own" the assassin. His comment is really a form of libel
imo.
I was discussing extremists on the right. I was not discussing ALL
PEOPLE WHOSE POLITICAL PERSUASION IS TO THE RIGHT OF CENTRE.
Yet this dude, sadly lacking in logic, doesn't get it, or deliberately
doesn't get it because he WANTS TO SMEAR EVERYONE TO THE LEFT OF
CENTRE rather than carry on an intelligent debate.
And it starts at the top.
OVER and OVER again, Mcadams paints the left with a broadbrush and his
cohorts just pant along in unison.
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Glenn Viklund
shot sequence, including number of shots fired?
"Barb Junkkarinen" <bar...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:r28uj6t4e2eo9s3kc...@4ax.com...
Bud
You are missing the point. The SBT is labeled impossible so the critic
can move on to possibilities then find more personally satisfying or
palatable.
> No lack of logic there.
Yet Matt says it is.
> But
> what did they find when they investigated? One would expect all in
> this arena are aware that the original finding after the two day long
> meetings examining the Z-film in April 1964, that included ballistic
> guys from Aberdeen, some of the physicians, the Connally's, members of
> the WC, FBI, SS, etc resulted in a memo reporting that they expected
> to report that there were three shots and three hits ... the first
> into JFK's back, the second into Connally's back, and the third into
> JFK's head.
Bullets go really fast and the wounds were not evident (except the
headshot, of course).
> But they weren't sure how that would fit with other
> evidence ... and lo and behold, that did NOT fit with the timing
> constraints of the rifle according to the number of seconds they were
> told they had.
It wasn`t just the timing restraints. They had witnesses who mostly said
three shots and three shells laying on the floor where people saw a
shooter. Nobody said they saw a gunman anywhere else but in that building.
Bullet fragments matched to the rifle found on that floor. Medical
information indicated a rear shooter. It is supremely reasonable to first
postulate theories centering on how a person firing three shots from that
location could have inflicted all the wounds. It would have been reckless
to move on to any other possibility until this one had been completely
ruled out. Consult Occam if you don`t believe me. CTers try to make it
sound as if the proper approach is a rush to judgement.
> The Warren Report itself says they had to consider
> things within the timing constrsaints of the rifle. You are aware of
> all that, right? The documents and complete quotes have been posted
> many times before.
How does any of that invalidate the SBT?
What has been produced since the SBT was proposed that invalidates
the SBT?
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
So you agree with John that there was a massive hole in the back of the
head from a frontal shot and the autopsy doctors covered it up, literally
by stretching the scalp? I thought you had some type of medical training
and you think they could stretch the scalp to cover a 3 inch hole? And
then use INVISIBLE stitching so that the scalp would look intact? You
think that everyone else in the world was lying and that the autopsy
doctors had JFK's clothing during the autopsy?
> Fair assessment?
>
> My hope, the one I think actually has a snowball's chance of
> happening, is that other diehard LNs like yourself, will learn the
> medical evidence like you did, understand it the way you have laid it
> out, and concede that, by golly, Hill in DP, Parkland and Bethesda
> were all correct as regards a nasty wound in the right rear of the
> head .... but that there being a gaping wound in that locations does
> NOT, in and of itself, mean a shot had to have come from the front.
> That ear, I think, is the biggest stumbling block to all of us being
> able to come to some well founded conclusions on the medical evidence.
>
And explain how you think there could be a massive hole in the back of the
head could happen if there was NOT a shot from the front. I realize that
you want to be seen as a "respectable" researcher and not a kook, but come
on, be realistic. What do you think would cause a 3" entrance hole, a
bazooka maybe?
> And, also agree it's almost not worth the time in this type of venue
> anymore as knee jerk reactions and refusal to look long enough to
> understand and consider, etc has become more the norm than the
> exception, from people on both sides of the knoll. Maybe it can get
> back to the good old days of robust discussion some day. Would be nice
> ... sigh.
>
You wanted robust discussion, but both you and John Canal refuse to
debate the issues.
Anthony Marsh
What do you do about the pieces that the government has destroyed?
Bud
That wasn`t the point at made at all. I realize that many JFK conspiracy
believers aren`t on the 9-11 conspiracy bandwagon. My point was the
approach and methodology of the 9-11 troofers was perfected by the JFK
conspiracy believers. They way they go about "investigating" is similar in
substance and style to what had been done previously by the buffs looking
into the Kennedy assassination.
Look at it this was, lets say someone had great motivation to support an
idea that had no basic in reality. Lets say they went to a baseball game,
and they wanted to make the case that the losing side won and the winning
side lost. How would they go about doing such a thing? I`d suggest they
study the way conspiracy mongerers approach both the Kennedy assassination
and 9-11 troofer movement for tips on how to go about it.
> but that's what many do. In my experience,
> those that can meet others on the evidence ... do so; some of those
> that can't, drag out the wide brush and drag in every crazy thing as
> if applies to all. Whatever one believes is just a starting point ...
> it's what they can offer and argue on the evidence that matters.
I disagree. Arguing on the evidence has been made pointless by the CTers
in both the case of the assassination and 9-11. How much money did the
government spend on computer models and engineering testing for the 9-11
report? How many people were swayed by this evidence? It doesn`t matter
how well or poorly the government makes it`s case, the conspiracy folks
will stick to what they prefer to believe.
Anthony Marsh
OK, but don't you try very hard to be the most extreme rightwinger here?
Whenever anyone says anything kind or decent you jump on him right away.
> But I don`t think that all thinking is the same, and that all ideas are
> equal. That the Pentagon was either hit by a plane or a missile are not
> equal propositions. When you have to go to the length of suggesting that
> the bodies of passengers found in the wreckage were planted you are only
> saying "My bad ideas require this, so this is what must have happened".
>
There is too much evidence indicating a plane, but you can't simply
dismiss alternatives because you think the government would never do
anything so horrible. Look at the plans the JCS proposed for Operation
Northwoods, including blowing up a passenger plane full of vacationing US
students. There is nothing that you can put past these guys.
>>>> There has been much written on the Pentagon attack, and
>>>> it's easy to see why, when it just doesn't look like a big plane could
>>>> have been apart of what went on.
>>
>>> Yah, theres the poor thinking.
>>
>> Do tell? The big plane couldn't fit. Even if it were flat on the
>> ground it would have nosed about a story higher. Then this plane that
>> sqeezes in defying the laws of physics, burrows, and creates a huge
>> hole on the other side...when the nose part isn't particularly an
>> object that would do anything like that. Of course the engines that
>> might...that have some weight and mass, didn't.
>
> Of course the 9-11 truthers can imagine reasons why it couldn`t be a
> plane that made the hole, it`s what they focussed their creative energies
> on. It isn`t surprising that people who really want to believe something
> can set out creating justifications for their beliefs, it couldn`t be any
> other way.
>
>>> 1. "It doesn`t look to me like it should look if a plane made the
>>> hole (even though the person hasn`t a clue how it should look if a
>>> plane made the hole).
>>
>>> 2. This means it wasn`t a plane that made the hole.
>>
>> No, it means a large plane couldn't.
>
> <snicker> You declare it impossible in order to pretend that your
> truly impossible ideas are on an equal footing. They aren`t.
>
A missile strike is not impossible. But the debris indicates a large jet.
Maybe it was just a test by the Pentagon to see how well the new walls
would be able to withstand the impact of a missile or a plane.
>>> 3. Since I`ve decided a plane couldn`t make the hole, anything that
>>> contradicts my conclusion must be lies, faked evidence, planted
>>> evidence, ect.
>>
>> No, it could have been a smaller plane with a bomb. It could have
>> been a missile. It could have been set bombs going off. See how easy
>> it is to actually think, instead of being 'a Bud'?
>
> See how easy it is for the conspiracy monger to convince himself
> that all ideas are equal?
>
How can you even consider alternatives when you don't even know they
exist?
John Canal
says...
>[...]
>Hi John!
>
>I hear ya. How many hours have you and I spent on the phone and in
>email, and snail mail, going over so many things ... especially with
>you getting into taking a good hard look at the medical evidence.
Wow, considering that's been going on for about 10 years now, that'd be
bunches of hours...but I don't regret a minute of it.
Amazing how that first conversation we had a decade or so ago, in which
you steered me to problems with the official story re. the medical ev.,
resulted in me spending 10 years trying to sort it all out. Again, I don't
regret it...it's been fascinating....the most bizarre part being how Baden
et al. were able to sell their B/S to some supposedly pretty smart authors
and researchers, including Posner and VB (I think the later senses there's
are problems with the official story though...just too busy to correct his
position).
>And,
>wah-lah ... just look at all you have found and done. By and large,
>people have no idea what tremendous work you have done on the medical
>evidence. Those that do know, appreciate you so very much
Uh, that'd pretty much be only you. Even Paul, who I'm in agreement with
on the BOH wound and the bottom line, seems to want to argue with me about
major clues (such as pointing out there were 12 autopsy photos
added--handwritten--to Kellerman's receipt which just so happens to jibe
with the total number of autopsy photos taken of the BOH scalp and the
theory they were taken after the morticians repaired the BOH) I present
that support our mutual conclusions. Go figure.
:-)
.. and
>hopefully, some day, all will.
I'm beginning to wonder...I'm not getting any younger, not to mention
heart issues...neither is Davis...who'd be a big help to this effort. :-)
>The "all or nothing" mentality, as you know, makes me crazy too. But,
>of course, you and I come at it from different points of view as the
>bottomline...
>
>You see what the medical evidence spells out, but believe it was
>manipulated because there were those who FEARED it meant there HAD
>BEEN a conspiracy, but they were in fact wrong and there was no
>conspiracy.
>
>I, on the other hand, see what the medical evidence spells out (you
>and I are almost in complete agreement on that, save a little detail
>or idea here or there, but I believe it was manipulated because they
>realized there WAS a conspiracy, and given the tenor of the times,
>found that too scary to deal with so covered it up.
>
>Fair assessment?
Yup.
>My hope, the one I think actually has a snowball's chance of
>happening, is that other diehard LNs like yourself, will learn the
>medical evidence like you did, understand it the way you have laid it
>out, and concede that, by golly, Hill in DP, Parkland and Bethesda
>were all correct as regards a nasty wound in the right rear of the
>head ....
Yes, that's my hope too....but one of the big problems is that the
autopsists (that bloody Berkley, IMO) shot themselves in the foot by
understating the extent of the BOH wound in their report (hell, the BOH
wound didn't just extend "somewhat" into the occipital, its lower margin
extended all the way down to near the EOP, that's why there were 11
cerebellum witnesses), not taking photos of the BOH when the body was
first received, and evidently pushing some loose rear skull fragments
(still adhered to the BOH scap) back into place before the X-rays.
BTW, on that point note that Boswell said he replaced some skull fragments
before an X-ray or photo was taken, but didn't specify which.....but go
through in your mind's eye all the photos and x-rays and pick which ones
he could possibly/logically have meant....IMO, the process of elimination
brings us to the lateral and maybe the AP x-rays....which is why there is
no evidence of a BOH wound in the lateral. Nice going Bos!
IMO, he did that for the same reason they didn't photograph the bOH scalp
until the morticians repaired it....they were afraid to show/report wounds
that could have meant or even suggested there had been a frontal shot and
an assassination conspiracy.
>but that there being a gaping wound in that locations does
>NOT, in and of itself, mean a shot had to have come from the front.
>That ear, I think, is the biggest stumbling block to all of us being
>able to come to some well founded conclusions on the medical evidence.
Yes, that's a biggie...but another is the fact that most hard-line LNers
took a stand on their position/s (e.g. a BOH wound equated to a shot from
the front and a low entry to a shot from the trunk) years ago and are
afraid to admit they may have "rushed to judgement" on those issues. They
won't budge a micrometer even though new information has surfaced, such as
(but hardly limited to) the reports of the ARRB experts which basically
say, "What cowlick entry?", the replications of F8 endorsed in writing and
in person by the autopsy photographer himself, the admission by one of the
HSCA FPP members that they might have been wrong about the entry and that
there needs to be another re-examination of the medical evidence, and the
realization that Humes himself innocuously and cleverly testified they saw
cerebellum [flocculus] when the body was first received.
>And, also agree it's almost not worth the time in this type of venue
>anymore as knee jerk reactions and refusal to look long enough to
>understand and consider, etc has become more the norm than the
>exception, from people on both sides of the knoll. Maybe it can get
>back to the good old days of robust discussion some day. Would be nice
>... sigh.
I just asked the group a question....I predict I'll get either no
responses or wise cracks from the likes of CDDDDRAFTSMAN. If I'm right,
I'm just about through here...except to defend myself when I notice that
someone attacks me. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him
drink.
As far as getting the matter exposed to help see that the medical evidence
is again re-examined goes, NBC was close...so wasn't the Pittsburgh paper.
Those close calls were frustrating but are a sign the media is willing to
listen.
When I can free myself from helping my Grandson to build science projects
for his science class and race cars to compete in his Cub Scout derby, I'm
back at contacting more media journalists for help.
>Hope you are well, we haven't talked in awhile .... you know how crazy
>it gets here. Now have 24 hrs to finish up several things (not JFK
>related) and get packed and ready to head out for a couple of days.
>Will try to peek in here again before I go.
Hope you and yours are doing well too and that you have a safe and fun
trip. No need to answer this...get ready for your trip...anyway, methinks
you agree with most, if not all, of what I wrote.
Bests,
:-)
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Jean Davison
> On 25 Jan 2011 01:13:26 -0500, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com>
Hi Barb,
Thank you (and David) for your kind comments. We do go back a long
way, and have always gotten along. I vaguely recall joking about
"trading" a certain LN (who no longer posts) but it was because he'd made
a personal attack on someone, not because I thought his reasoning was
"wild-eyed" in any way. So I have to disagree with you about that, Barb.
I can't think of any wild-eyed LN theories. We all agree on most
points, so far as I know.
Jean
Bud
> On 25 Jan 2011 01:13:26 -0500, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jan 23, 11:15 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Please don't paint all CTers with the same wide brush. Fetzer, for
> >> example, is hardly a mainstream CTer. "Any" and "all" doesn't fit all
> >> CTers on just about anything in the JFK case. Same is true with LNs
> >> .... though there is less flexibility in what they believe, there is
> >> no end to tortured logic, blind faith, misstatememt of facts, folding
> >> and bending information, poor reasoning skills, etc .... but that
> >> certainly is not a blanket that covers all LNs ... anymore than a
> >> blanket "CTers" statement can be a valid blanket, for we are not many
> >> bodies attached to one befuddled brain. :-)
>
> >Although there may be *some* CTs who are not completely irrational and
> >whose view of the evidence is not completely warped. I would say the
> >"rational" ones represent such a minority that they are statistically
> >insignificant, thus making the generalization, generally TRUE.
>
> The majority of CTs who are the mainstream, do not participate in
> assorted forums as much as the fringies. Same is true of LNs ... the
> more outrageous name-calling ones are usually a smaller presence on
> newsgroups.
>
>
>
> >On the other hand, "irrational" LNs are quite few in number.
>
> Ahhh, but they make the most noise.
But much fewer in number. It`s hard to imagine an LNer who believes we
didn`t land on the moon, it seems likely that just about every person who
believes we didn`t land on the moon also believes a conspiracy was behind
Kennedy`s death. So what is it about you position that attracts so many
people who think this way? And isn`t it "thinking this way" that makes for
conspiracy believers?
> And are usually easy to spot
> because they really have no depth of knowledge and are unequipped to
> argue their case. There was a real influx of that after Case Closed
> came out.
The same evidence that can be argued to mean "up" can be argued to mean
"down". I think it`s time to get past the bickering over "up" and "down"
and move on to which ideas are valid. Is it a valid idea to believe so
much evidence can exist indicating Oswald`s guilt and him be innocent? Is
a massive conspiracy a valid idea? Can the CTers support the idea that a
small conspiracy can accomplish all the things they claim were done on
11-22? It seems to me that the whole idea of conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination is built on impossible, therefore invalid foundations. Since
it couldn`t have went down like the CTers suggest then there is no reason
to entertain the idea. And it is really apparent that CTers don`t put
their ideas on the table because they would immediately be seen to be
impossible. Too big, too complex, too many amazing ideas required,
unrealistic measure of control required, impossible coordination required,
ect.
> CT or LN ... those who fit the more outrageous molds really do their
> own cause more harm than good, imo. And they are one main reason more
> and more of the knowledgeable and reasonable LNs and CTs do less and
> less on forums, imo. Much more goes on between ALL these people in
> e-mail groups.
<snicker> What do LNers have to exchange e-mails about? "Boy, that
Oswald sure killed Kennedy"?
> >Most of the
> >LNs are on the same page; their disagreements are usually on non-
> >substantive matters that have little or no impact on the overall issue at
> >hand. CTs have a vast array of wild theories, many of which are mutually
> >exclusive. They are all over the place, much like taking a paint brush and
> >flicking it onto a blank wall - each paint speck representing a different
> >conspiracy theory.
>
> That's what I meant. :-) LNs don't have the lattitude .... CTs do.
Fiction has more latitude than reality.
Anthony Marsh
Speaking of e-mail groups please explain to the newbies how the LN e-mail
groups are used to organize attacks on the conspiracy believers.
Anthony Marsh
And how did the acoustical evidence fit into the timing constraints of the
rifle? Everyone agreed that the rifle could not be reloaded and fired
faster than two shot separated by 2.24 seconds. The acoustical evidence
had a spacing of only 1.66 seconds between two shots. So, what to do?
Assume like the WC that the timing constraint is absolutely correct? No,
they went back and retested the constraint and found that indeed a rifle
could be reloaded and refired within 1.66 seconds.
But they rejected a fifth shot because it was only 1.05 seconds after
another shot. But if they needed that shot they could have reloaded and
fired a rifle within 1.05 seconds.
Anything to avoid finding a second shooter from behind.
Anthony Marsh
Ridiculing a theory by claiming that ideas are impossible is not
realistic. Look at the ideas proposed in Operation Northwoods.
If they wanted they could have the plane fly onto a military base.
Anthony Marsh
Ignoring your silly arguments about what YOU think couldn't have
happened, how do you explain the jumbo jet debris on the lawn? DO you
claim that it was planted there BEFORE your mystery missile hit?
Anthony Marsh
> In article<cd1677f6-7095-411d...@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> cdddra...@mail.com says...
>>
>> On Jan 24, 6:43=A0pm, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> "when there has been an abundance of new information and testimony
>> that has surfaced since they took those positions"
>>
>>
>> John Locke :
>>
>> "The central conclusion of the WC--that LHO alone committed the crime--
>> remains unchallenged by responsible, competent scholarship. The
>> countless conspiracy books which strenuously argue to the contrary
>> constitute the largest body of fraudulent work ever created. They have
>> much more to offer in the way of intrigue and excitement than the
>> truth",
>>
>> Which to them has as much use as a marriage license would have for an
>> alley cat .
>
> Either I wasn't clear or you jumped to the wrong conclusion after skimming
> through my post.
>
> There's no one here that believes more than I (as I advanced in my book,
> published by Paragon House, that I started researching over two decades ago) LHO
> ALONE assassinated JFK.
>
> That said, imo, if you don't think there were many in the early going that
> "thought" (I say mistakenly) there had been multiple shooters and an
> assassination conspiracy.....and that certain evidence was minipulated (with
> good intentions, but in many cases with poor planning)......so that it did not
> point in that directon, you've not done a whole lot of reading re. this case.
>
> John Canal
>
>
Almost all the officials who thought it was a conspiracy believed that
Oswald did the shooting alone, but was working for the Communists. Very
few thought there were multiple shooters.
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 24, 6:43 pm, John Canal<John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> "would a practical person really think it prudent, for example, to
> officially announce that JFK's wounds suggested
> there had been a frontal shooter as well as one firing from the TSBD?"
>
> a shooter in FRONT of him to frame a "patsy" whose gun would be found
> BEHIND his victim, don't you think?
>
>
>
>
Maybe that's why he didn't fired until the last possible second when it
looked like something had gone wrong in the TSBD.
Sandy McCroskey
> On 24 Jan 2011 21:42:43 -0500, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@gmail.com>
Well, that's interesting, but I was wondering if you could tell me
what single specific bit of evidence tells you a conspiracy was
likely.
Guess I'll have to wait...
Yours,
Sandy
Bud
No. Thats Chuck.
> Whenever anyone says anything kind or decent you jump on him right away.
You make me out to be some cruel inhuman monster. When JB recently
claimed to have excelled in grade school, I almost wrote "It must have
been easier to count when you had all your fingers", but I rejected such a
cold, heartless response making light of his digitly-challenged condition.
If thats not compassion, I don`t know what is.
> > But I don`t think that all thinking is the same, and that all ideas are
> > equal. That the Pentagon was either hit by a plane or a missile are not
> > equal propositions. When you have to go to the length of suggesting that
> > the bodies of passengers found in the wreckage were planted you are only
> > saying "My bad ideas require this, so this is what must have happened".
>
> There is too much evidence indicating a plane, but you can't simply
> dismiss alternatives because you think the government would never do
> anything so horrible. Look at the plans the JCS proposed for Operation
> Northwoods, including blowing up a passenger plane full of vacationing US
> students.
No, not a manned plane, can`t you read?
> There is nothing that you can put past these guys.
Northwoods is the excuse conspiracy mongers use to entertain any
nonsense that pops into their heads.
> >>>> There has been much written on the Pentagon attack, and
> >>>> it's easy to see why, when it just doesn't look like a big plane could
> >>>> have been apart of what went on.
>
> >>> Yah, theres the poor thinking.
>
> >> Do tell? The big plane couldn't fit. Even if it were flat on the
> >> ground it would have nosed about a story higher. Then this plane that
> >> sqeezes in defying the laws of physics, burrows, and creates a huge
> >> hole on the other side...when the nose part isn't particularly an
> >> object that would do anything like that. Of course the engines that
> >> might...that have some weight and mass, didn't.
>
> > Of course the 9-11 truthers can imagine reasons why it couldn`t be a
> > plane that made the hole, it`s what they focussed their creative energies
> > on. It isn`t surprising that people who really want to believe something
> > can set out creating justifications for their beliefs, it couldn`t be any
> > other way.
>
> >>> 1. "It doesn`t look to me like it should look if a plane made the
> >>> hole (even though the person hasn`t a clue how it should look if a
> >>> plane made the hole).
>
> >>> 2. This means it wasn`t a plane that made the hole.
>
> >> No, it means a large plane couldn't.
>
> > <snicker> You declare it impossible in order to pretend that your
> > truly impossible ideas are on an equal footing. They aren`t.
>
> A missile strike is not impossible.
Are you saying a missile can hit a building? Get out of town!
> But the debris indicates a large jet.
> Maybe it was just a test by the Pentagon to see how well the new walls
> would be able to withstand the impact of a missile or a plane.
>
> >>> 3. Since I`ve decided a plane couldn`t make the hole, anything that
> >>> contradicts my conclusion must be lies, faked evidence, planted
> >>> evidence, ect.
>
> >> No, it could have been a smaller plane with a bomb. It could have
> >> been a missile. It could have been set bombs going off. See how easy
> >> it is to actually think, instead of being 'a Bud'?
>
> > See how easy it is for the conspiracy monger to convince himself
> > that all ideas are equal?
>
> How can you even consider alternatives when you don't even know they
> exist?
Why do alternative needed to be considered? Isn`t what happened
evident?
Couldn`t it really have been a Kennedy double who was shot 11-22?
Couldn`t they have been testing a new Star Wars defense system when the
Challenge space shuttle was destroyed? How would people who churn out
stupid ideas like these know they are just plain stupid if nobody tells
them?
Anthony Marsh
So you think the theory about Hickey shooting Kennedy with an AR-15 is
not wild-eyed? You don't think John Canal's theories are wild-eyed?
How about a certain researcher who claims to be a WC defender yet is
sure that the Pedro Charles letters are genuine and that Castro paid
Oswald to shoot the President? You don't think that is wild-eyed?
How come you guys can't agree on which frame the SBT happened?
How come you guys can't agree on which shot missed?
How come you guys can't agree on what hit the curb near Tague?
How come you guys can't agree on where the entrance wound was, near the
EOP or 4 inches higher?
> Jean
Anthony Marsh
I never said the SBT is impossible. I said that it is possible, but so far
no one has produced one which works. That is because you, you personally,
have been too lazy to do the research necessary to prove it.
>> No lack of logic there.
>
> Yet Matt says it is.
>
>> But
>> what did they find when they investigated? One would expect all in
>> this arena are aware that the original finding after the two day long
>> meetings examining the Z-film in April 1964, that included ballistic
>> guys from Aberdeen, some of the physicians, the Connally's, members of
>> the WC, FBI, SS, etc resulted in a memo reporting that they expected
>> to report that there were three shots and three hits ... the first
>> into JFK's back, the second into Connally's back, and the third into
>> JFK's head.
>
> Bullets go really fast and the wounds were not evident (except the
> headshot, of course).
>
It is evident in the Altgens photo that both men had been hit by Z-255.
>> But they weren't sure how that would fit with other
>> evidence ... and lo and behold, that did NOT fit with the timing
>> constraints of the rifle according to the number of seconds they were
>> told they had.
>
> It wasn`t just the timing restraints. They had witnesses who mostly said
> three shots and three shells laying on the floor where people saw a
> shooter. Nobody said they saw a gunman anywhere else but in that building.
> Bullet fragments matched to the rifle found on that floor. Medical
> information indicated a rear shooter. It is supremely reasonable to first
> postulate theories centering on how a person firing three shots from that
> location could have inflicted all the wounds. It would have been reckless
So, tell us what was wrong with Dr. Humes's SBT.
You don't know the evidence, do you?
> to move on to any other possibility until this one had been completely
> ruled out. Consult Occam if you don`t believe me. CTers try to make it
> sound as if the proper approach is a rush to judgement.
>
>> The Warren Report itself says they had to consider
>> things within the timing constrsaints of the rifle. You are aware of
>> all that, right? The documents and complete quotes have been posted
>> many times before.
>
> How does any of that invalidate the SBT?
>
Calls into question. The WC itself said the SBT was not necessary to its
conclusions. It didn't need no damn stinkin SBT until Specter realized
there was a timing problem at the end of April 1964.
Anthony Marsh
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:06:07 -0800, Barb Junkkarinen
> <bar...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't blame LNs at
>> large for the ridiculousness of some their more vocal number ... and
>> no one should do that with CTs either.
>
> John McAdams wrote in the thread JFK and the Madness of the American
> Right
>
> <quote on>
>
> The left has just never been able to accept that one of their own
> killed Kennedy.
>
> <quote off>
>
> His followers learn by example.
>
They follow orders. He sends out his talking points in his secret e-mail
list which helps the WC defenders coordinate their attacks on the
conspiracy believers.
> The chief spokesman of the LN side uses a broadbrush time and time
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
Oh, he was quintessential LN ... but it was his delivery and attack
mode manner that was wild-eyed ... I said wild-eyed type, not theory
... and we discussed the trade after many of his episodes. I had a CT
in mind to offer in exchange who was making all CTs look bad at the
time, but I can't remember who that was. Wonder how the LN is doing
... it's been a very long time and I know he had gone through some
medical stuff. Hope he's okay.
I seem to remember this trading idea came about after some football
talk and you and I expressing our thoughts on Joe Montana and ... and
one or two players.<g>
>
>I can't think of any wild-eyed LN theories. We all agree on most
>points, so far as I know.
You have to. :-)
There really were some good old days on cserve, weren't there?!
Take care,
Barb :-)
>
>Jean
Barb Junkkarinen
how they think, or can't think, or think all the wrong things, yada,
yada, yada, to discussing issues and evidence of the case. Maybe I
will see you in such a discussion sometime.
Til then, to each their own.:-)
There are, btw, several well known and very knowledgeable LNs who take
part in email discussions. Seems that they understand that being able
to reasonably exchange with others, even those who disagree with them,
is a valuable way to get their point across ... and to understand
where those who think diferently about the same evidence, are coming
from.
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Jan 25, 2:18�pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barb...@comcast.net> wrote:
Sorry, I do not have the time ... nor the desire...to get into long
discussions on anything just now. Google is certainly full of my posts
on anything you might be interested in.
There is no "single specific bit" when it comes to the medica
evidencel, it's a very chock 'ful o' bits topic.
So is the shot sequence evidence, but the main thing there for me is
the collective evidence from multiple sources .... photo, film,
witness .... that triangulates the timing of the first shot/first hit
... and corroborates what the WC first said they expected to report:
JFK and Connally took separate shots.
Here's a link to an article I wrote some years ago on that:
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/issues_and_evidence/single-bullet_theory/Junkkarinen--first_shot1.html
It's even on an LN website.<g> It's also on the Lancer site, as it was
first published in their magazine.
That article explains my thoughts on that.
Bests,
Barb :-)
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<glenn54...@dataphone.se> wrote:
>Barb,
>
>shot sequence, including number of shots fired?
Hi Glenn!
I posted the link to an article that was published several years ago
somewhere in this thread, but in case you don't see it...here it is:
http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/issues_and_evidence/single-bullet_theory/Junkkarinen--first_shot1.html
It's shots 1 and 2 I deal with ... and find telling.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Chuck Schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -
Barb keeps her cards pretty close to her vest.
Glenn Viklund
article.
"Barb Junkkarinen" <bar...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:t1hvj65rt8lbkerfu...@4ax.com...
Bud
Or that the sun is hot.
>
>
>
>
> >> No lack of logic there.
>
> > Yet Matt says it is.
>
> >> But
> >> what did they find when they investigated? One would expect all in
> >> this arena are aware that the original finding after the two day long
> >> meetings examining the Z-film in April 1964, that included ballistic
> >> guys from Aberdeen, some of the physicians, the Connally's, members of
> >> the WC, FBI, SS, etc resulted in a memo reporting that they expected
> >> to report that there were three shots and three hits ... the first
> >> into JFK's back, the second into Connally's back, and the third into
> >> JFK's head.
>
> > Bullets go really fast and the wounds were not evident (except the
> > headshot, of course).
>
> It is evident in the Altgens photo that both men had been hit by Z-255.
You can see the wounds?
> >> But they weren't sure how that would fit with other
> >> evidence ... and lo and behold, that did NOT fit with the timing
> >> constraints of the rifle according to the number of seconds they were
> >> told they had.
>
> > It wasn`t just the timing restraints. They had witnesses who mostly said
> > three shots and three shells laying on the floor where people saw a
> > shooter. Nobody said they saw a gunman anywhere else but in that building.
> > Bullet fragments matched to the rifle found on that floor. Medical
> > information indicated a rear shooter. It is supremely reasonable to first
> > postulate theories centering on how a person firing three shots from that
> > location could have inflicted all the wounds. It would have been reckless
>
> So, tell us what was wrong with Dr. Humes's SBT.
> You don't know the evidence, do you?
You don`t know how to respond to the points people actually make, do
you?
> > to move on to any other possibility until this one had been completely
> > ruled out. Consult Occam if you don`t believe me. CTers try to make it
> > sound as if the proper approach is a rush to judgement.
>
> >> The Warren Report itself says they had to consider
> >> things within the timing constrsaints of the rifle. You are aware of
> >> all that, right? The documents and complete quotes have been posted
> >> many times before.
>
> > How does any of that invalidate the SBT?
>
> Calls into question.
How? Because they realized their working theory was fatally flawed
and came up with a new one that resolved the issues raised? Thats the
way it`s supposed to work, only CTers stick to theories after they`ve
been debunked.
>The WC itself said the SBT was not necessary to its
> conclusions. It didn't need no damn stinkin SBT until Specter realized
> there was a timing problem at the end of April 1964.
It was an evidential issue, investigation is a dynamic process,
nothing is carved in stone. A person the authorities initially reject
as a suspect can become a suspect later when the information he gave
is looked at better. It wouldn`t be an "interview problem" just
because the information was reviewed and something was picked up on.
Bud
> It's definitely time to move on .... from yacking about the people and
> how they think, or can't think, or think all the wrong things, yada,
> yada, yada, to discussing issues and evidence of the case. Maybe I
> will see you in such a discussion sometime.
I wouldn`t hold me breath. I have my own focus, and right now it`s
on the root cause of conspiracy think, getting bogged down in the
issues they raise is nonproductive from my point of view. Engaging
your average CTers on the assassination is as productive as trying to
convince a moon-kook that we landed on the moon as far as I can tell.
It`s possible that even engaging the CTers on the evidence is counter-
productive from the LN standpoint, an outsider sees a spirited
discussion and concludes there are two legitimates sides to it. I
don`t suppose there is any media appeal to having Tom Rossley appear
on a radio program by his self to spout conspiracy lore, but someone
thinks there is an audience for a debate.
I observe the approaches of various CTers, and note that despite
their starting points they all get to where they want to go by any
means necessary. With you it`s the medical evidence (and I would guess
that it was a desire to support conspiracy that led you to look so
hard at this area). With Cliff Varnell it`s the bullet holes in
Kennedy`s clothes. With Bob Harris it`s the reactions in the z-film.
With Don Willis it`s the discrepancies in the accounts. I`ve engaged
some of these people on these issues in the past and find it
immediately becomes a fight with a tar baby, bogged down and hopeless.
For the most part these people aren`t looking at the tree, or even the
leaves, they are looking at the veins in the leaves. So fixated on
their little universes that they lose sight of the big picture. As
soon as issues from the big picture are plugged into their little
worlds, the need immediately arises for extraordinary things to take
place in order for their conclusions to be valid. So, instead of
drawing the conclusion their ideas aren`t valid, they opt to believe
the extraordinary things their ideas require MUST have occurred. And
it doesn`t matter whether they can show them or not, since they are
convinced they MUST have occurred.
> Til then, to each their own.:-)
Certainly I have no desire to stop anyone from spending their time
on Earth any way they like. I`m just putting it out there that there
are ways for LNers to engage CTers that don`t involve getting down in
the mud and engaging them on their pet interests. It is rarely a
productive exercise. Just like CTers can build off the ideas of other
CTers, LNers can also compare notes on the best way to approach CT
think. This is why I brought up this Fetzer thing, to note the
similarities between his approach and that of the CTers in the
assassination. By studying these kinds of similarities perhaps we can
get to the root cause of CT think instead of focusing on it`s many
manifestations. Attack the hydra`s body instead of fighting all the
heads.
> There are, btw, several well known and very knowledgeable LNs who take
> part in email discussions. Seems that they understand that being able
> to reasonably exchange with others, even those who disagree with them,
> is a valuable way to get their point across ... and to understand
> where those who think diferently about the same evidence, are coming
> from.
Good luck to them on that.
Anthony Marsh
You. Your arguments make it clear that there was a conspiracy.
curtjester1
> On Jan 25, 10:52 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 24, 11:42 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 24, 9:24 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > Saw this exchange on the Education Forum.
>
> > > > > Fetzer claims no plane hit the Pentagon.
>
> > > > > Someone points out that the bodies of passengers was found in the
> > > > > wreckage.
>
> > > > > Fetzer says that since no plane hit the Pentagon, any passenger bodies
> > > > > must have been planted. Says the plane went over the Pentagon. You`d think
> > > > > that would be something people would notice.
>
> > > > > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17284
>
> > > > > It`s bound to happen when poor thinking is allowed to flourish and is
> > > > > encouraged like it has been in the JFK arena that the circus would move to
> > > > > other towns. The same methodology developed in the JFK assassination by
> > > > > CTers is employed by the conspiracy mongers in the 9-11 conspiracy cult.
> > > > > Start with the premise that Oswald was a patsy, and all information must
> > > > > be folded, bent or mutilated towards that "truth". Any evidence that goes
> > > > > against that premise in invalidated, said to be planted, ignored. Not a
> > > > > quest for truth but a faith fueled by desire. They desire that people not
> > > > > responsible be held accountable for what others have done.
>
> > > > must be 'poor thinking' and some malfunction of the human
> > > > personality.
>
> > > I didn`t start there, I arrived there after reading these
> > > newsgroups. I didn`t know such thinking existed until I got a computer
> > > and started surfing.
>
> > And of course, you 'out thunk them'...Bud thinks he thinks good, and
> > all others fall into a 'retard category'.
>
> Not "all others", I`m not the only LNer posting in these newsgroups.
>
> But I don`t think that all thinking is the same, and that all ideas are
> equal. That the Pentagon was either hit by a plane or a missile are not
> equal propositions. When you have to go to the length of suggesting that
> the bodies of passengers found in the wreckage were planted you are only
> saying "My bad ideas require this, so this is what must have happened".
>
What bodies, what luggage, what seats, what black boxes?
> > > > There has been much written on the Pentagon attack, and
> > > > it's easy to see why, when it just doesn't look like a big plane could
> > > > have been apart of what went on.
>
> > > Yah, theres the poor thinking.
>
> > Do tell? The big plane couldn't fit. Even if it were flat on the
> > ground it would have nosed about a story higher. Then this plane that
> > sqeezes in defying the laws of physics, burrows, and creates a huge
> > hole on the other side...when the nose part isn't particularly an
> > object that would do anything like that. Of course the engines that
> > might...that have some weight and mass, didn't.
>
> Of course the 9-11 truthers can imagine reasons why it couldn`t be a
> plane that made the hole, it`s what they focussed their creative energies
> on. It isn`t surprising that people who really want to believe something
> can set out creating justifications for their beliefs, it couldn`t be any
> other way.
>
It requires little imagination. The big plane didn't line up, even if
it was riding the ground (that low). It would have impacted higher on
the building. There's nothing in the scene that would resemble a
typical aircraft crash.
> > > 1. "It doesn`t look to me like it should look if a plane made the
> > > hole (even though the person hasn`t a clue how it should look if a
> > > plane made the hole).
>
> > > 2. This means it wasn`t a plane that made the hole.
>
> > No, it means a large plane couldn't.
>
> <snicker> You declare it impossible in order to pretend that your
> truly impossible ideas are on an equal footing. They aren`t.
>
That's why the Pilots have come forward and formed solidarity. They
know the impossibilities of that, and so many more of the surrounding
potential issues.
> > > 3. Since I`ve decided a plane couldn`t make the hole, anything that
> > > contradicts my conclusion must be lies, faked evidence, planted
> > > evidence, ect.
>
> > No, it could have been a smaller plane with a bomb. It could have
> > been a missile. It could have been set bombs going off. See how easy
> > it is to actually think, instead of being 'a Bud'?
>
> See how easy it is for the conspiracy monger to convince himself
> that all ideas are equal?
>
>
Wow, a monger!. Isn't it so easy to slough off, when you can't offer
any logistics? One doesn't have to have a definitive answer to know
that the profiled one that has been forced on to the public, isn't.
It's like describing how JFK was shot. You want the exact path, when
there are so many potential paths. All that is needed is to show that
Path(S) were involved, and not just the pat answer path you use your
imaginations on.
CJ
>
> > CJ
>
> > > > The passengers and 'feedback' have
> > > > been a quandry too, just as the one pic was that was 'to show' what
> > > > happened when there were tons of equipement that should have. Did
> > > > anyone see a plane or planes in the vicinity at the time, and even
> > > > leaving circa the impact? Yes.
>
> > > > I just read a book by Dean Hartwell. It's called Planes Without
> > > > Passengers. Instead of focusing on black boxes and planes fitting
> > > > through small holes and such, he focuses on one aspect, just like it's
> > > > appreciated when people do that for the JFK case, instead of getting
> > > > all sideways and turning into a soapbox of generalizations. He was
> > > > kind enough to send me the link where he used the footnotes in his
> > > > recent book.
>
> > > >http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2011/01/footnotes-in-the-new-bo...
>
> > > > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
these cases, or you are just saying that because you want 'to steer'
away from what might be investigated.
The mystery debris has been quite scrutinzed, and I have read that
that one piece on the lawn has some telling potentials, like it's more
likely to have come from one of those missile carrying planes than an
AA's plane. There's quite a bit to consider, and when one
broadstroke's, it's usually a bad sign, on the knowledge and
investigative side.
http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html
CJ
>
>
>
> >>> The passengers and 'feedback' have
> >>> been a quandry too, just as the one pic was that was 'to show' what
> >>> happened when there were tons of equipement that should have. Did
> >>> anyone see a plane or planes in the vicinity at the time, and even
> >>> leaving circa the impact? Yes.
>
> >>> I just read a book by Dean Hartwell. It's called Planes Without
> >>> Passengers. Instead of focusing on black boxes and planes fitting
> >>> through small holes and such, he focuses on one aspect, just like it's
> >>> appreciated when people do that for the JFK case, instead of getting
> >>> all sideways and turning into a soapbox of generalizations. He was
> >>> kind enough to send me the link where he used the footnotes in his
> >>> recent book.
>
> >>>http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2011/01/footnotes-in-the-new-bo...
>
> >>> CJ- Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
davidemerling
> CT or LN ... those who fit the more outrageous molds really do their
> own cause more harm than good, imo. And they are one main reason more
> and more of the knowledgeable and reasonable LNs and CTs do less and
> less on forums, imo. Much more goes on between ALL these people in
> e-mail groups.
One of the biggest differences I notice between CTs and LNs is their
approach to the topic. LNs are more interested in straightening an
aspect of American history that has been distorted. They approach it
from an historical accuracy point of view.
CTs, on the other hand, approach it more as a hobby, parlor game, or
debate contest - showing little interest in historical accuracy,
rather, just drumming up questions and finding discrepancies in the
record -and- from that, trying to extrapolate theories. One thing
you'll notice is that most CTs try to carve a niche in their approach
to the assassination. They typically have pet theories (bordering on
obsession) that they try to sell like an Amway salesman. They tend to
be more emotional. They seldom choose to debate fellow CTs, although
their disagreements with them are sometimes no less than they have
with LNs. And then you have the extreme radicals who have never
rejected a single conspiratorial point - seemingly having no cogent
theory of their own. They believe EVERYTHING was a cover-up. ALL the
evidence is tainted or planted. EVERYBODY in authority is either
lying, covering-up, or is part of the conspiracy.
These days, my personal interest in the Kennedy assassination has very
little to do with convincing people that there was no conspiracy. In
forums such as this - that cannot be accomplished because the "battle
lines" are so stark. Anthony Marsh is NEVER going to say, "Hmmm, I
guess you guys were right all along. I was wrong. You've convinced me.
There was no conspiracy." Bob Harris is never going to say, "There was
no shot at Z-285. I was wrong. There were only 3 shots - all of which
were fired by Oswald." Bob Rossley is not going to say, "I'm taking
down my website. Basically, it's all crap. The fundamental findings of
the Warren Commission, that Oswald was the lone assassin, appears to
be accurate after all."
And yet, I *did* used to believe in a conspiracy. I was ignorant. When
I did the research, I realized how vacant all those wild theories
were. I was wrong. Sure, it was kind of a hard pill to swallow but,
then again, I was not on a rampage to PROVE there was a conspiracy.
Nobody in this forum is ever going to swallow that "pill." They are
too proud, too argumentative, and too committed to their cause.
The people that I "convince" are those who know very little about the
topic but have been clearly influenced by the pervasive and persistent
drum beats of the conspiracy community. I usually encounter these
people on a casual basis and the Kennedy assassination just HAPPENS to
come up in conversation. This doesn't happen too often, by the way. I
can almost always tell WHICH of the many conspiracy books that they've
read by the opinions they express.
I think those who perpetuate the conspiracy myth (not just in the
Kennedy assassination) do this country more harm than good. They think
they are revealing the dark underbelly of our government - and there
is is no doubt that our government is not perfect and has done some
horrible things - but there simply is no evidence that our government
was involved in a cover-up (or, worse yet, complicit!) in the Kennedy
assassination. They are just wasting their time and entertaining
themselves, for the most part.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Jean Davison
> On 25 Jan 2011 19:38:28 -0500, Jean Davison <jean.davis...@gmail.com>
Sorry if I misunderstood you, Barb. Ah, the JFK forum on
Compuserve. Those were the days.
Jean
>
>
>
> >Jean- Hide quoted text -
Sandy McCroskey
> On 25 Jan 2011 19:29:49 -0500, "Glenn Viklund"
>
> >Barb,
>
> >shot sequence, including number of shots fired?
>
> Hi Glenn!
>
> I posted the link to an article that was published several years ago
> somewhere in this thread, but in case you don't see it...here it is:
>
>
> It's shots 1 and 2 I deal with ... and find telling.
>
Here I read: "Not only was the SBT not probable with less than two
seconds between shots, it was not possible. If JFK and Connally took
separate bullets less than two seconds apart, the SBT falls on its not
quite pristine little fanny."
And am stopped dead in my tracks.
A single bullet would have taken considerably *less* than two seconds
to pass through the two bodies. The "theory" would be utterly
impossible if the hits sustained by JFK and JC were as *long* as two
seconds apart.
/sandy
> Bests,
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
> >"Barb Junkkarinen" <barb...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:r28uj6t4e2eo9s3kc...@4ax.com...
> >> On 24 Jan 2011 21:42:43 -0500, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@gmail.com>
Anthony Marsh
Yes, even a manned plane.
>> There is nothing that you can put past these guys.
>
> Northwoods is the excuse conspiracy mongers use to entertain any
> nonsense that pops into their heads.
>
Northwoods is just one example of the crazy things they do.
Don't assume that the simplest answer is the correct answer. Do you
still think that Watergate was just a third-rate burglary?
> Couldn`t it really have been a Kennedy double who was shot 11-22?
> Couldn`t they have been testing a new Star Wars defense system when the
> Challenge space shuttle was destroyed? How would people who churn out
> stupid ideas like these know they are just plain stupid if nobody tells
> them?
>
Because I tell them they are stupid and explain why with facts.
Just as I disproved the missile hitting the Pentagon theory.
Sandy McCroskey
Yeah, and I'm in on it.
Sea kelp.
/sm
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 25, 12:28 pm, Barb Junkkarinen<barb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> CT or LN ... those who fit the more outrageous molds really do their
>> own cause more harm than good, imo. And they are one main reason more
>> and more of the knowledgeable and reasonable LNs and CTs do less and
>> less on forums, imo. Much more goes on between ALL these people in
>> e-mail groups.
>
> One of the biggest differences I notice between CTs and LNs is their
> approach to the topic. LNs are more interested in straightening an
> aspect of American history that has been distorted. They approach it
> from an historical accuracy point of view.
>
One of the biggest differences I notice between CTs and LNs is their
approach to the topic. LNs are more interested in supporting the
government no matter what lies it tells. They refuse to study the
evidence and make up their own minds.
As always because the WC defenders do not have the facts on their side
their only way out is to demonize their opponents.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 25, 1:28 pm, Barb Junkkarinen<barb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 25 Jan 2011 01:13:26 -0500, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jan 23, 11:15 pm, Barb Junkkarinen<barb...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Please don't paint all CTers with the same wide brush. Fetzer, for
>>>> example, is hardly a mainstream CTer. "Any" and "all" doesn't fit all
>>>> CTers on just about anything in the JFK case. Same is true with LNs
>>>> .... though there is less flexibility in what they believe, there is
>>>> no end to tortured logic, blind faith, misstatememt of facts, folding
>>>> and bending information, poor reasoning skills, etc .... but that
>>>> certainly is not a blanket that covers all LNs ... anymore than a
>>>> blanket "CTers" statement can be a valid blanket, for we are not many
>>
>>> Although there may be *some* CTs who are not completely irrational and
>>> whose view of the evidence is not completely warped. I would say the
>>> "rational" ones represent such a minority that they are statistically
>>> insignificant, thus making the generalization, generally TRUE.
>>
>> The majority of CTs who are the mainstream, do not participate in
>> assorted forums as much as the fringies. Same is true of LNs ... the
>> more outrageous name-calling ones are usually a smaller presence on
>> newsgroups.
>>
>>
>>
>>> On the other hand, "irrational" LNs are quite few in number.
>>
>> Ahhh, but they make the most noise.
>
> didn`t land on the moon, it seems likely that just about every person who
> believes we didn`t land on the moon also believes a conspiracy was behind
> Kennedy`s death. So what is it about you position that attracts so many
> people who think this way? And isn`t it "thinking this way" that makes for
> conspiracy believers?
>
>> because they really have no depth of knowledge and are unequipped to
>> argue their case. There was a real influx of that after Case Closed
>> came out.
>
> "down". I think it`s time to get past the bickering over "up" and "down"
> and move on to which ideas are valid. Is it a valid idea to believe so
> much evidence can exist indicating Oswald`s guilt and him be innocent? Is
> a massive conspiracy a valid idea? Can the CTers support the idea that a
> small conspiracy can accomplish all the things they claim were done on
> 11-22? It seems to me that the whole idea of conspiracy in the Kennedy
> assassination is built on impossible, therefore invalid foundations. Since
> it couldn`t have went down like the CTers suggest then there is no reason
> to entertain the idea. And it is really apparent that CTers don`t put
> their ideas on the table because they would immediately be seen to be
> impossible. Too big, too complex, too many amazing ideas required,
> unrealistic measure of control required, impossible coordination required,
> ect.
>
It seems that you waste all your time making up straw man arguments
instead of studying the evidence.
>> CT or LN ... those who fit the more outrageous molds really do their
>> own cause more harm than good, imo. And they are one main reason more
>> and more of the knowledgeable and reasonable LNs and CTs do less and
>> less on forums, imo. Much more goes on between ALL these people in
>> e-mail groups.
>
> <snicker> What do LNers have to exchange e-mails about? "Boy, that
> Oswald sure killed Kennedy"?
>
How to attack conspiracy believers. Taking turns at asking the same
silly questions which have already been answered hundreds of time before.
>>> Most of the
>>> LNs are on the same page; their disagreements are usually on non-
>>> substantive matters that have little or no impact on the overall issue at
>>> hand. CTs have a vast array of wild theories, many of which are mutually
>>> exclusive. They are all over the place, much like taking a paint brush and
>>> flicking it onto a blank wall - each paint speck representing a different
>>> conspiracy theory.
>>
>> That's what I meant. :-) LNs don't have the lattitude .... CTs do.
>
> Fiction has more latitude than reality.
>
Bud
> On 25 Jan 2011 23:15:04 -0500, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@gmail.com>
>
> It's even on an LN website.<g> It's also on the Lancer site, as it was
> first published in their magazine.
>
> That article explains my thoughts on that.
Two thoughts on Barb`s thoughts...
One, I would suggest that the underlying motivation for such an in
depth examination as Barb conducted is not to determine the truth but
to find justifications for her suspicions and to find support for the
idea of conspiracy.
Two, although information that can be demonstrated to be
questionable is usually rejected by CTers, the "2.3 seconds between
shots" is embraced because it is very long compared to what other M-C
owners can accomplish with their Carcanos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOQ2oebB2M
> Bests,
> Barb :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
curtjester1
> On Jan 25, 8:52 am, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > 3. Since I`ve decided a plane couldn`t make the hole, anything that
> > > contradicts my conclusion must be lies, faked evidence, planted
> > > evidence, ect.
>
> > No, it could have been a smaller plane with a bomb. It could have
> > been a missile. It could have been set bombs going off. See how easy
> > it is to actually think, instead of being 'a Bud'?
>
>
> So, where did American Airlines flt. 77 go? To the signpost up ahead
> called The Twilight Zone?
>
> Please.
Well, why not investigate it? Making childish, Rod Serling comments
isn't going to make your day is it?
CJ
Anthony Marsh
If you mean 9/11 I have looked into it much more than you have.
Some of your ideas are just plain silly and you don't dare answer my
questions.
> The mystery debris has been quite scrutinzed, and I have read that
> that one piece on the lawn has some telling potentials, like it's more
> likely to have come from one of those missile carrying planes than an
> AA's plane. There's quite a bit to consider, and when one
> broadstroke's, it's usually a bad sign, on the knowledge and
> investigative side.
>
Wrong. The debris is consistent with a jumbo jet.
Barb Junkkarinen
<glenn54...@dataphone.se> wrote:
>Thanks Barb, yes I saw your link. Interesting, I'll certainly read this
>article.
Great, I'll be interested in your thoughts on it. Dr. Doug DeSalles
did a follow up article ... I have that text and will be happy to send
it to you if you want it. I have been procrastinating finishing up a
few things before packing and getting ready to leave tomorrow morning,
but must get to it soon. So, I won't be around the group for 2 or 3
days, but you know where to find me.
Barb Junkkarinen
1. I have a Carcano.
2. 2.3 seconds was the timing constraint the WC was under ... that was
the number THEY HAD to deal with.
3. The time between shots 1 and 2, if they occured as explained in my
article, was less than 2 seconds.
4. Your speculation on my motivation is ridiculous....and regardless
the results of this "in depth examination" are independent of my
motivation. The results simply are what they are..
>
>> Bests,
>> Barb :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On Jan 25, 11:30 pm, Barb Junkkarinen <barb...@comcast.net> wrote:
Yes, they were .... though Alex the sysop may not agree...lol.
Bests,
Barb :-)
Anthony Marsh
You expect to find recognizable plane artifacts after that explosion and
fire? Ok then, YOU show me recognizable missile parts.
>>>>> There has been much written on the Pentagon attack, and
>>>>> it's easy to see why, when it just doesn't look like a big plane could
>>>>> have been apart of what went on.
>>
>>>> Yah, theres the poor thinking.
>>
>>> Do tell? The big plane couldn't fit. Even if it were flat on the
>>> ground it would have nosed about a story higher. Then this plane that
>>> sqeezes in defying the laws of physics, burrows, and creates a huge
>>> hole on the other side...when the nose part isn't particularly an
>>> object that would do anything like that. Of course the engines that
>>> might...that have some weight and mass, didn't.
>>
>> Of course the 9-11 truthers can imagine reasons why it couldn`t be a
>> plane that made the hole, it`s what they focussed their creative energies
>> on. It isn`t surprising that people who really want to believe something
>> can set out creating justifications for their beliefs, it couldn`t be any
>> other way.
>>
> It requires little imagination. The big plane didn't line up, even if
> it was riding the ground (that low). It would have impacted higher on
> the building. There's nothing in the scene that would resemble a
> typical aircraft crash.
>
Not if it goes in nose down.
>>>> 1. "It doesn`t look to me like it should look if a plane made the
>>>> hole (even though the person hasn`t a clue how it should look if a
>>>> plane made the hole).
>>
>>>> 2. This means it wasn`t a plane that made the hole.
>>
>>> No, it means a large plane couldn't.
>>
>> <snicker> You declare it impossible in order to pretend that your
>> truly impossible ideas are on an equal footing. They aren`t.
>>
> That's why the Pilots have come forward and formed solidarity. They
> know the impossibilities of that, and so many more of the surrounding
> potential issues.
>
Some.
Anthony Marsh
Not what I said. If you see someone reacting to being shot you don't
have to see the wounds to be able to see him react to being shot.
>>>> But they weren't sure how that would fit with other
>>>> evidence ... and lo and behold, that did NOT fit with the timing
>>>> constraints of the rifle according to the number of seconds they were
>>>> told they had.
>>
>>> It wasn`t just the timing restraints. They had witnesses who mostly said
>>> three shots and three shells laying on the floor where people saw a
>>> shooter. Nobody said they saw a gunman anywhere else but in that building.
>>> Bullet fragments matched to the rifle found on that floor. Medical
>>> information indicated a rear shooter. It is supremely reasonable to first
>>> postulate theories centering on how a person firing three shots from that
>>> location could have inflicted all the wounds. It would have been reckless
>>
>> So, tell us what was wrong with Dr. Humes's SBT.
>> You don't know the evidence, do you?
>
> You don`t know how to respond to the points people actually make, do
> you?
>
You can't meet the challenge, can you?
>>> to move on to any other possibility until this one had been completely
>>> ruled out. Consult Occam if you don`t believe me. CTers try to make it
>>> sound as if the proper approach is a rush to judgement.
>>
>>>> The Warren Report itself says they had to consider
>>>> things within the timing constrsaints of the rifle. You are aware of
>>>> all that, right? The documents and complete quotes have been posted
>>>> many times before.
>>
>>> How does any of that invalidate the SBT?
>>
>> Calls into question.
>
> How? Because they realized their working theory was fatally flawed
> and came up with a new one that resolved the issues raised? Thats the
> way it`s supposed to work, only CTers stick to theories after they`ve
> been debunked.
>
So this is your excuse for changing the SBT every hour?
Bud
I guess you can`t read. Those that can can read #8....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
> >> There is nothing that you can put past these guys.
>
> > Northwoods is the excuse conspiracy mongers use to entertain any
> > nonsense that pops into their heads.
>
> Northwoods is just one example of the crazy things they do.
Didn`t do.
When did any investigator into the Watergate burglary declare it an
ordinary burglary? Pretty evident it wasn`t, burglars are usually
after things they can sell, not paperwork.
> > Couldn`t it really have been a Kennedy double who was shot 11-22?
> > Couldn`t they have been testing a new Star Wars defense system when the
> > Challenge space shuttle was destroyed? How would people who churn out
> > stupid ideas like these know they are just plain stupid if nobody tells
> > them?
>
> Because I tell them they are stupid and explain why with facts.
I think you are adding an unnecessary step.
Bud
> On 1/25/2011 10:03 PM,Budwrote:
Those are called "points" Tony, address them if you can, ignore them
if you can`t.
> >> CT or LN ... those who fit the more outrageous molds really do their
> >> own cause more harm than good, imo. And they are one main reason more
> >> and more of the knowledgeable and reasonable LNs and CTs do less and
> >> less on forums, imo. Much more goes on between ALL these people in
> >> e-mail groups.
>
> > <snicker> What do LNers have to exchange e-mails about? "Boy, that
> > Oswald sure killed Kennedy"?
>
> How to attack conspiracy believers. Taking turns at asking the same
> silly questions which have already been answered hundreds of time before.
Yah Tony, plots everywhere.
Bud
Did you watch the video? Here it is again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOQ2oebB2M
The guy is getting THREE aimed shots off in 2.3 seconds. Why do you
insist on sticking with a time when it can be shown that it can be
done faster?
> 3. The time between shots 1 and 2, if they occured as explained in my
> article, was less than 2 seconds.
The guy in the video shows that two shots closer than 1.8 seconds
are possible.
> 4. Your speculation on my motivation is ridiculous....and regardless
> the results of this "in depth examination" are independent of my
> motivation. The results simply are what they are..
I knew you thought this and would claim this, that your work is
untainted by bias. My thinking is that only someone with a strong
suspicion would micro-analyze it like you have, and anyone looking at
it that had a strong suspicion would almost certainly find
justifications for their suspicions.
You don`t think the people who believe we didn`t land on the moon were
accepting that we did and one day saw a photo, and noticed something
didn`t look right, do you? They went in with suspicions and scrutinized
the photos looking to justify the suspicions they already had. I wonder if
it has ever happened that a strongly suspicious individual convinced
something wasn`t "quite right" has ever scrutinized evidence and come away
saying "No, I was wrong, there wasn`t anything there to justify my
suspicions." You didn`t examine that evidence looking for answers, you
believed there was a conspiracy before you ever started your examination
of that evidence, and it wasn`t that evidence that convinced you there was
a conspiracy.
Glenn Viklund
I have a question: Why is it that Barb's motivation is in question? This is
one thing I cannot understand with many of these forums - no matter who the
persons involved are or what the subject is; this thing with questioning
people's motive's is a very effective way to steer discussions away from the
issues. As it often occurs without any merit, it leads nowhere.
(FYI: in the JVB discussions here, my motives were not only questioned. I
was accused of doing this for "financial and political reasons", and because
I'm "a WC defender". The person in question knows of course nothing about my
motives and can only speculate. When such speculations above all are dead
wrong, it's quite annoying and will, if answered - only lead to more crap.
Instead of discussing the issue at hand..)
I read the article referred to, and written by Barb. I'm no certainly no
expert on the shot sequence but I do know when I'm reading a balanced and
well argued standpoint - which Barb demonstrates here.
So Bud, what am I missing?
Regards,
Glenn V.
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:708a0d08-1012-49a4...@y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
curtjester1
your question with the link. If you don't want to read and address, I
can't help you.
> > The mystery debris has been quite scrutinzed, and I have read that
> > that one piece on the lawn has some telling potentials, like it's more
> > likely to have come from one of those missile carrying planes than an
> > AA's plane. There's quite a bit to consider, and when one
> > broadstroke's, it's usually a bad sign, on the knowledge and
> > investigative side.
>
> Wrong. The debris is consistent with a jumbo jet.
>
>
Wow, if dogmatic assertions were a form of proof, you would have
solved JFK in the first year.
http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/debris.html
>
> >http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html
>
> > CJ
>
> >>>>> The passengers and 'feedback' have
> >>>>> been a quandry too, just as the one pic was that was 'to show' what
> >>>>> happened when there were tons of equipement that should have. Did
> >>>>> anyone see a plane or planes in the vicinity at the time, and even
> >>>>> leaving circa the impact? Yes.
>
> >>>>> I just read a book by Dean Hartwell. It's called Planes Without
> >>>>> Passengers. Instead of focusing on black boxes and planes fitting
> >>>>> through small holes and such, he focuses on one aspect, just like it's
> >>>>> appreciated when people do that for the JFK case, instead of getting
> >>>>> all sideways and turning into a soapbox of generalizations. He was
> >>>>> kind enough to send me the link where he used the footnotes in his
> >>>>> recent book.
>
> >>>>>http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2011/01/footnotes-in-the-new-bo...- Hide quoted text -
WhiskyJoe
> You don't think the people who believe we didn't
> land on the moon were accepting that we did and
> one day saw a photo, and noticed something
> didn't look right, do you? They went in with
> suspicions and scrutinized the photos looking
> to justify the suspicions they already had.
> I wonder if it has ever happened that a
> strongly suspicious individual convinced
> something wasn't "quite right" has ever
> scrutinized evidence and come away saying
> "No, I was wrong, there wasn't anything there
> to justify my suspicions."
I would imagine this doesn't happen very often.
They will always find something.
"Seek and you shall find"
is what generally happens.
> You didn't examine that evidence looking for
> answers, you believed there was a conspiracy
> before you ever started your examination
> of that evidence, and it wasn't that evidence
> that convinced you there was a conspiracy.
**************************************************
I think a person's bias does cause people to make
questionable decisions.
Do JFK and Connally appear to be wounded at the
same time? The most reasonable thing to do is to
look at the stabilized versions of the Zapruder
film and judge for yourself. But the problem with
this approach is it really does appear that both
JFK and Connally react a the same time.
So a more reasonable approach, to Barb, is to look
at the initial reactions of the WC investigators.
They looked at the Zapruder film for a day or two
and concluded they were wounded by two different
shots. Never mind they did not have a stabilized
version of the Zapruder film. Never mind that
analyzing the 'raw', jerky Zapruder film is like
analyzing a stabilized version after drinking
3 pots of coffee. In the 'raw' jerky film, it's
hard to tell what happened.
Probably, what really steered the WC investigators
was not the Zapruder film. After, it's possible
someone may show a delayed reaction to being
wounded. That certainly is not uncommon in
combat wounds. But what really convinced the
investigators was:
* Why was only one bullet found?
* Why was no damage to the limousine found except
for damage that can be more reasonably explained
by the head shot?
* How could JFK's throat deflect a bullet enough
to miss Connally and the entire limousine?
* How is it the wounds just happen to at least
roughly line up with the sixth floor window?
These considerations should steer any competent
investigator toward the Single Bullet Theory,
even without a stabilized version of the
Zapruder film showing the simultaneous reactions.
Anthony Marsh
Not good enough. Why don't you claim that he can get off 6 shots in 1
second? Your ramblings are meaningless because you believe there had to be
a SBT to get rid of a timing problem of only 1.66 seconds, which the HSCA
had already solved. And your other shots are widely spaced out. So you
don't need your shots to be spaced so closely together. The more you
continue this folly the more you make the HSCA version possible.
Bud
But it is what I said.
> If you see someone reacting to being shot you don't
> have to see the wounds to be able to see him react to being shot.
I didn`t say reactions to the wounds. Reactions are speculative, ask
Bob Harris. People are shot all the time and don`t even realize it.
> >>>> But they weren't sure how that would fit with other
> >>>> evidence ... and lo and behold, that did NOT fit with the timing
> >>>> constraints of the rifle according to the number of seconds they were
> >>>> told they had.
>
> >>> It wasn`t just the timing restraints. They had witnesses who mostly said
> >>> three shots and three shells laying on the floor where people saw a
> >>> shooter. Nobody said they saw a gunman anywhere else but in that building.
> >>> Bullet fragments matched to the rifle found on that floor. Medical
> >>> information indicated a rear shooter. It is supremely reasonable to first
> >>> postulate theories centering on how a person firing three shots from that
> >>> location could have inflicted all the wounds. It would have been reckless
>
> >> So, tell us what was wrong with Dr. Humes's SBT.
> >> You don't know the evidence, do you?
>
> > You don`t know how to respond to the points people actually make, do
> > you?
>
> You can't meet the challenge, can you?
Can`t address the points I made, can you?
> >>> to move on to any other possibility until this one had been completely
> >>> ruled out. Consult Occam if you don`t believe me. CTers try to make it
> >>> sound as if the proper approach is a rush to judgement.
>
> >>>> The Warren Report itself says they had to consider
> >>>> things within the timing constrsaints of the rifle. You are aware of
> >>>> all that, right? The documents and complete quotes have been posted
> >>>> many times before.
>
> >>> How does any of that invalidate the SBT?
>
> >> Calls into question.
>
> > How? Because they realized their working theory was fatally flawed
> > and came up with a new one that resolved the issues raised? Thats the
> > way it`s supposed to work, only CTers stick to theories after they`ve
> > been debunked.
>
> So this is your excuse for changing the SBT every hour?
It is constant and consistent. The same bullet causing wounds to
both Kennedy and Connally.
Bud
wrote:
> Bud,
>
> I have a question: Why is it that Barb's motivation is in question? This is
> one thing I cannot understand with many of these forums - no matter who the
> persons involved are or what the subject is; this thing with questioning
> people's motive's is a very effective way to steer discussions away from the
> issues. As it often occurs without any merit, it leads nowhere.
I think motivations are the root cause of the conspiracy problem, so to
rule them off limits insures the problem is never addressed, therefore
never resolved. Certainly bickering over the evidence for all eternity
will never resolve anything. Barb micro-analyzed the case because she was
looking for conspiracy. Barb found conspiracy, just like every other CTer
who micro-analyzed the case, regardless of which aspect of the case they
chose to focus on. I don`t think it happens that people who are highly
suspicious of a conclusion will look into it in depth and discover that
there was no basis for their suspicions. Look at her article on the timing
problems of the shooting. She starts by taking as gospel the "2.3 seconds
between shots" that the WC arrived at, even though this can be
demonstrated to be an amazingly slow time (CTers are also more than
willing to accept the amazingly slow time it took the agent to go from the
6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom in the re-enactment of Oswald`s
actions after the shooting). Now, if the WC advanced an amazingly fast
time possible between shots, do you think she would have accepted such a
time at face value? Of course not, she was willing to accept the slow time
because it reinforced her pre-conceived notions of a second shooter. She
can claim to be impartial, she may like to think of herself as being above
bias, but she really isn`t. She found exactly what she went in to find,
just like Bob Harris found exactly what he was looking for when he
scrutinized the z-film, what Don Willis finds when he scrutinizes the
testimonies and what Fetzer found when he scrutinized the photos of the
Pentagon attack. If CTer object I am lumping them all together, I think
the similarities between them demand that they be lumped together.
> (FYI: in the JVB discussions here, my motives were not only questioned. I
> was accused of doing this for "financial and political reasons", and because
> I'm "a WC defender". The person in question knows of course nothing about my
> motives and can only speculate. When such speculations above all are dead
> wrong, it's quite annoying and will, if answered - only lead to more crap.
> Instead of discussing the issue at hand..)
Once you get on the payroll like I am you won`t mind it so much.
> I read the article referred to, and written by Barb. I'm no certainly no
> expert on the shot sequence but I do know when I'm reading a balanced and
> well argued standpoint - which Barb demonstrates here.
>
> So Bud, what am I missing?
You are looking at the article. I am looking at what caused the article
to be written. I`m not looking to get bogged down in the minutiae of what
she is presenting, this always comes down to what someone chooses to
believe. I think it`s more productive from an LNer standpoint to examine
why she chooses to believe what she believes. It isn`t likely she will
become an LNer even if the issues she raises in the article could be
resolved to her satisfaction.
> Regards,
>
> Glenn V.
>
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> skrev i meddelandetnews:708a0d08-1012-49a4...@y19g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
The 2.3 second constraint comes from the WC, not from the conspiracy side.
We just like to make fun of their thinking. The HSCA needed and produced
1.66 seconds.
>> Bests,
>> Barb :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anthony Marsh
Nixon's apologists called it a third-rate burglary and the case was
almost closed when McCord blew the whistle. Why don't you know these
basic facts?
Bud
I like it.
> Why don't you claim that he can get off 6 shots in 1
> second?
Why don`t you ever address what I actually do say, opting instead to
always prop up strawmen?
>Your ramblings are meaningless because you believe there had to be
> a SBT to get rid of a timing problem of only 1.66 seconds, which the HSCA
> had already solved. And your other shots are widely spaced out. So you
> don't need your shots to be spaced so closely together. The more you
> continue this folly the more you make the HSCA version possible.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 3. The time between shots 1 and 2, if they occured as explained in my
> >> article, was less than 2 seconds.
>
> > The guy in the video shows that two shots closer than 1.8 seconds
> > are possible.
>
> >> 4. Your speculation on my motivation is ridiculous....and regardless
> >> the results of this "in depth examination" are independent of my
> >> motivation. The results simply are what they are..
>
> > I knew you thought this and would claim this, that your work is
> > untainted by bias. My thinking is that only someone with a strong
> > suspicion would micro-analyze it like you have, and anyone looking at
> > it that had a strong suspicion would almost certainly find
> > justifications for their suspicions.
>
> > You don`t think the people who believe we didn`t land on the moon were
> > accepting that we did and one day saw a photo, and noticed something
> > didn`t look right, do you? They went in with suspicions and scrutinized
> > the photos looking to justify the suspicions they already had. I wonder if
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Bud
<snicker> The article claims the debris was planted.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html
>
> > > CJ
>
> > >>>>> The passengers and 'feedback' have
> > >>>>> been a quandry too, just as the one pic was that was 'to show' what
> > >>>>> happened when there were tons of equipement that should have. Did
> > >>>>> anyone see a plane or planes in the vicinity at the time, and even
> > >>>>> leaving circa the impact? Yes.
>
> > >>>>> I just read a book by Dean Hartwell. It's called Planes Without
> > >>>>> Passengers. Instead of focusing on black boxes and planes fitting
> > >>>>> through small holes and such, he focuses on one aspect, just like it's
> > >>>>> appreciated when people do that for the JFK case, instead of getting
> > >>>>> all sideways and turning into a soapbox of generalizations. He was
> > >>>>> kind enough to send me the link where he used the footnotes in his
> > >>>>> recent book.
>
> > >>>>>http://deanhartwell.weebly.com/1/post/2011/01/footnotes-in-the-new-bo...Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> On Jan 27, 10:02 am, "Glenn Viklund"<glenn54.vikl...@dataphone.se>
> wrote:
>> Bud,
>>
>> I have a question: Why is it that Barb's motivation is in question? This is
>> one thing I cannot understand with many of these forums - no matter who the
>> persons involved are or what the subject is; this thing with questioning
>> people's motive's is a very effective way to steer discussions away from the
>> issues. As it often occurs without any merit, it leads nowhere.
>
> I think motivations are the root cause of the conspiracy problem, so to
> rule them off limits insures the problem is never addressed, therefore
I think motivations are the root cause of the WC defenders problem.
They know that they have lost the debate because they don't have the facts
on their side. They are too incompetent to argue the evidence, because
they refuse to look at the evidence. So their only tool left is personal
attacks, questioning the motivations of conspiracy believers, calling all
conspiracy believers paranoid or kooks, or frauds. This tactic is straight
out of the CIA playbook. Rule #1: Never argue the facts, always attack
your opponent.
> never resolved. Certainly bickering over the evidence for all eternity
> will never resolve anything. Barb micro-analyzed the case because she was
Bickering over the evidence convinced the American public that it was a
conspiracy which helped us form the HSCA which found the scientific
evidence which proved that it was a conspiracy. WC defenders have been
opposed to every investigation. WC defenders have always opposed the
release of documents. They ARE the cover-up. Not because they were the
shooters. But because they share the philosophy of the shooters.
> looking for conspiracy. Barb found conspiracy, just like every other CTer
> who micro-analyzed the case, regardless of which aspect of the case they
> chose to focus on. I don`t think it happens that people who are highly
> suspicious of a conclusion will look into it in depth and discover that
> there was no basis for their suspicions. Look at her article on the timing
> problems of the shooting. She starts by taking as gospel the "2.3 seconds
> between shots" that the WC arrived at, even though this can be
No, she merely uses that to point out what the WC thought. BTW, almost
all WC defenders used to recite that as gospel BEFORE the HSCA. Some
even claimed the HSCA tests were phony when they showed 1.66 seconds.
> demonstrated to be an amazingly slow time (CTers are also more than
> willing to accept the amazingly slow time it took the agent to go from the
> 6th floor to the 2nd floor lunchroom in the re-enactment of Oswald`s
> actions after the shooting). Now, if the WC advanced an amazingly fast
> time possible between shots, do you think she would have accepted such a
> time at face value? Of course not, she was willing to accept the slow time
> because it reinforced her pre-conceived notions of a second shooter. She
> can claim to be impartial, she may like to think of herself as being above
Your argument is self-defeating. Two very fast shots make the SBT
unnecessary. It was the close timing of two shots that caused the SBT to
be invented. If you accept that two shots can be fired within 1.66 seconds
then there is no need for the SBT.
Anthony Marsh
So what? Both victims in this case realized it and so did their wives.
You are making up juvenile arguments.
>>>>>> But they weren't sure how that would fit with other
>>>>>> evidence ... and lo and behold, that did NOT fit with the timing
>>>>>> constraints of the rifle according to the number of seconds they were
>>>>>> told they had.
>>
>>>>> It wasn`t just the timing restraints. They had witnesses who mostly said
>>>>> three shots and three shells laying on the floor where people saw a
>>>>> shooter. Nobody said they saw a gunman anywhere else but in that building.
>>>>> Bullet fragments matched to the rifle found on that floor. Medical
>>>>> information indicated a rear shooter. It is supremely reasonable to first
>>>>> postulate theories centering on how a person firing three shots from that
>>>>> location could have inflicted all the wounds. It would have been reckless
>>
>>>> So, tell us what was wrong with Dr. Humes's SBT.
>>>> You don't know the evidence, do you?
>>
>>> You don`t know how to respond to the points people actually make, do
>>> you?
>>
>> You can't meet the challenge, can you?
>
> Can`t address the points I made, can you?
>
You haven't been making points, you've been babbling.
>>>>> to move on to any other possibility until this one had been completely
>>>>> ruled out. Consult Occam if you don`t believe me. CTers try to make it
>>>>> sound as if the proper approach is a rush to judgement.
>>
>>>>>> The Warren Report itself says they had to consider
>>>>>> things within the timing constrsaints of the rifle. You are aware of
>>>>>> all that, right? The documents and complete quotes have been posted
>>>>>> many times before.
>>
>>>>> How does any of that invalidate the SBT?
>>
>>>> Calls into question.
>>
>>> How? Because they realized their working theory was fatally flawed
>>> and came up with a new one that resolved the issues raised? Thats the
>>> way it`s supposed to work, only CTers stick to theories after they`ve
>>> been debunked.
>>
>> So this is your excuse for changing the SBT every hour?
>
> It is constant and consistent. The same bullet causing wounds to
> both Kennedy and Connally.
>
Then tell me the exact frame that the bullet hit both men and show me
that all other WC defenders agree on it. You can't.
Chuck Schuyler
<snip>
>
> You are looking at the article. I am looking at what caused the article
> to be written. I`m not looking to get bogged down in the minutiae of what
> she is presenting, this always comes down to what someone chooses to
> believe.
<snip>
Absolutely correct.
I started a thread about Oswald's shooting ability being a moot point.
People go to great lengths arguing whether Oswald was a good shot, the
timing of the shots (Barb and others), whether the shots can be
duplicated, etc.
None of it matters. The shots came from Oswald's Carcano. Period. Beyond a
reasonable doubt. He left print evidence. He left his rifle on the 6th
floor. A witness described a man who resembles him as being the shooter.
He fled the building with apparently no interest in the mayhem going on in
his building and around the plaza. He kills a cop and lies about all sorts
of stuff when he's arrested. It's stunning, really. The guy has GUILTY
written all over him.
So whatever Barb thinks about shot spacing is irrelevant because the
ballistic evidence ties the rifle to the shells and the bullets. Oswald's
rifle. The same Oswald who took a shot at another political figure,
Walker, from a hidden position in April of the same year.
Anthony Marsh
You seem to forget that they had what has always been kept secret from
us, very high quality transparencies of the Zapruder film. Using THOSE,
Connally was able to determine exactly when he was hit, frame 230.
Armed with that information Specter knew that there were not enough
frames for Oswald's rifle to have fired a shot hitting Kennedy after
frame 210 and Connally at Z-230. Hence the SBT.
Guess whose theory places the Kennedy shot at Z-210 and the Connally
shot at Z-230 based on the acoustical evidence?
> Probably, what really steered the WC investigators
> was not the Zapruder film. After, it's possible
> someone may show a delayed reaction to being
> wounded. That certainly is not uncommon in
> combat wounds. But what really convinced the
> investigators was:
>
> * Why was only one bullet found?
>
Because they didn't look for another bullet.
Because they tried to cover up, literally, the mark on the curb near Tague.
> * Why was no damage to the limousine found except
> for damage that can be more reasonably explained
> by the head shot?
>
Because they destroyed the evidence.
> * How could JFK's throat deflect a bullet enough
> to miss Connally and the entire limousine?
>
Silly. No one ever proposed that theory. It is the vertebra which
deflected the bullet before it got to the throat. How about your WC
defender theory that the tie deflected the bullet?
> * How is it the wounds just happen to at least
> roughly line up with the sixth floor window?
>
Because both shots came from the sixth floor. Duh!
> These considerations should steer any competent
> investigator toward the Single Bullet Theory,
> even without a stabilized version of the
> Zapruder film showing the simultaneous reactions.
>
They didn't steer the FBI or the WC. In late April 1964 the WC was still
saying three shots, three hits and that was going to be their official
conclusion. Wouldn't want to embarrass the FBI, now would we?
Bud
Bud
I know.
> We just like to make fun of their thinking.
I`m sure they can take considering they don`t know you exist.
> The HSCA needed and produced
> 1.66 seconds.
They didn`t need that much time.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Bests,
> >> Barb :-)
Bud
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I purposely choose
"People are shot all the time and don`t even realize it" because it
sounded like a classic Marshism.
> >>>>>> But they weren't sure how that would fit with other
> >>>>>> evidence ... and lo and behold, that did NOT fit with the timing
> >>>>>> constraints of the rifle according to the number of seconds they were
> >>>>>> told they had.
>
> >>>>> It wasn`t just the timing restraints. They had witnesses who mostly said
> >>>>> three shots and three shells laying on the floor where people saw a
> >>>>> shooter. Nobody said they saw a gunman anywhere else but in that building.
> >>>>> Bullet fragments matched to the rifle found on that floor. Medical
> >>>>> information indicated a rear shooter. It is supremely reasonable to first
> >>>>> postulate theories centering on how a person firing three shots from that
> >>>>> location could have inflicted all the wounds. It would have been reckless
>
> >>>> So, tell us what was wrong with Dr. Humes's SBT.
> >>>> You don't know the evidence, do you?
>
> >>> You don`t know how to respond to the points people actually make, do
> >>> you?
>
> >> You can't meet the challenge, can you?
>
> > Can`t address the points I made, can you?
>
> You haven't been making points, you've been babbling.
If my points elude you don`t be too proud to ask for them to be
simplified for you.
> >>>>> to move on to any other possibility until this one had been completely
> >>>>> ruled out. Consult Occam if you don`t believe me. CTers try to make it
> >>>>> sound as if the proper approach is a rush to judgement.
>
> >>>>>> The Warren Report itself says they had to consider
> >>>>>> things within the timing constrsaints of the rifle. You are aware of
> >>>>>> all that, right? The documents and complete quotes have been posted
> >>>>>> many times before.
>
> >>>>> How does any of that invalidate the SBT?
>
> >>>> Calls into question.
>
> >>> How? Because they realized their working theory was fatally flawed
> >>> and came up with a new one that resolved the issues raised? Thats the
> >>> way it`s supposed to work, only CTers stick to theories after they`ve
> >>> been debunked.
>
> >> So this is your excuse for changing the SBT every hour?
>
> > It is constant and consistent. The same bullet causing wounds to
> > both Kennedy and Connally.
>
> Then tell me the exact frame that the bullet hit both men and show me
> that all other WC defenders agree on it. You can't.
I thought I explained this to you. Bullets go real fast and the
wounds aren`t evident.