The common thread among conspiracy theorists?
bigdog
dealt with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They pointed out several traits
which most conspiracy theorists display, regardless of what particular
conspiracy they are touting. Foremost, is their dismissal of evidence.
They don't trust evidence and when evidence conflicts with their theory,
it must be the evidence that is wrong. No amount of evidence will cause
them to doubt that their core belief could be wrong. Faith trumps reason
in the conspiracy mind. Conspiracists replace healthy skepticism with
certainty. It isn't enough for them to express doubts about the findings
of government investigations, they are certain they know what happened. In
fact conspiracy groups will often fracture along political lines depending
on whom they believe was behind the conspiracy. In the case of 9/11
Truthers, there are those who believe the Bush administration let it
happen, and others who believe W made it happen. The JFK conspiracists
have splintered into far many more groups because they have so many more
bad guys to choose from. Lastly, conspiracists have convinced themselves
that the reason the truth has never come out is because the government has
the media in their pockets. While I believe it to be healthy to be
skeptical both about what the government and the media tell us, neither
entity is monolithic and there are too many factions among both to allow
them to maintain a cover up. Somebody is going to know the truth and
somebody is going to let the truth out. There are many things governments
do not do well, and keeping a secret is at the top of the list. It ain't
going to happen.
WhiskyJoe
> The common thread among conspiracy theorists?
Actually, I thought it was the loose end.
Herbert Blenner
I recall your dismissal of the evidence relating the 15-mm elliptical
wound on Governor Connally's back to a tangential entry by a bullet. In
particular your argument assumed consistency of the evidence then evoked
this principle to dispute the tangential entry by the bullet. In essence
your method only proved your faith in cherry-picked evidence presented by
the WC and the HSCA.
Oddly they label me a conspiracist, when I point out that Commander Humes
in his WC testimony attributed the 15-mm elongation of President Kennedy's
scalp wound, described as elliptical by the Clark Panel, to a tangential
entry by the bullet.
Unlike many LNs and CTs, I recognize the necessary of having consistent
evidence. However, I do not permit "a white lie" such as Sturdivan's claim
that a tumbling bullet could make a 15-mm elliptical wound to deceive me
into believing that they have resolved this conflict in the evidence.
Personally, I prefer to acknowledge a contradiction and afford further
learning the opportunity of resolution.
Herbert
Anthony Marsh
> THC reran many of their 9/11 shows yesterday and I caught the one that
> dealt with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They pointed out several traits
> which most conspiracy theorists display, regardless of what particular
> conspiracy they are touting. Foremost, is their dismissal of evidence.
This is a very old CIA trick. Dismiss the latest conspiracy theory by
claiming that ALL conspiracy theories are crazy.
> They don't trust evidence and when evidence conflicts with their theory,
It is always the government stooges who dare not talk about evidence.
> it must be the evidence that is wrong. No amount of evidence will cause
> them to doubt that their core belief could be wrong. Faith trumps reason
> in the conspiracy mind. Conspiracists replace healthy skepticism with
> certainty. It isn't enough for them to express doubts about the findings
> of government investigations, they are certain they know what happened. In
It isn't even acceptable to you for them to ask questions.
> fact conspiracy groups will often fracture along political lines depending
> on whom they believe was behind the conspiracy. In the case of 9/11
As in the JFK case, the 9/11 Truth movement attracts people from all
points of view.
> Truthers, there are those who believe the Bush administration let it
> happen, and others who believe W made it happen. The JFK conspiracists
And half of them will claim it was a Liberal conspiracy and half will
claim it was a Conservative conspiracy.
> have splintered into far many more groups because they have so many more
> bad guys to choose from. Lastly, conspiracists have convinced themselves
Wrong. Whatever splitting has occurred is due mainly to government
efforts to fragment the research community.
> that the reason the truth has never come out is because the government has
> the media in their pockets. While I believe it to be healthy to be
The government always has the media in their pockets. Fortunately there
are the same factions in the media as there are in the government so you
have sides fighting against each other.
> skeptical both about what the government and the media tell us, neither
No, you don't believe in skepticism.
> entity is monolithic and there are too many factions among both to allow
> them to maintain a cover up. Somebody is going to know the truth and
No one said it will last forever. It is unraveling now. But it can
persist for many years.
> somebody is going to let the truth out. There are many things governments
And somebody is dead before he got the chance to let the truth out. I
let the truth out and you dismiss it because you support the cover-up.
> do not do well, and keeping a secret is at the top of the list. It ain't
> going to happen.
>
The government keeps secrets all the time and it may take 50-100 years
for those secrets to come out.
davidemerling
The modern day media has only ONE OBJECTIVE ... ratings! They want to beat
out the other news stations. They'll do whatever they need to do in order
to achieve that goal. If that means taking down a politician, whether
liberal or conservative, they'll do it. The media doesn't really care how
they influence the public other than getting them to tune their TV's to
*their* programs.
Believe me, if there was a new agency that could air a program that PROVED
that Kennedy was killed as a result of an conspiracy - they'd air it. If
they could PROVE that there was a government cover-up, they'd reveal it.
Times have changed from the 60's. Many news reporters knew about John
Kennedy's extramarital dalliances - but considered it improper and un-
American to scandalize a president in that manner. Nowadays, a president
would be taken down, post haste; without a second thought. Any politician
for that matter. Ask Gary Hart. Which "liberal" news agency was trying to
protect HIM?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
j leyden
You neglected to mention paranoia. Maybe you were just being kind.
JGL
bigdog
compatible with the location of then entry and exit wounds. It didn't
happen.
> Oddly they label me a conspiracist, when I point out that Commander Humes
> in his WC testimony attributed the 15-mm elongation of President Kennedy's
> scalp wound, described as elliptical by the Clark Panel, to a tangential
> entry by the bullet.
>
I would never label you anything because after reading your posts for
a few years, I still have no idea what you believe.
> Unlike many LNs and CTs, I recognize the necessary of having consistent
> evidence. However, I do not permit "a white lie" such as Sturdivan's claim
> that a tumbling bullet could make a 15-mm elliptical wound to deceive me
> into believing that they have resolved this conflict in the evidence.
> Personally, I prefer to acknowledge a contradiction and afford further
> learning the opportunity of resolution.
>
> Herbert- Hide quoted text -
>
Well this last paragraph pretty much makes my previous point for me. You
don't seem to want to belong to either the LN or CT camp. Is there a third
choice. I see two possibilities, Oswald did it alone or Oswald did not do
it alone. The latter would be true whether you believe Oswald was a
co-conspirator or an innocent victim. So do you believe Oswald did it
alone, do you believe he didn't do it alone, or is there a third
possibility that escapes the rest of us. Please be careful how you answer.
If you ever replied with an unambiguous answer, I'm afraid I might have
heart attack.
bigdog
> On 11/16/2009 3:22 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> > THC reran many of their 9/11 shows yesterday and I caught the one that
> > dealt with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They pointed out several traits
> > which most conspiracy theorists display, regardless of what particular
> > conspiracy they are touting. Foremost, is their dismissal of evidence.
>
> This is a very old CIA trick. Dismiss the latest conspiracy theory by
> claiming that ALL conspiracy theories are crazy.
>
> > They don't trust evidence and when evidence conflicts with their theory,
>
> It is always the government stooges who dare not talk about evidence.
>
Conspiracy theorists are government stooges? You are aware that the
last official word from the government was there was a probable
conspiracy. So who's the stooge?
> > it must be the evidence that is wrong. No amount of evidence will cause
> > them to doubt that their core belief could be wrong. Faith trumps reason
> > in the conspiracy mind. Conspiracists replace healthy skepticism with
> > certainty. It isn't enough for them to express doubts about the findings
> > of government investigations, they are certain they know what happened. In
>
> It isn't even acceptable to you for them to ask questions.
>
I'm all for people asking questions. I just wish they wouldn't stop
there but would try to come up with some answers as well. Q&A sort of
go together.
> > fact conspiracy groups will often fracture along political lines depending
> > on whom they believe was behind the conspiracy. In the case of 9/11
>
> As in the JFK case, the 9/11 Truth movement attracts people from all
> points of view.
>
You're telling me!!!
> > Truthers, there are those who believe the Bush administration let it
> > happen, and others who believe W made it happen. The JFK conspiracists
>
> And half of them will claim it was a Liberal conspiracy and half will
> claim it was a Conservative conspiracy.
>
Probably not a 50-50 breakdown, but kookiness runs across the
political spectrum.
> > have splintered into far many more groups because they have so many more
> > bad guys to choose from. Lastly, conspiracists have convinced themselves
>
> Wrong. Whatever splitting has occurred is due mainly to government
> efforts to fragment the research community.
>
Oh, it's the governmet's fault the conspiracists can't settle on who the
bad guys were. I guess it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that
the evidence all points to one bad guy. Since there is no evidence that
implicates someone else, you can accuse just about anybody you want willy
nilly. I've decided to accuse Captain Kangaroo. I have as much evidence
for that as any of you.
> > that the reason the truth has never come out is because the government has
> > the media in their pockets. While I believe it to be healthy to be
>
> The government always has the media in their pockets. Fortunately there
> are the same factions in the media as there are in the government so you
> have sides fighting against each other.
>
Right, Tony. Nixon sure had Woodward and Bernstein in his pockets.
> > skeptical both about what the government and the media tell us, neither
>
> No, you don't believe in skepticism.
>
> > entity is monolithic and there are too many factions among both to allow
> > them to maintain a cover up. Somebody is going to know the truth and
>
> No one said it will last forever. It is unraveling now. But it can
> persist for many years.
>
Now the funny part is that you really believe that. CTs have been telling
me that for the two decades I have seriously studied the case and I'm sure
they were telling others that long before I got involved. You should all
get an award for incurable optimism. Despite years of failure, you keep
believing that next year will be your year. You should all be Chicago Cubs
fans.
> > somebody is going to let the truth out. There are many things governments
>
> And somebody is dead before he got the chance to let the truth out. I
> let the truth out and you dismiss it because you support the cover-up.
>
We'll never know that until you actually speak the truth.
> > do not do well, and keeping a secret is at the top of the list. It ain't
> > going to happen.
>
> The government keeps secrets all the time and it may take 50-100 years
> for those secrets to come out.
Oh boy, I can't wait.
Anthony Marsh
Wrong. Fox does not care if MSNBC beats them in the ratings. They are
driven by a right-wing ideologue who doesn't care about anything else than
pushing Fascism.
You may not be old enough to remember, but there used to be vanity
newspapers which intentionally lost money all the time because they were
owned by very rich men who were ONLY interested in pushing their agendas.
> to achieve that goal. If that means taking down a politician, whether
> liberal or conservative, they'll do it. The media doesn't really care how
I'd like to see you document a Liberal newspaper taking down Liberal
politicians or a Conservative newspaper taking down Conservative
politicians. Both sides overlook the exact same crimes as long as they are
committed by own of their own.
> they influence the public other than getting them to tune their TV's to
> *their* programs.
>
> Believe me, if there was a new agency that could air a program that PROVED
> that Kennedy was killed as a result of an conspiracy - they'd air it. If
> they could PROVE that there was a government cover-up, they'd reveal it.
>
Nonsense. The History Channel aired several shows about conspiracy, but
then they caved in to pressure from the LBJ sycophants to withdraw them.
> Times have changed from the 60's. Many news reporters knew about John
> Kennedy's extramarital dalliances - but considered it improper and un-
> American to scandalize a president in that manner. Nowadays, a president
Improper? More likely suicidal. Like the guy who tried to take a photo of
FDR walking with his braces and promptly had his camera knocked out of his
hands and ruffed up. Or the publisher who said something naughty and was
promptly put in an insane asylum and then assisted in his suicide, the way
they did with Frank Olson.
> would be taken down, post haste; without a second thought. Any politician
Bullshit. Was Clinton "taken down"? You need to start dealing with
reality.
Bud
>
> > THC reran many of their 9/11 shows yesterday and I caught the one that
> > dealt with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They pointed out several traits
> > which most conspiracy theorists display, regardless of what particular
> > conspiracy they are touting. Foremost, is their dismissal of evidence.
>
> This is a very old CIA trick. Dismiss the latest conspiracy theory by
> claiming that ALL conspiracy theories are crazy.
They are, for the most part. Driven by the conspirists irrational
desire to see a certain person or group responsible (or in the case of
the moon landing deniers, irrational distrust of the government).
> > They don't trust evidence and when evidence conflicts with their theory,
>
> It is always the government stooges who dare not talk about evidence.
Conspiracy theorists always want to obcess and focus on the wrong
information. Almost any shooting scenario can be argued against using
certain portions or aspects of the medical evidence. Yet, we know JFK
was shot.
> > it must be the evidence that is wrong. No amount of evidence will cause
> > them to doubt that their core belief could be wrong. Faith trumps reason
> > in the conspiracy mind. Conspiracists replace healthy skepticism with
> > certainty. It isn't enough for them to express doubts about the findings
> > of government investigations, they are certain they know what happened. In
>
> It isn't even acceptable to you for them to ask questions.
They ask so many questions because they find the obvious reality
unacceptable. They think that by raising a smokescreen of conflict,
their ideas are on an equal footing with the official conclusions.
> > fact conspiracy groups will often fracture along political lines depending
> > on whom they believe was behind the conspiracy. In the case of 9/11
>
> As in the JFK case, the 9/11 Truth movement attracts people from all
> points of view.
But a single mindset.
> > Truthers, there are those who believe the Bush administration let it
> > happen, and others who believe W made it happen. The JFK conspiracists
>
> And half of them will claim it was a Liberal conspiracy and half will
> claim it was a Conservative conspiracy.
Silly. Hatred of Bush drives the TruthMovement, there is no anti-
liberal faction of any serious percentage.
> > have splintered into far many more groups because they have so many more
> > bad guys to choose from. Lastly, conspiracists have convinced themselves
>
> Wrong.
No, he was right.
>Whatever splitting has occurred is due mainly to government
> efforts to fragment the research community.
The splitting occurred because the Cters want to put the black hat
of guilt on the people they dislike the most, and they have differing
opinions on who deserves the most dislike. The thinking is "I wouldn`t
put it past [whoever], so they must have played a part".
> > that the reason the truth has never come out is because the government has
> > the media in their pockets. While I believe it to be healthy to be
>
> The government always has the media in their pockets. Fortunately there
> are the same factions in the media as there are in the government so you
> have sides fighting against each other.
>
> > skeptical both about what the government and the media tell us, neither
>
> No, you don't believe in skepticism.
I`m skeptical of things that don`t make sense. CT assertions about
the assassination don`t make sense.
> > entity is monolithic and there are too many factions among both to allow
> > them to maintain a cover up. Somebody is going to know the truth and
>
> No one said it will last forever. It is unraveling now. But it can
> persist for many years.
Thats what they`ll be claiming when the hundreth anniversity of the
assassination rolls around.
> > somebody is going to let the truth out. There are many things governments
>
> And somebody is dead before he got the chance to let the truth out.
Who, Oswald? He had plenty of chances to spill what he knew.
> I
> let the truth out and you dismiss it because you support the cover-up.
I oppose the cover-up of Oswald`s guilt.
> > do not do well, and keeping a secret is at the top of the list. It ain't
> > going to happen.
>
> The government keeps secrets all the time and it may take 50-100 years
> for those secrets to come out.
They might never come out if the secrets only exist in your
imagination.
Bud
Herbert, what evidence of a bullet striking Connally at a severe
angle do you see once the bullet enters Connolly`s body?
WhiskyJoe
The core of Conspiracy Thinking is often Dialectic
Reasoning. This is the kind of thinking that Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels strongly endorsed. You come up
with a theory which you accept as true. This generates
the opposite theory, which you also accept as true,
even though it is a contradiction. Than you merge
the two theories together to form a new synthesis.
For instance, you generate a theory, the Zapruder film
proves multiple shooters. This generates the opposite
theory, that the Zapruder film only shows evidence of
one shooter. Then the two theories are merged to form
the truth, that the Zapruder film was altered to hide
the evidence of two shooters but they still left in
enough, like the Back and to the Left motion of JFK's
head and the different times JFK and Connally react
to being wounded to show that there were multiple
shooters.
The autopsy photographs and X-rays clearly show at least
one shot came from the front. And this evidence was
altered to show all the shots came from the back.
But despite this effort, the autopsy photographs and
X-rays still show a shot from the front.
Shaw and Ferrie decided to set up Oswald as the patsy
with no connection with them. They then decided to
appear with him all over New Orleans and drove him
up to Clinton where they would work on black voter
registration.
The conspirators plotted kill JFK and make it appear
that Oswald did it. The opposite theory is that they
shot him from the front. The Syntheses is they shot
him from the front, with many shots from many rifles.
They then went and planted an extra bullet. They then
intimidated the witnesses and killed them off over
the years.
Though the conspirators needed to kill off a lot of
people who knew too much, but they never seemed to
need to kill of any new witnesses who saw the death
of an original witness. So the amazing thing is not
that no one ever talked. The amazing thing is that
it never developed into some sort of Pyramid murder
scheme that resulted in the death of us all.
davidemerling
> Bullshit. Was Clinton "taken down"? You need to start dealing with
> reality.
Seriously, I don't think the networks cared too much as long as they could
get you to watch THEIR network for the impeachment hearings.
I think this dynamic was highlighted during the contested presidential
election results between Gore and Bush. This issue captivated the nation
with a new twist that seemed to break every day. The networks loved this.
Their ratings soared! One thing that I noticed is how all the networks
seemed to shy away from supporting either candidate. I thought they
handled the issue in a very detached way - only reporting the facts
without interjecting their opinions or editorializing.
All they wanted to do is report any breaking news in a timely manner. They
did not want to get out-scooped. This causes their ratings to go up. They
are not going to sacrifice interesting and newsworthy content for the sake
of putting in polarizing plugs for a certain candidate.
If they are guilty of anything - it is sensationalizing events beyond what
they deserve in their desperate need to make you interested.
If you watch FoxNews they are constantly having "Breaking News!"
bulletins. In the old days, they never used that term unless something out
of the ordinary had occurred. FoxNews has breaking news bulletins about
the most mundane events.
Breaking news ... Air Force ONE has just landed in China. The president
should be stepping out on the tarmac any minute. [yawn]
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Herbert Blenner
Your dismissal includes the accepted forensic principles that relate
an elliptical wound and a small tunneling track beneath the surface to
a tangential strike. So it behooves you to explain why you accept some
while rejecting other portions of the evidence presented by Doctor
Shaw?
>
> > Oddly they label me a conspiracist, when I point out that Commander Humes
> > in his WC testimony attributed the 15-mm elongation of President Kennedy's
> > scalp wound, described as elliptical by the Clark Panel, to a tangential
> > entry by the bullet.
>
> I would never label you anything because after reading your posts for
> a few years, I still have no idea what you believe.
Candidly, I suspect that readers want to know why you reject the
tangential entry of Connally's back while silently accepting the
tangential entry on Kennedy's scalp. The striking angles of these
entries were comparable so a reasonable person would recognize
incompatibilities with locations of entry and exit wounds for both
victims.
>
> > Unlike many LNs and CTs, I recognize the necessary of having consistent
> > evidence. However, I do not permit "a white lie" such as Sturdivan's claim
> > that a tumbling bullet could make a 15-mm elliptical wound to deceive me
> > into believing that they have resolved this conflict in the evidence.
> > Personally, I prefer to acknowledge a contradiction and afford further
> > learning the opportunity of resolution.
>
> > Herbert- Hide quoted text -
>
> Well this last paragraph pretty much makes my previous point for me. You
> don't seem to want to belong to either the LN or CT camp. Is there a third
> choice. I see two possibilities, Oswald did it alone or Oswald did not do
> it alone. The latter would be true whether you believe Oswald was a
> co-conspirator or an innocent victim. So do you believe Oswald did it
> alone, do you believe he didn't do it alone, or is there a third
> possibility that escapes the rest of us. Please be careful how you answer.
> If you ever replied with an unambiguous answer, I'm afraid I might have
> heart attack.
I recognize that you have posted absurd statements to deflect
attention from your evasion of the contradictory evidence. For this
reason, I will ignore your gambit by enumerating the three conflicts,
which arise from the presumption that Kennedy's back and throat wounds
belonged to a perforating pair.
1. Humes documented a 4 mm by 7 mm oval hole of entry in the back with
the longer axis approximately 15 degree from parallel to the vertical
column. Correcting the measurements for elastic relaxation and swell
of tissue enables calculation of the direction of the entering bullet
as one unit directly into the victim for one unit parallel to the
surface at a 15-degree angle from directly toward the head. In this
case the direction of the entering bullet differs from the straight
line joining the back and neck wounds by about 45 degree to 60
degree.
2. The FPP reported a 10 mm by 7 mm abrasion surrounding the bullet
hole in the back with a longer axis approximately 15 degree from a
perpendicular to the vertical column. These 15-degree deviations from
a parallel and a perpendicular to the vertical column had the same
sense of rotation. So the direction of the entering bullet becomes one
unit directly inward for one unit along the surface at a 15-degree
angle from leftward. Again the direction of a straight line joining
the back and neck wounds differ from the direction of the entering
bullet by a substantial angle of around 45 degree.
3. The real world, including the drawings published by the FPP,
recognizes that the direction of the long axis of a bullet hole
coincides with the direction of the longer axis of the surrounding
abrasion. However, the combined efforts of the WC and the HSCA have
the angle between these coincident directions misaligned by 90 degree.
This result is the third contradiction.
Herbert
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bigdog
MSNBC and CNN both have a left wing slant. Anyone who blindly accepts
what any of these cable news networks puts out is a fool.
> You may not be old enough to remember, but there used to be vanity
> newspapers which intentionally lost money all the time because they were
> owned by very rich men who were ONLY interested in pushing their agendas.
>
> > to achieve that goal. If that means taking down a politician, whether
> > liberal or conservative, they'll do it. The media doesn't really care how
>
> I'd like to see you document a Liberal newspaper taking down Liberal
> politicians or a Conservative newspaper taking down Conservative
> politicians. Both sides overlook the exact same crimes as long as they are
> committed by own of their own.
>
Damn, it scares me when you say something I agree with.
> > they influence the public other than getting them to tune their TV's to
> > *their* programs.
>
> > Believe me, if there was a new agency that could air a program that PROVED
> > that Kennedy was killed as a result of an conspiracy - they'd air it. If
> > they could PROVE that there was a government cover-up, they'd reveal it.
>
> Nonsense. The History Channel aired several shows about conspiracy, but
> then they caved in to pressure from the LBJ sycophants to withdraw them.
>
They caved to attacks on their credibility which was entirely
justified when it was demonstrated how irresponsibly those programs
had been produced and they had no viable defense to the criticism.
Herbert Blenner
Doctor Shaw closed a small hole in the posterior latissimus dorsi
muscle with one suture and reported a small tunneling wound track
beneath the surface of the back.
The ballistic tests by Edgewood Arsenal showed that a MC bullet had
insufficient kinetic energy to transit Connally's torso at a yaw angle
sufficient to create a 15- mm entry wound and inflict the other wounds
attributed to a single bullet.
Further the FPP acknowledged that a tumbled bullet with a significant
angle of yaw makes a virtually rectangular, not an elliptical, wound.
For the above reasons, I affirm the contradiction between the
locations of Connally's chest and back wounds with the evidence of the
tangential entry.
Herbert
>
>
>
> > Oddly they label me a conspiracist, when I point out that Commander Humes
> > in his WC testimony attributed the 15-mm elongation of President Kennedy's
> > scalp wound, described as elliptical by the Clark Panel, to a tangential
> > entry by the bullet.
>
> > Unlike many LNs and CTs, I recognize the necessary of having consistent
> > evidence. However, I do not permit "a white lie" such as Sturdivan's claim
> > that a tumbling bullet could make a 15-mm elliptical wound to deceive me
> > into believing that they have resolved this conflict in the evidence.
> > Personally, I prefer to acknowledge a contradiction and afford further
> > learning the opportunity of resolution.
>
> > Herbert- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
jas
I think the granddaddy of litmus tests of whether the argument is truly
conspiracy-oriented -- and how ridiculous the argument can get if left
unchecked -- is how far the conspiracy argument goes before public outcry
shoots it down in flames.
Example: the "Truthers" saying that the cell phone calls from United 93
were faked, that the conversations with family members and loved- ones
never occurred, then there being such a backlash from the public that they
had to retract their statements in order to retain whatever "credibility"
they already had with the people they duped.
Another example: TMWKK series with their "The Guilty Ones" episode
crossing the boundary by pointing the finger squarely at LBJ, and the
resulting Johnson family lawsuit and THC getting egg all over their face.
Goes to show you that in the court of public opinion one can only push the
conspiracy thing so far before something gives.
Anthony Marsh
False appeal to the masses. There is no great hue and cry from the
public. There is only push back from the rich and powerful.
> Example: the "Truthers" saying that the cell phone calls from United 93
> were faked, that the conversations with family members and loved- ones
> never occurred, then there being such a backlash from the public that they
> had to retract their statements in order to retain whatever "credibility"
> they already had with the people they duped.
>
No backlash.
Just CIA paid documentaries.
> Another example: TMWKK series with their "The Guilty Ones" episode
> crossing the boundary by pointing the finger squarely at LBJ, and the
> resulting Johnson family lawsuit and THC getting egg all over their face.
>
Not one peep from the public. Just threats of lawsuits from the LBJ
sycophants.
> Goes to show you that in the court of public opinion one can only push the
> conspiracy thing so far before something gives.
>
Just goes to show that the cover-up is always well funded.
Anthony Marsh
Which means nothing.
> The ballistic tests by Edgewood Arsenal showed that a MC bullet had
> insufficient kinetic energy to transit Connally's torso at a yaw angle
> sufficient to create a 15- mm entry wound and inflict the other wounds
> attributed to a single bullet.
>
Not true.
> Further the FPP acknowledged that a tumbled bullet with a significant
> angle of yaw makes a virtually rectangular, not an elliptical, wound.
>
Silly. Look at their illustrations. No rectangular wound.
Anthony Marsh
But several WC defenders say that Fox is not right-wing, that it's "fair
and balanced." Despite Rupert Murdoch admitting that it IS right-wing.
>
>> You may not be old enough to remember, but there used to be vanity
>> newspapers which intentionally lost money all the time because they were
>> owned by very rich men who were ONLY interested in pushing their agendas.
>>
>>> to achieve that goal. If that means taking down a politician, whether
>>> liberal or conservative, they'll do it. The media doesn't really care how
>>
>> I'd like to see you document a Liberal newspaper taking down Liberal
>> politicians or a Conservative newspaper taking down Conservative
>> politicians. Both sides overlook the exact same crimes as long as they are
>> committed by own of their own.
>>
> Damn, it scares me when you say something I agree with.
>
>>> they influence the public other than getting them to tune their TV's to
>>> *their* programs.
>>
>>> Believe me, if there was a new agency that could air a program that PROVED
>>> that Kennedy was killed as a result of an conspiracy - they'd air it. If
>>> they could PROVE that there was a government cover-up, they'd reveal it.
>>
>> Nonsense. The History Channel aired several shows about conspiracy, but
>> then they caved in to pressure from the LBJ sycophants to withdraw them.
>>
> They caved to attacks on their credibility which was entirely
> justified when it was demonstrated how irresponsibly those programs
> had been produced and they had no viable defense to the criticism.
>
>
Well, many of their programs were just plain stupid and unprofessional,
but that's what they are known for, so why the uproar? The fact is that it
was political pressure from LBJ sycophants.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 17, 8:47 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Bullshit. Was Clinton "taken down"? You need to start dealing with
>> reality.
>
> Seriously, I don't think the networks cared too much as long as they could
> get you to watch THEIR network for the impeachment hearings.
>
Ok, so which network scored the most viewers and does that prove it was
behind the scandal to boost their ratings?
> I think this dynamic was highlighted during the contested presidential
> election results between Gore and Bush. This issue captivated the nation
> with a new twist that seemed to break every day. The networks loved this.
> Their ratings soared! One thing that I noticed is how all the networks
Don't rating always soar during an election cycle?
Like sunspots.
> seemed to shy away from supporting either candidate. I thought they
> handled the issue in a very detached way - only reporting the facts
> without interjecting their opinions or editorializing.
>
Sure, the networks. Not so for cable. Fox is in the Bush camp and MSNBC
is in the Obama camp.
> All they wanted to do is report any breaking news in a timely manner. They
If you think all the news is fair and balanced, you must be living in
some other country.
> did not want to get out-scooped. This causes their ratings to go up. They
> are not going to sacrifice interesting and newsworthy content for the sake
> of putting in polarizing plugs for a certain candidate.
>
They do it in the WAY they cover each candidate.
> If they are guilty of anything - it is sensationalizing events beyond what
> they deserve in their desperate need to make you interested.
>
If it bleeds it leads. Man bites dog.
> If you watch FoxNews they are constantly having "Breaking News!"
> bulletins. In the old days, they never used that term unless something out
> of the ordinary had occurred. FoxNews has breaking news bulletins about
> the most mundane events.
Manufactured news.
Anthony Marsh
>
> The core of Conspiracy Thinking is often Dialectic
> Reasoning. This is the kind of thinking that Karl Marx
> and Friedrich Engels strongly endorsed. You come up
> with a theory which you accept as true. This generates
> the opposite theory, which you also accept as true,
> even though it is a contradiction. Than you merge
> the two theories together to form a new synthesis.
>
Did you read this in a comic book?
> For instance, you generate a theory, the Zapruder film
> proves multiple shooters. This generates the opposite
> theory, that the Zapruder film only shows evidence of
> one shooter. Then the two theories are merged to form
> the truth, that the Zapruder film was altered to hide
> the evidence of two shooters but they still left in
> enough, like the Back and to the Left motion of JFK's
> head and the different times JFK and Connally react
> to being wounded to show that there were multiple
> shooters.
>
Silly.
> The autopsy photographs and X-rays clearly show at least
> one shot came from the front. And this evidence was
> altered to show all the shots came from the back.
> But despite this effort, the autopsy photographs and
> X-rays still show a shot from the front.
>
Silly.
> Shaw and Ferrie decided to set up Oswald as the patsy
> with no connection with them. They then decided to
> appear with him all over New Orleans and drove him
> up to Clinton where they would work on black voter
> registration.
>
Even conspirators slip up occasionally.
> The conspirators plotted kill JFK and make it appear
> that Oswald did it. The opposite theory is that they
> shot him from the front. The Syntheses is they shot
> him from the front, with many shots from many rifles.
> They then went and planted an extra bullet. They then
> intimidated the witnesses and killed them off over
> the years.
>
Even the best plans sometimes have errors. The gun jammed.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 16, 11:07 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2009 3:22 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>> THC reran many of their 9/11 shows yesterday and I caught the one that
>>> dealt with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They pointed out several traits
>>> which most conspiracy theorists display, regardless of what particular
>>> conspiracy they are touting. Foremost, is their dismissal of evidence.
>>
>> This is a very old CIA trick. Dismiss the latest conspiracy theory by
>> claiming that ALL conspiracy theories are crazy.
>
> They are, for the most part. Driven by the conspirists irrational
> desire to see a certain person or group responsible (or in the case of
> the moon landing deniers, irrational distrust of the government).
>
>>> They don't trust evidence and when evidence conflicts with their theory,
>>
>> It is always the government stooges who dare not talk about evidence.
>
> Conspiracy theorists always want to obcess and focus on the wrong
> information. Almost any shooting scenario can be argued against using
> certain portions or aspects of the medical evidence. Yet, we know JFK
> was shot.
>
Sure, if they LIE about the medical evidence. Like claiming that the
back wound was ABOVE the top of his shoulders.
>>> it must be the evidence that is wrong. No amount of evidence will cause
>>> them to doubt that their core belief could be wrong. Faith trumps reason
>>> in the conspiracy mind. Conspiracists replace healthy skepticism with
>>> certainty. It isn't enough for them to express doubts about the findings
>>> of government investigations, they are certain they know what happened. In
>>
>> It isn't even acceptable to you for them to ask questions.
>
> They ask so many questions because they find the obvious reality
> unacceptable. They think that by raising a smokescreen of conflict,
> their ideas are on an equal footing with the official conclusions.
>
So, you are always opposed to dissent and holding people responsible?
Just let them get away with telling whatever lies they want to.
>>> fact conspiracy groups will often fracture along political lines depending
>>> on whom they believe was behind the conspiracy. In the case of 9/11
>>
>> As in the JFK case, the 9/11 Truth movement attracts people from all
>> points of view.
>
> But a single mindset.
>
Not all JFK researchers think the government did it. Not all 9/11
Truthers think the government did it.
>>> Truthers, there are those who believe the Bush administration let it
>>> happen, and others who believe W made it happen. The JFK conspiracists
>>
>> And half of them will claim it was a Liberal conspiracy and half will
>> claim it was a Conservative conspiracy.
>
> Silly. Hatred of Bush drives the TruthMovement, there is no anti-
> liberal faction of any serious percentage.
>
Some 9/11 Truthers will slip their hatred of Bush and all he represents
into the argument, but others don't think Bush had to be the mastermind.
>>> have splintered into far many more groups because they have so many more
>>> bad guys to choose from. Lastly, conspiracists have convinced themselves
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> No, he was right.
>
>> Whatever splitting has occurred is due mainly to government
>> efforts to fragment the research community.
>
> The splitting occurred because the Cters want to put the black hat
> of guilt on the people they dislike the most, and they have differing
> opinions on who deserves the most dislike. The thinking is "I wouldn`t
> put it past [whoever], so they must have played a part".
>
Wrong again.
>>> that the reason the truth has never come out is because the government has
>>> the media in their pockets. While I believe it to be healthy to be
>>
>> The government always has the media in their pockets. Fortunately there
>> are the same factions in the media as there are in the government so you
>> have sides fighting against each other.
>>
>>> skeptical both about what the government and the media tell us, neither
>>
>> No, you don't believe in skepticism.
>
> I`m skeptical of things that don`t make sense. CT assertions about
> the assassination don`t make sense.
>
No, you aren't skeptical of the WC or the SBT.
>>> entity is monolithic and there are too many factions among both to allow
>>> them to maintain a cover up. Somebody is going to know the truth and
>>
>> No one said it will last forever. It is unraveling now. But it can
>> persist for many years.
>
> Thats what they`ll be claiming when the hundreth anniversity of the
> assassination rolls around.
>
>>> somebody is going to let the truth out. There are many things governments
>>
>> And somebody is dead before he got the chance to let the truth out.
>
> Who, Oswald? He had plenty of chances to spill what he knew.
Then why was he silenced?
>
>> I
>> let the truth out and you dismiss it because you support the cover-up.
>
> I oppose the cover-up of Oswald`s guilt.
>
You support the conspirators because you agree with them.
>>> do not do well, and keeping a secret is at the top of the list. It ain't
>>> going to happen.
>>
>> The government keeps secrets all the time and it may take 50-100 years
>> for those secrets to come out.
>
> They might never come out if the secrets only exist in your
> imagination.
>
Which means you have not been keeping up with new releases of documents.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 16, 11:07 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/16/2009 3:22 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>> THC reran many of their 9/11 shows yesterday and I caught the one that
>>> dealt with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They pointed out several traits
>>> which most conspiracy theorists display, regardless of what particular
>>> conspiracy they are touting. Foremost, is their dismissal of evidence.
>>
>> This is a very old CIA trick. Dismiss the latest conspiracy theory by
>> claiming that ALL conspiracy theories are crazy.
>>
> Damn, how did you get a copy of our playbook?
>
Ebay.
>>> They don't trust evidence and when evidence conflicts with their theory,
>>
>> It is always the government stooges who dare not talk about evidence.
>>
> Conspiracy theorists are government stooges? You are aware that the
> last official word from the government was there was a probable
> conspiracy. So who's the stooge?
>
>>> it must be the evidence that is wrong. No amount of evidence will cause
>>> them to doubt that their core belief could be wrong. Faith trumps reason
>>> in the conspiracy mind. Conspiracists replace healthy skepticism with
>>> certainty. It isn't enough for them to express doubts about the findings
>>> of government investigations, they are certain they know what happened. In
>>
>> It isn't even acceptable to you for them to ask questions.
>>
> I'm all for people asking questions. I just wish they wouldn't stop
> there but would try to come up with some answers as well. Q&A sort of
> go together.
>
Well, I have come up with a lot of answers, but you refuse to listen.
Nixon made the mistake of attacking the CIA and the CIA used its assets
to retaliate.
bigdog
No, it behooves you to quit playing doctor.
>
>
> > > Oddly they label me a conspiracist, when I point out that Commander Humes
> > > in his WC testimony attributed the 15-mm elongation of President Kennedy's
> > > scalp wound, described as elliptical by the Clark Panel, to a tangential
> > > entry by the bullet.
>
> > I would never label you anything because after reading your posts for
> > a few years, I still have no idea what you believe.
>
> Candidly, I suspect that readers want to know why you reject the
> tangential entry of Connally's back while silently accepting the
> tangential entry on Kennedy's scalp. The striking angles of these
> entries were comparable so a reasonable person would recognize
> incompatibilities with locations of entry and exit wounds for both
> victims.
>
A reasonable person would realize that all the evidence says the bullet
exited JBC's torso below his right nipple. That's where Shaw place it.
That's where the bullet hole in his coat was. That's where the scar was. A
classic case of all the evidence contradicting an accepted belief so the
evidence must be fraudulent.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Unlike many LNs and CTs, I recognize the necessary of having consistent
> > > evidence. However, I do not permit "a white lie" such as Sturdivan's claim
> > > that a tumbling bullet could make a 15-mm elliptical wound to deceive me
> > > into believing that they have resolved this conflict in the evidence.
> > > Personally, I prefer to acknowledge a contradiction and afford further
> > > learning the opportunity of resolution.
>
> > > Herbert- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Well this last paragraph pretty much makes my previous point for me. You
> > don't seem to want to belong to either the LN or CT camp. Is there a third
> > choice. I see two possibilities, Oswald did it alone or Oswald did not do
> > it alone. The latter would be true whether you believe Oswald was a
> > co-conspirator or an innocent victim. So do you believe Oswald did it
> > alone, do you believe he didn't do it alone, or is there a third
> > possibility that escapes the rest of us. Please be careful how you answer.
> > If you ever replied with an unambiguous answer, I'm afraid I might have
> > heart attack.
>
> I recognize that you have posted absurd statements to deflect
> attention from your evasion of the contradictory evidence. For this
> reason, I will ignore your gambit by enumerating the three conflicts,
> which arise from the presumption that Kennedy's back and throat wounds
> belonged to a perforating pair.
>
"Ignoring your gambit" is your way of saying you won't answer a direct
question with a direct answer, which of course is the way you always
conduct these dialogues. I respect people who I disagree with who have the
fortitude to say what they believe without ambiguity or evasion. You
should try that sometime.
> 1. Humes documented a 4 mm by 7 mm oval hole of entry in the back with
> the longer axis approximately 15 degree from parallel to the vertical
> column. Correcting the measurements for elastic relaxation and swell
> of tissue enables calculation of the direction of the entering bullet
> as one unit directly into the victim for one unit parallel to the
> surface at a 15-degree angle from directly toward the head. In this
> case the direction of the entering bullet differs from the straight
> line joining the back and neck wounds by about 45 degree to 60
> degree.
>
> 2. The FPP reported a 10 mm by 7 mm abrasion surrounding the bullet
> hole in the back with a longer axis approximately 15 degree from a
> perpendicular to the vertical column. These 15-degree deviations from
> a parallel and a perpendicular to the vertical column had the same
> sense of rotation. So the direction of the entering bullet becomes one
> unit directly inward for one unit along the surface at a 15-degree
> angle from leftward. Again the direction of a straight line joining
> the back and neck wounds differ from the direction of the entering
> bullet by a substantial angle of around 45 degree.
>
> 3. The real world, including the drawings published by the FPP,
> recognizes that the direction of the long axis of a bullet hole
> coincides with the direction of the longer axis of the surrounding
> abrasion. However, the combined efforts of the WC and the HSCA have
> the angle between these coincident directions misaligned by 90 degree.
> This result is the third contradiction.
>
Blah, blah, blah. Not one word in the three above paragraphs even remotely
addresses the simple and fundamental question of whether or not you
believe Oswald acted alone, which is what I asked. Rather than answer the
question, you resort to filibuster. It is classic Blennerese. Use as much
verbage as you can to say as little as possible and never reveal to anyone
what you believe about anything for any reason.
Sandy McCroskey
The "best plan" was to use a Mannlicher-Carcano?! Ha.
Obviously, Oswald marched to his appointment with destiny with the gun
he happened to have...
/sm
Bud
> On 11/17/2009 11:46 PM,Budwrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 16, 11:07 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> On 11/16/2009 3:22 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
> >>> THC reran many of their 9/11 shows yesterday and I caught the one that
> >>> dealt with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They pointed out several traits
> >>> which most conspiracy theorists display, regardless of what particular
> >>> conspiracy they are touting. Foremost, is their dismissal of evidence.
>
> >> This is a very old CIA trick. Dismiss the latest conspiracy theory by
> >> claiming that ALL conspiracy theories are crazy.
>
> > They are, for the most part. Driven by the conspirists irrational
> > desire to see a certain person or group responsible (or in the case of
> > the moon landing deniers, irrational distrust of the government).
>
> >>> They don't trust evidence and when evidence conflicts with their theory,
>
> >> It is always the government stooges who dare not talk about evidence.
>
> > Conspiracy theorists always want to obcess and focus on the wrong
> > information. Almost any shooting scenario can be argued against using
> > certain portions or aspects of the medical evidence. Yet, we know JFK
> > was shot.
>
> Sure, if they LIE about the medical evidence. Like claiming that the
> back wound was ABOVE the top of his shoulders.
Do conspiracy theorists claim this?
> >>> it must be the evidence that is wrong. No amount of evidence will cause
> >>> them to doubt that their core belief could be wrong. Faith trumps reason
> >>> in the conspiracy mind. Conspiracists replace healthy skepticism with
> >>> certainty. It isn't enough for them to express doubts about the findings
> >>> of government investigations, they are certain they know what happened. In
>
> >> It isn't even acceptable to you for them to ask questions.
>
> > They ask so many questions because they find the obvious reality
> > unacceptable. They think that by raising a smokescreen of conflict,
> > their ideas are on an equal footing with the official conclusions.
>
> So, you are always opposed to dissent and holding people responsible?
> Just let them get away with telling whatever lies they want to.
I`m doing my part against the conspiracy theorists, but I`m only
one person.
> >>> fact conspiracy groups will often fracture along political lines depending
> >>> on whom they believe was behind the conspiracy. In the case of 9/11
>
> >> As in the JFK case, the 9/11 Truth movement attracts people from all
> >> points of view.
>
> > But a single mindset.
>
> Not all JFK researchers think the government did it. Not all 9/11
> Truthers think the government did it.
Next you`ll be saying not all Christians believe in Jesus Christ.
> >>> Truthers, there are those who believe the Bush administration let it
> >>> happen, and others who believe W made it happen. The JFK conspiracists
>
> >> And half of them will claim it was a Liberal conspiracy and half will
> >> claim it was a Conservative conspiracy.
>
> > Silly. Hatred of Bush drives the TruthMovement, there is no anti-
> > liberal faction of any serious percentage.
>
> Some 9/11 Truthers will slip their hatred of Bush and all he represents
> into the argument, but others don't think Bush had to be the mastermind.
He gets the "stupidity pass" from them, they don`t feel he was smart
enough to mastermind anything.
> >>> have splintered into far many more groups because they have so many more
> >>> bad guys to choose from. Lastly, conspiracists have convinced themselves
>
> >> Wrong.
>
> > No, he was right.
>
> >> Whatever splitting has occurred is due mainly to government
> >> efforts to fragment the research community.
>
> > The splitting occurred because the Cters want to put the black hat
> > of guilt on the people they dislike the most, and they have differing
> > opinions on who deserves the most dislike. The thinking is "I wouldn`t
> > put it past [whoever], so they must have played a part".
>
> Wrong again.
No, it`s right.
> >>> that the reason the truth has never come out is because the government has
> >>> the media in their pockets. While I believe it to be healthy to be
>
> >> The government always has the media in their pockets. Fortunately there
> >> are the same factions in the media as there are in the government so you
> >> have sides fighting against each other.
>
> >>> skeptical both about what the government and the media tell us, neither
>
> >> No, you don't believe in skepticism.
>
> > I`m skeptical of things that don`t make sense. CT assertions about
> > the assassination don`t make sense.
>
> No, you aren't skeptical of the WC or the SBT.
Exactly.
> >>> entity is monolithic and there are too many factions among both to allow
> >>> them to maintain a cover up. Somebody is going to know the truth and
>
> >> No one said it will last forever. It is unraveling now. But it can
> >> persist for many years.
>
> > Thats what they`ll be claiming when the hundreth anniversity of the
> > assassination rolls around.
>
> >>> somebody is going to let the truth out. There are many things governments
>
> >> And somebody is dead before he got the chance to let the truth out.
>
> > Who, Oswald? He had plenty of chances to spill what he knew.
>
> Then why was he silenced?
The police let him talk. Encouraged him actually.
> >> I
> >> let the truth out and you dismiss it because you support the cover-up.
>
> > I oppose the cover-up of Oswald`s guilt.
>
> You support the conspirators because you agree with them.
I support and agree with the conspirators in much the same way I
support and agree with leprechauns.
> >>> do not do well, and keeping a secret is at the top of the list. It ain't
> >>> going to happen.
>
> >> The government keeps secrets all the time and it may take 50-100 years
> >> for those secrets to come out.
>
> > They might never come out if the secrets only exist in your
> > imagination.
>
> Which means you have not been keeping up with new releases of documents.
Did they find any secrets that only exist in your imagination
amongst them?
Peter Fokes
> but I`m only
>one person.
Well, that's good to know.
If you thought you were two people then I would have to wonder!
Ok, is there a poster who does believe he/she is two people?
(I'm sure there must be one!)
:-)
Regards
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Anthony Marsh
Well, we've had people posting with 20 aliases. Does that count?
We have a poster who introduces himself to researchers with a false name
because he's paranoid about being beaten up by a woman. Does that count?
bigdog
> Just goes to show that the cover-up is always well funded.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just goes to show you meet all the qualifications to be a CT.
bigdog
Fox isn't balance. Fox is the balance. It's right wing slant is the
counter balance to the left wing slant by MSNBC and CNN. Of course the
left wingers will never admit that those cable networks have a bias in
their favor. To them, those networks play it down the middle and Fox is
out on the extreme right.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You may not be old enough to remember, but there used to be vanity
> >> newspapers which intentionally lost money all the time because they were
> >> owned by very rich men who were ONLY interested in pushing their agendas.
>
> >>> to achieve that goal. If that means taking down a politician, whether
> >>> liberal or conservative, they'll do it. The media doesn't really care how
>
> >> I'd like to see you document a Liberal newspaper taking down Liberal
> >> politicians or a Conservative newspaper taking down Conservative
> >> politicians. Both sides overlook the exact same crimes as long as they are
> >> committed by own of their own.
>
> > Damn, it scares me when you say something I agree with.
>
> >>> they influence the public other than getting them to tune their TV's to
> >>> *their* programs.
>
> >>> Believe me, if there was a new agency that could air a program that PROVED
> >>> that Kennedy was killed as a result of an conspiracy - they'd air it. If
> >>> they could PROVE that there was a government cover-up, they'd reveal it.
>
> >> Nonsense. The History Channel aired several shows about conspiracy, but
> >> then they caved in to pressure from the LBJ sycophants to withdraw them.
>
> > They caved to attacks on their credibility which was entirely
> > justified when it was demonstrated how irresponsibly those programs
> > had been produced and they had no viable defense to the criticism.
>
> Well, many of their programs were just plain stupid and unprofessional,
> but that's what they are known for, so why the uproar? The fact is that it
> was political pressure from LBJ sycophants.
It wasn't political pressure. It was legal pressure in the form of
threatened lawsuits. It was a pocketbook issue. I'd wager only a small
percentage of the public was even aware of the legal wranglings.
bigdog
Are you claiming Hunt deliberately bungled the Watergate break-in to
scandalize CREEP and bring down Nixon? Or are you claiming Woodward and
Bernstein were CIA operatives? Just where are you going with this.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 18, 10:36 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/17/2009 11:46 PM,Budwrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 16, 11:07 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 11/16/2009 3:22 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>>>> THC reran many of their 9/11 shows yesterday and I caught the one that
>>>>> dealt with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They pointed out several traits
>>>>> which most conspiracy theorists display, regardless of what particular
>>>>> conspiracy they are touting. Foremost, is their dismissal of evidence.
>>
>>>> This is a very old CIA trick. Dismiss the latest conspiracy theory by
>>>> claiming that ALL conspiracy theories are crazy.
>>
>>> They are, for the most part. Driven by the conspirists irrational
>>> desire to see a certain person or group responsible (or in the case of
>>> the moon landing deniers, irrational distrust of the government).
>>
>>>>> They don't trust evidence and when evidence conflicts with their theory,
>>
>>>> It is always the government stooges who dare not talk about evidence.
>>
>>> Conspiracy theorists always want to obcess and focus on the wrong
>>> information. Almost any shooting scenario can be argued against using
>>> certain portions or aspects of the medical evidence. Yet, we know JFK
>>> was shot.
>>
>> Sure, if they LIE about the medical evidence. Like claiming that the
>> back wound was ABOVE the top of his shoulders.
>
> Do conspiracy theorists claim this?
>
I can't give you a definitive answer, but I do not remember ever seeing a
conspiracy theorist talk about the back wound being ABOVE the top of the
shoulders. Some may talk about multiple wounds or altered wounds, but I
think any of those stay BELOW the top of the shoulders.
>>>>> it must be the evidence that is wrong. No amount of evidence will cause
>>>>> them to doubt that their core belief could be wrong. Faith trumps reason
>>>>> in the conspiracy mind. Conspiracists replace healthy skepticism with
>>>>> certainty. It isn't enough for them to express doubts about the findings
>>>>> of government investigations, they are certain they know what happened. In
>>
>>>> It isn't even acceptable to you for them to ask questions.
>>
>>> They ask so many questions because they find the obvious reality
>>> unacceptable. They think that by raising a smokescreen of conflict,
>>> their ideas are on an equal footing with the official conclusions.
>>
>> So, you are always opposed to dissent and holding people responsible?
>> Just let them get away with telling whatever lies they want to.
>
> I`m doing my part against the conspiracy theorists, but I`m only
> one person.
>
That's not what I've heard. Your screen name indicates that you are a
dog. Unless you have Dyslexia like Oswald meant to type God.
>>>>> fact conspiracy groups will often fracture along political lines depending
>>>>> on whom they believe was behind the conspiracy. In the case of 9/11
>>
>>>> As in the JFK case, the 9/11 Truth movement attracts people from all
>>>> points of view.
>>
>>> But a single mindset.
>>
>> Not all JFK researchers think the government did it. Not all 9/11
>> Truthers think the government did it.
>
> Next you`ll be saying not all Christians believe in Jesus Christ.
>
Not the same thing, but you may not be aware of different religious
beliefs. You probably never heard of Jews For Jesus. And of Christians can
disagree about who Jesus was.
>>>>> Truthers, there are those who believe the Bush administration let it
>>>>> happen, and others who believe W made it happen. The JFK conspiracists
>>
>>>> And half of them will claim it was a Liberal conspiracy and half will
>>>> claim it was a Conservative conspiracy.
>>
>>> Silly. Hatred of Bush drives the TruthMovement, there is no anti-
>>> liberal faction of any serious percentage.
>>
>> Some 9/11 Truthers will slip their hatred of Bush and all he represents
>> into the argument, but others don't think Bush had to be the mastermind.
>
> He gets the "stupidity pass" from them, they don`t feel he was smart
> enough to mastermind anything.
>
Yup. Just a puppet, a pawn, a figurehead.
The police let him get killed.
Anthony Marsh
The plan was to frame Oswald and they had to use his rifle to do that.
jas
Sorry, other than your worn-out "the CIA covered it up" answers being
a source of amusement, they simply don't cut it, and I consider them
non-answers.
Can't you think of anything more creative than this, or is the
conspiracist mind-set really that stagnant?
Bud
> On 11/19/2009 10:25 AM,Budwrote:
Why backtrack? I was talking about CTers, and you came in saying
they claimed the back wound was above the shoulders.
> >>>>> it must be the evidence that is wrong. No amount of evidence will cause
> >>>>> them to doubt that their core belief could be wrong. Faith trumps reason
> >>>>> in the conspiracy mind. Conspiracists replace healthy skepticism with
> >>>>> certainty. It isn't enough for them to express doubts about the findings
> >>>>> of government investigations, they are certain they know what happened. In
>
> >>>> It isn't even acceptable to you for them to ask questions.
>
> >>> They ask so many questions because they find the obvious reality
> >>> unacceptable. They think that by raising a smokescreen of conflict,
> >>> their ideas are on an equal footing with the official conclusions.
>
> >> So, you are always opposed to dissent and holding people responsible?
> >> Just let them get away with telling whatever lies they want to.
>
> > I`m doing my part against the conspiracy theorists, but I`m only
> > one person.
>
> That's not what I've heard.
I think Peter started that rumor.
> Your screen name indicates that you are a
> dog. Unless you have Dyslexia like Oswald meant to type God.
>
> >>>>> fact conspiracy groups will often fracture along political lines depending
> >>>>> on whom they believe was behind the conspiracy. In the case of 9/11
>
> >>>> As in the JFK case, the 9/11 Truth movement attracts people from all
> >>>> points of view.
>
> >>> But a single mindset.
>
> >> Not all JFK researchers think the government did it. Not all 9/11
> >> Truthers think the government did it.
>
> > Next you`ll be saying not all Christians believe in Jesus Christ.
>
> Not the same thing, but you may not be aware of different religious
> beliefs. You probably never heard of Jews For Jesus. And of Christians can
> disagree about who Jesus was.
Boy, I called that one.
If they wanted him dead, Oswald gave them a golden opportunity when
they arrested him. Instead, they showed restraint, took him alive, and
questioned him. So to say he died before he was able "to get the truth
out" isn`t really accurate, is it?
Anthony Marsh
No, not Hunt. McCord. McCord was reporting directly to Richard Helms, the
guy Nixon tried to blackmail into covering up Watergate. Bernstein yes,
Bradlee yes, probably not Woodward.
Anthony Marsh
You are technically correct that its job is to be the COUNTER balance
against the Liberal bias of the old Eastern Establishment, network,
media. Murdoch admitted as much.
> counter balance to the left wing slant by MSNBC and CNN. Of course the
> left wingers will never admit that those cable networks have a bias in
> their favor. To them, those networks play it down the middle and Fox is
> out on the extreme right.
>
Admit it? I just SHOUTED it LOUDLY.
Haven't you see the ads for the Nation where they say it's the only
place where you can get that famous Liberal bias?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Stagnant. Spinning their wheels. Running in place. Going nowhere and
taking their time getting there.
All apt descriptions of the CT research community.
bigdog
> The plan was to frame Oswald and they had to use his rifle to do that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
And it sure was nice of him to bring it in to them on the morning of
11/22/63. Makes one wonder what they would have done if he forgot to
bring?
Anthony Marsh
Learn how to read English. I said that I do NOT know of any CTers who say
the back wound was ABOVE the top of the shoulders. The only ones I have
seen saying that are the WC defenders.
Not precisely what you were looking for. But Christians do not all
believe exactly the same thing.
Unfortunately not all police are corrupt and in on the latest scam. Some
are actually honest and have no clue what they are supposed to cover up.
They have to pulled over and instructed.
Sandy McCroskey
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse?
By your theory (and others like it), even more thought and effort went
into framing Oswald than to killing the president.
And if they had in reserve (your "security shot") that mysterious
exploding and disappearing bullet that you claim was fired from the
knoll, and if the gunman stationed there had a plan that somehow
allowed him to do the deed in plain sight of several onlookers and
somehow get away unseen, why even bother framing anyone?
/sandy
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
McCord was being directed by Hunt and Liddy but it's your story so if you
want to have McCord bungling the operation without Hunt's knowledge, who
am I to say otherwise. Now if you think Bernstein and Bradlee were CIA
operatives, you should probably run quick and see if there is a CIA agent
under your bed. Bradlee was an extremely close friend of JFK so how do you
square that with your beliefs that he was also a CIA operative and the CIA
whacked JFK.
Bud
> On 11/20/2009 10:28 AM,Budwrote:
Learn to respond to the topic I was discussing. I was talking about
conspiracy theorists. You said, "Sure, if they LIE about the medical
evidence." Who could "they" be but the conspiracy theorists I was talking
about?
> I said that I do NOT know of any CTers who say
> the back wound was ABOVE the top of the shoulders.
After first saying that they did.
> The only ones I have
> seen saying that are the WC defenders.
Then learn to speak English, and identify any new group brought into a
discussion, or I might think you are referring to the group already under
discussion.
I`ve lost hope that you might to speak to the specific idea I
present. You much prefer to meander off on meaningless tangents.
> But Christians do not all
> believe exactly the same thing.
Quite a revelation.
Yah, that is the conspiracy theorist version of the world, that any cop
at any time will be willing to do anything. It`s not the real world, but
how the hell would they know?
And to get back to your claim that the police were trying to prevent him
from getting the truth out, how do you explain letting him talk to his
family and the media?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have to hand it to Tony. He has come up with a theory that shoots JFK
with not one magic bullet but two. First, he has a bullet that enters
JFK's back on a downward trajectory and then magically exits his throat on
an upward trajectory so as to not hit JBC sitting in front of JFK or
anyone or anything else in the limo. Then he has a gunman fire an
"insurance" shot from the GK that hits JFK in the front right side of
JFK's head and explodes without leaving a trace, an entrance or an exit
wound that any qualified forensic pathologist could recognize. You have to
wonder why they would bother with an exploding bullet. Did they figure
that just shooting JFK in the head with a good old fashioned bullet
wouldn't kill him. You also have to wonder why they would station an
insurance shooter in plain sight where he might easily alert those in DP
that an assassination was in the works which could have deprived the
primary shooter of even getting one shot in. I'm guessing he believes the
fragmented bullet (or bullets) found in the front of the limo are from the
bullet that hit JBC. Should we count that as magic bullet number three? I
have no idea where he thinks that was fired from. Then we have CE399 to
account for. Do you think when they decided to plant that bullet, they
knew that one of the bullets that hit JFK was going to jump out of the
limo and not be found so they wouldn't end up with an extra bullet to
account for. Talk about your convolutions. Keep in mind that this all had
to be figured out in advance. I'd have loved to have sat in on that
planning session. No, let's not just let a lone sniper shoot JFK from a
stealth location while he is standing still in front of the Ft. Worth
hotel. That's far too easy. Let's make this a challenge. Let's put him in
a moving car and put a shooter in a spot where he could be spotted before
the act is carried out and then let's frame some poor schmuck but he has
to be a cooperative schmuck because we need him to bring his rifle to work
that morning. This apparently was an assassination that was planned by a
committee.
Anthony Marsh
Because he WASN'T in plain sight and NO ONE saw him, not even you.
Sandy McCroskey
A shooter on the knoll would have been visible to several people. You
are right that no one saw any such person. There's a very simple
explanation for that.
/sandy
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
No one saw him because he wasn't there. If he had been, Lee Bowers
would have been able to see him.
jas
I'd be more inclined to believe that a second shooter was involved if,
say, conspiracists would insist the head shot came from the above left
rear from the Old Records building. At least that angle would be, more or
less, consistent with the exploding out of the right side of the head.
But to blatantly insist that there was a north grassy knoll shooter when
it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt -- with all the evidence --
that a shot did not originate from there, is simply ludicrous, and flies
in the face of common sense.
This lack of reason and common sense is mainly why LNs just can't take
conspiracists seriously a lot of the time.
And, I'm beginning to suspect, and actually have suspected for some time,
that some conspiracists here indeed have the common sense they need to
understand the evidence supports the LN side, they just get their kicks
from posting their conspiracy ideas only to see how LNers will react.
Anthony Marsh
No. I repeat. No.
Anthony Marsh
The fact remains that no one reported seeing the man there and you even
deny that there is any person there when we can see him in a photograph.
Anthony Marsh
Why do you think that you can get away with misrepresenting what I said?
I did not say the bullet hit the front right side. I said it hit in the
frontal bone just above the right eye. Not the side of the head.
I did not say it did not leave a trace. I point out the trace which is
the semi-circular defect which Dr. Lawrence Angel says is a bullet wound.
> wonder why they would bother with an exploding bullet. Did they figure
> that just shooting JFK in the head with a good old fashioned bullet
> wouldn't kill him. You also have to wonder why they would station an
Maybe a good old fashioned bullet wouldn't kill him. Other people have
been shot in the head and survived.
> insurance shooter in plain sight where he might easily alert those in DP
He wasn't out in plain sight. He was hidden behind a fence. No one saw
him. Even YOU can't see him.
> that an assassination was in the works which could have deprived the
> primary shooter of even getting one shot in. I'm guessing he believes the
So what if spectators saw a shooter? People saw a man with a rifle in
the TSBD before the shooting and did nothing about it.
> fragmented bullet (or bullets) found in the front of the limo are from the
> bullet that hit JBC. Should we count that as magic bullet number three? I
Yes, I do.
No, you are the only one with a Magic Bullet.
> have no idea where he thinks that was fired from. Then we have CE399 to
Because you refuse to read my articles. I state clearly it was the last
shot from the sniper's nest.
> account for. Do you think when they decided to plant that bullet, they
> knew that one of the bullets that hit JFK was going to jump out of the
> limo and not be found so they wouldn't end up with an extra bullet to
> account for. Talk about your convolutions. Keep in mind that this all had
Talk about straw man arguments. Please don't steal ALL the straw from
the hay ride.
> to be figured out in advance. I'd have loved to have sat in on that
> planning session. No, let's not just let a lone sniper shoot JFK from a
> stealth location while he is standing still in front of the Ft. Worth
> hotel. That's far too easy. Let's make this a challenge. Let's put him in
> a moving car and put a shooter in a spot where he could be spotted before
> the act is carried out and then let's frame some poor schmuck but he has
> to be a cooperative schmuck because we need him to bring his rifle to work
> that morning. This apparently was an assassination that was planned by a
> committee.
>
Not every assassination can be easy. Some require shooting at the target
traveling in an open car. Archduke Ferdinand.
Anthony Marsh
You said ANY shooting scenario. That includes the WC defenders as well.
>> I said that I do NOT know of any CTers who say
>> the back wound was ABOVE the top of the shoulders.
>
> After first saying that they did.
>
No, I did not say that. Ever.
>> The only ones I have
>> seen saying that are the WC defenders.
>
> Then learn to speak English, and identify any new group brought into a
> discussion, or I might think you are referring to the group already under
> discussion.
>
I said that I can not vouch for everyone here, but I have never seen any
conspiracy believers arguing that the back wound was ABOVE the top of
the shoulders. ONLY WC defenders.
Why do you think that I am obligated to fall for your stupid traps? It
isn't Christmas yet.
And Halloween is over so I can't tell you scary stories.
I never made a claim like that.
Anthony Marsh
It's not MY story. Others have written about it before. And McCord WAS
reporting directly to Richard Helms.
> am I to say otherwise. Now if you think Bernstein and Bradlee were CIA
> operatives, you should probably run quick and see if there is a CIA agent
> under your bed. Bradlee was an extremely close friend of JFK so how do you
> square that with your beliefs that he was also a CIA operative and the CIA
> whacked JFK.
>
The two are not incompatible. JFK was close friends with various CIA
stooges.
And one branch of the CIA can do something that other branches know
nothing about.
bigdog
>
> > No one saw him because he wasn't there. If he had been, Lee Bowers
> > would have been able to see him.
>
> No. I repeat. No.
Repeat it all you want, you will be wrong every time you do. Are we
supposed to believe that Lee Bowers could see a flash of light and a puff
of smoke but couldn't see the shooter that produced the flash of light and
puff of smoke? Bowers had a clear view of the area behind the grassy knoll
at the time the shots were fired and he didn't see a shooter.
bigdog
I was trying to be nice and give you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't
think that even you would claim something as absurd as JFK was shot above
the right eye but apparently I was wrong. This puts you in David Lifton's
league.
> > wonder why they would bother with an exploding bullet. Did they figure
> > that just shooting JFK in the head with a good old fashioned bullet
> > wouldn't kill him. You also have to wonder why they would station an
>
> Maybe a good old fashioned bullet wouldn't kill him. Other people have
> been shot in the head and survived.
>
Not from a high powered rifle.
> > insurance shooter in plain sight where he might easily alert those in DP
>
> He wasn't out in plain sight. He was hidden behind a fence. No one saw
> him. Even YOU can't see him.
>
He would have been in plain sight of anyone on that side of the fence.
A fence only hides you from one side.
> > that an assassination was in the works which could have deprived the
> > primary shooter of even getting one shot in. I'm guessing he believes the
>
> So what if spectators saw a shooter? People saw a man with a rifle in
> the TSBD before the shooting and did nothing about it.
>
And of course, the plotters would have counted on such indifference by
the spectators.
> > fragmented bullet (or bullets) found in the front of the limo are from the
> > bullet that hit JBC. Should we count that as magic bullet number three? I
>
> Yes, I do.
> No, you are the only one with a Magic Bullet.
>
You have a bullet fired from above and behind hitting JFK in the back,
leveling off through his throat and then going up and over the windshield.
You have a bullet going through JBC's torso and wrist, and then shattering
with the fragments flying up and over the front seat, hitting the
windshield and then settling on the floor. Then you have an exploding
bullet striking JFK above the right eye, blowing out the right side and
disappearing without a trace. And apparently that bullet hole above his
right eye managed to heal immediately since no one at Parkland saw such a
wound, nor did anyone at Bethesda, nor did it show up on any photograph.
No magic bullets here. I sure am glad you aren't one of the kooky CTs.
> > have no idea where he thinks that was fired from. Then we have CE399 to
>
> Because you refuse to read my articles. I state clearly it was the last
> shot from the sniper's nest.
>
Don't take it personally. I don't read comic books either. It sure was
thoughtful of JFK to have the presence of mind, despite having been shot
through the throat, to lean out of the way so the SN shooter could get a
shot at JBC.
> > account for. Do you think when they decided to plant that bullet, they
> > knew that one of the bullets that hit JFK was going to jump out of the
> > limo and not be found so they wouldn't end up with an extra bullet to
> > account for. Talk about your convolutions. Keep in mind that this all had
>
> Talk about straw man arguments. Please don't steal ALL the straw from
> the hay ride.
>
> > to be figured out in advance. I'd have loved to have sat in on that
> > planning session. No, let's not just let a lone sniper shoot JFK from a
> > stealth location while he is standing still in front of the Ft. Worth
> > hotel. That's far too easy. Let's make this a challenge. Let's put him in
> > a moving car and put a shooter in a spot where he could be spotted before
> > the act is carried out and then let's frame some poor schmuck but he has
> > to be a cooperative schmuck because we need him to bring his rifle to work
> > that morning. This apparently was an assassination that was planned by a
> > committee.
>
> Not every assassination can be easy. Some require shooting at the target
> traveling in an open car. Archduke Ferdinand.
Had Archduke Ferdinand presented them a stationary target in public
earlier in the day? Did his assassins have a cooperative little schmuck
like Oswald to take the rap for them?
Bud
> On 11/20/2009 11:41 PM,Budwrote:
I know that. You are aware that the official shooting scenario is
contested using portions of the medical evidence, right? Do you think a
shooting scenario can be devised that satisfies all the medical evidence?
> >> I said that I do NOT know of any CTers who say
> >> the back wound was ABOVE the top of the shoulders.
>
> > After first saying that they did.
>
> No, I did not say that. Ever.
Sure you did. The people I was discussing was conspiracy theorists. You
said "Sure if they LIE about the medical evidence. Like claiming the back
wound was ABOVE the shoulders."
> >> The only ones I have
> >> seen saying that are the WC defenders.
>
> > Then learn to speak English, and identify any new group brought into a
> > discussion, or I might think you are referring to the group already under
> > discussion.
>
> I said that I can not vouch for everyone here, but I have never seen any
> conspiracy believers arguing that the back wound was ABOVE the top of
> the shoulders. ONLY WC defenders.
Three responses later you identify who you meant.
Is that a Christmas tradition where you`re from?
> And Halloween is over so I can't tell you scary stories.
Tell us the one about the Christians who don`t believe in Jesus
Christ.
You weren`t alluding to Oswald when you said "And somebody is dead
before he had a chance to get the truth out"?
Anthony Marsh
No, you weren't. You were trying to win an argument by making false
claims about what the other person said. Cheap tricks is all you know.
> think that even you would claim something as absurd as JFK was shot above
> the right eye but apparently I was wrong. This puts you in David Lifton's
> league.
>
Lifton's theories involve wound alterations. Mine do not. YOU can't even
admit there is a wound there.
>>> wonder why they would bother with an exploding bullet. Did they figure
>>> that just shooting JFK in the head with a good old fashioned bullet
>>> wouldn't kill him. You also have to wonder why they would station an
>>
>> Maybe a good old fashioned bullet wouldn't kill him. Other people have
>> been shot in the head and survived.
>>
>
> Not from a high powered rifle.
>
And who said it was a high powered rifle?
>>> insurance shooter in plain sight where he might easily alert those in DP
>>
>> He wasn't out in plain sight. He was hidden behind a fence. No one saw
>> him. Even YOU can't see him.
>>
>
> He would have been in plain sight of anyone on that side of the fence.
> A fence only hides you from one side.
>
There was no one else on the same side to see him except Bowers and
Bowers did see those two men.
You can't even admit that you see the man's head in the Moorman photo.
>>> that an assassination was in the works which could have deprived the
>>> primary shooter of even getting one shot in. I'm guessing he believes the
>>
>> So what if spectators saw a shooter? People saw a man with a rifle in
>> the TSBD before the shooting and did nothing about it.
>>
>
> And of course, the plotters would have counted on such indifference by
> the spectators.
>
The plotters counted on having genuine SS identification to get away.
And it worked perfectly. They were caught and they were let go.
>>> fragmented bullet (or bullets) found in the front of the limo are from the
>>> bullet that hit JBC. Should we count that as magic bullet number three? I
>>
>> Yes, I do.
>> No, you are the only one with a Magic Bullet.
>>
>
> You have a bullet fired from above and behind hitting JFK in the back,
> leveling off through his throat and then going up and over the windshield.
I did not say that.
But it is one possibility.
> You have a bullet going through JBC's torso and wrist, and then shattering
> with the fragments flying up and over the front seat, hitting the
> windshield and then settling on the floor. Then you have an exploding
No. Stop telling me what I have.
I have one bullet going through Connally's torso and a different bullet
hitting his wrist.
BTW, it is not hitting the windshield which leaves the two large
fragments on the floor and one was on the floor while the other was IN
the front seat cushion. You don't know the basic facts of this case.
It is the chrome topping which causes that ricochet, not the windshield.
> bullet striking JFK above the right eye, blowing out the right side and
> disappearing without a trace. And apparently that bullet hole above his
Not without a trace. Leaving a snowstorm of minute particles,
uncharacteristic of a FMJ bullet.
> right eye managed to heal immediately since no one at Parkland saw such a
No one at Parkland could see the hole in the hair.
> wound, nor did anyone at Bethesda, nor did it show up on any photograph.
Of course they saw the hole at Bethesda. They took a photograph of it.
They were too incompetent to understand what it was.
I showed you the autopsy photograph and you refused to see the obvious
wound. Dr. Lawrence Angel recognized it as a bullet wound.
> No magic bullets here. I sure am glad you aren't one of the kooky CTs.
>
>>> have no idea where he thinks that was fired from. Then we have CE399 to
>>
>> Because you refuse to read my articles. I state clearly it was the last
>> shot from the sniper's nest.
>>
>
> Don't take it personally. I don't read comic books either. It sure was
> thoughtful of JFK to have the presence of mind, despite having been shot
> through the throat, to lean out of the way so the SN shooter could get a
> shot at JBC.
>
No leaning needed. The Dale Myers diagrams show that there is enough
room for a bullet to miss Kennedy and hit Connally.
>>> account for. Do you think when they decided to plant that bullet, they
>>> knew that one of the bullets that hit JFK was going to jump out of the
>>> limo and not be found so they wouldn't end up with an extra bullet to
>>> account for. Talk about your convolutions. Keep in mind that this all had
>>
>> Talk about straw man arguments. Please don't steal ALL the straw from
>> the hay ride.
>>
>>> to be figured out in advance. I'd have loved to have sat in on that
>>> planning session. No, let's not just let a lone sniper shoot JFK from a
>>> stealth location while he is standing still in front of the Ft. Worth
>>> hotel. That's far too easy. Let's make this a challenge. Let's put him in
>>> a moving car and put a shooter in a spot where he could be spotted before
>>> the act is carried out and then let's frame some poor schmuck but he has
>>> to be a cooperative schmuck because we need him to bring his rifle to work
>>> that morning. This apparently was an assassination that was planned by a
>>> committee.
>>
>> Not every assassination can be easy. Some require shooting at the target
>> traveling in an open car. Archduke Ferdinand.
>
> Had Archduke Ferdinand presented them a stationary target in public
> earlier in the day? Did his assassins have a cooperative little schmuck
> like Oswald to take the rap for them?
>
Yes, the first attempt missed.
Anthony Marsh
You are making up crap again. Lee Bowers did not say that he saw a flash
of light and a puff of smoke. He saw SOMETHING which attracted his
attention.
jas
> > snipped for space--
Marsh said: "Lifton's theories involve wound alterations. Mine do not. YOU
can't even admit there is a wound there."
No, you're right, your theories don't involve wound alterations -- your
theories involve wound-creating, something much worse.
bigdog
Because there isn't a wound there. Yes, Lifton's theories involve wound
alterations. Yours involve wound inventions. Both are equally silly.
> >>> wonder why they would bother with an exploding bullet. Did they figure
> >>> that just shooting JFK in the head with a good old fashioned bullet
> >>> wouldn't kill him. You also have to wonder why they would station an
>
> >> Maybe a good old fashioned bullet wouldn't kill him. Other people have
> >> been shot in the head and survived.
>
> > Not from a high powered rifle.
>
> And who said it was a high powered rifle?
>
So what are you suggesting? Did your imaginary shooter fire his magical
exploding bullet from a .22 LR? This is your fictional tale so you get to
give your shooter any kind of weapon you want. It gets more amusing the
more you try to fill in the details. Please don't stop. I'd love to hear
what kind of weapon you think they fired your magic bullet from and why
they would choose such a weapon. You see, Tony, this is what happens when
you stray from the obviously correct conclusions of the WC and try to
invent a viable alternative. The devil is in the details. You get caught
in a spiral of coming up with so many things that are ridiculous and then
have to come up even more ridiculous things to try to make your story seem
viable. It's much easier to accept the very simple fact that a disgruntled
little insignificant puke found out he was being dealt a once in a
lifetime chance to do something monumental, fetched his cheap Italian war
surplus rifle, brought it into work, then stuck it out the window and
became one of the most infamous men in history.
> >>> insurance shooter in plain sight where he might easily alert those in DP
>
> >> He wasn't out in plain sight. He was hidden behind a fence. No one saw
> >> him. Even YOU can't see him.
>
> > He would have been in plain sight of anyone on that side of the fence.
> > A fence only hides you from one side.
>
> There was no one else on the same side to see him except Bowers and
> Bowers did see those two men.
> You can't even admit that you see the man's head in the Moorman photo.
>
So why didn't Bowers see a shooter.
> >>> that an assassination was in the works which could have deprived the
> >>> primary shooter of even getting one shot in. I'm guessing he believes the
>
> >> So what if spectators saw a shooter? People saw a man with a rifle in
> >> the TSBD before the shooting and did nothing about it.
>
> > And of course, the plotters would have counted on such indifference by
> > the spectators.
>
> The plotters counted on having genuine SS identification to get away.
> And it worked perfectly. They were caught and they were let go.
>
We weren't talking about how they would get away. We were talking about
exposing the plot prematurely. How did your imaginary SS agents manage to
do that.
> >>> fragmented bullet (or bullets) found in the front of the limo are from the
> >>> bullet that hit JBC. Should we count that as magic bullet number three? I
>
> >> Yes, I do.
> >> No, you are the only one with a Magic Bullet.
>
> > You have a bullet fired from above and behind hitting JFK in the back,
> > leveling off through his throat and then going up and over the windshield.
>
> I did not say that.
> But it is one possibility.
>
In another thread, you said the back and throat wounds were at the
same height. That means you need the bullet to level out in transit.
> > You have a bullet going through JBC's torso and wrist, and then shattering
> > with the fragments flying up and over the front seat, hitting the
> > windshield and then settling on the floor. Then you have an exploding
>
> No. Stop telling me what I have.
> I have one bullet going through Connally's torso and a different bullet
> hitting his wrist.
OK, let's stop and count. You have Connally getting shot twice. You have
JFK shot twice. You have a deliberate missed shot. That's five shots. So
why did most people only hear three? Why did the accoustical evidence
which you place so much faith in only indicate four?
> BTW, it is not hitting the windshield which leaves the two large
> fragments on the floor and one was on the floor while the other was IN
> the front seat cushion. You don't know the basic facts of this case.
> It is the chrome topping which causes that ricochet, not the windshield.
>
> > bullet striking JFK above the right eye, blowing out the right side and
> > disappearing without a trace. And apparently that bullet hole above his
>
> Not without a trace. Leaving a snowstorm of minute particles,
> uncharacteristic of a FMJ bullet.
>
So why were the trace fragments in a cone shaped pattern emanating
from the back of the skull?
> > right eye managed to heal immediately since no one at Parkland saw such a
>
> No one at Parkland could see the hole in the hair.
>
Oh, so now you have moved your head wound from the forehead to above
the hairline. If you are going to propose magic bullets, you might as
well throw in a few magic bullet wounds.
> > wound, nor did anyone at Bethesda, nor did it show up on any photograph.
>
> Of course they saw the hole at Bethesda. They took a photograph of it.
> They were too incompetent to understand what it was.
And you are claiming that you are competent?
> I showed you the autopsy photograph and you refused to see the obvious
> wound. Dr. Lawrence Angel recognized it as a bullet wound.
>
> > No magic bullets here. I sure am glad you aren't one of the kooky CTs.
>
> >>> have no idea where he thinks that was fired from. Then we have CE399 to
>
> >> Because you refuse to read my articles. I state clearly it was the last
> >> shot from the sniper's nest.
>
I didn't think this through the first time you said this. You have JBC
hearing the first shot and then hit by the second which he didn't hear.
Now you are adding a second shot to JBC plus your deliberate missed shot.
Just how many shots were fired from the SN?
> > Don't take it personally. I don't read comic books either. It sure was
> > thoughtful of JFK to have the presence of mind, despite having been shot
> > through the throat, to lean out of the way so the SN shooter could get a
> > shot at JBC.
>
> No leaning needed. The Dale Myers diagrams show that there is enough
> room for a bullet to miss Kennedy and hit Connally.
>
Oh, so now you are a Myers proponent?
bigdog
Apparently that something wasn't a shooter.
tomnln
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw
LEE BOWERS INTERVIEW Below Part 1of 2
http://www.veoh.com/videos/e97495KAZA2acj
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw
LEE BOWERS & S M HOLLAND INTERVIEW Below Part 2of 2
MORE LEE J BOWERS/S M HOLLAND Below.
bigdog
> SEE>>> http://www.veoh.com/collection/peterp41/watch/e97495KAZA2acj#
>
> SEE>>> http://www.veoh.com/collection/JFKfiles/watch/e125022YS5aT4WW#
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw
>
> LEE BOWERS INTERVIEW Below Part 1of 2
>
> http://www.veoh.com/videos/e97495KAZA2acj
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw
>
> LEE BOWERS & S M HOLLAND INTERVIEW Below Part 2of 2
>
> MORE LEE J BOWERS/S M HOLLAND Below.
>
> http://www.veoh.com/videos/e97117rhh4n2F6
>
>
>
> > On 11/22/2009 2:07 PM, bigdog wrote:
> >> On Nov 21, 11:30 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> No one saw him because he wasn't there. If he had been, Lee Bowers
> >>>> would have been able to see him.
>
> >>> No. I repeat. No.
>
> >> Repeat it all you want, you will be wrong every time you do. Are we
> >> supposed to believe that Lee Bowers could see a flash of light and a puff
> >> of smoke but couldn't see the shooter that produced the flash of light and
> >> puff of smoke? Bowers had a clear view of the area behind the grassy knoll
> >> at the time the shots were fired and he didn't see a shooter.
>
> > You are making up crap again. Lee Bowers did not say that he saw a flash
> > of light and a puff of smoke. He saw SOMETHING which attracted his
>
> - Show quoted text -
What are you trying to pull here, Rossley. These videos aren't
official records. You aren't allowed to reference them. Your rules,
not mine.
Anthony Marsh
It could even have been light reflecting off the limo.
Anthony Marsh
Dr. Lawrence Angel says it is a bullet wound. What do you claim it is,
Mr. Forensic Pathologist?
>>>>> wonder why they would bother with an exploding bullet. Did they figure
>>>>> that just shooting JFK in the head with a good old fashioned bullet
>>>>> wouldn't kill him. You also have to wonder why they would station an
>>
>>>> Maybe a good old fashioned bullet wouldn't kill him. Other people have
>>>> been shot in the head and survived.
>>
>>> Not from a high powered rifle.
>>
>> And who said it was a high powered rifle?
>>
>
> So what are you suggesting? Did your imaginary shooter fire his magical
> exploding bullet from a .22 LR? This is your fictional tale so you get to
No. And a .22 LR is not the only bullet which could fail to exit.
> give your shooter any kind of weapon you want. It gets more amusing the
> more you try to fill in the details. Please don't stop. I'd love to hear
> what kind of weapon you think they fired your magic bullet from and why
> they would choose such a weapon. You see, Tony, this is what happens when
As I've said 1,000 times before I think it was an explosive bullet.
> you stray from the obviously correct conclusions of the WC and try to
> invent a viable alternative. The devil is in the details. You get caught
> in a spiral of coming up with so many things that are ridiculous and then
> have to come up even more ridiculous things to try to make your story seem
> viable. It's much easier to accept the very simple fact that a disgruntled
> little insignificant puke found out he was being dealt a once in a
> lifetime chance to do something monumental, fetched his cheap Italian war
> surplus rifle, brought it into work, then stuck it out the window and
> became one of the most infamous men in history.
>
It's easier for you to just believe government lies.
>>>>> insurance shooter in plain sight where he might easily alert those in DP
>>
>>>> He wasn't out in plain sight. He was hidden behind a fence. No one saw
>>>> him. Even YOU can't see him.
>>
>>> He would have been in plain sight of anyone on that side of the fence.
>>> A fence only hides you from one side.
>>
>> There was no one else on the same side to see him except Bowers and
>> Bowers did see those two men.
>> You can't even admit that you see the man's head in the Moorman photo.
>>
>
> So why didn't Bowers see a shooter.
>
Because he was not looking at that specific spot at the time of the shot.
>>>>> that an assassination was in the works which could have deprived the
>>>>> primary shooter of even getting one shot in. I'm guessing he believes the
>>
>>>> So what if spectators saw a shooter? People saw a man with a rifle in
>>>> the TSBD before the shooting and did nothing about it.
>>
>>> And of course, the plotters would have counted on such indifference by
>>> the spectators.
>>
>> The plotters counted on having genuine SS identification to get away.
>> And it worked perfectly. They were caught and they were let go.
>>
>
> We weren't talking about how they would get away. We were talking about
> exposing the plot prematurely. How did your imaginary SS agents manage to
> do that.
>
You aren't making any sense. I did not suggest that the fake SS agents
intentionally exposed the plot.
>>>>> fragmented bullet (or bullets) found in the front of the limo are from the
>>>>> bullet that hit JBC. Should we count that as magic bullet number three? I
>>
>>>> Yes, I do.
>>>> No, you are the only one with a Magic Bullet.
>>
>>> You have a bullet fired from above and behind hitting JFK in the back,
>>> leveling off through his throat and then going up and over the windshield.
>>
>> I did not say that.
>> But it is one possibility.
>>
>
> In another thread, you said the back and throat wounds were at the
> same height. That means you need the bullet to level out in transit.
>
No, not level out. Richocet. Deflect.
>>> You have a bullet going through JBC's torso and wrist, and then shattering
>>> with the fragments flying up and over the front seat, hitting the
>>> windshield and then settling on the floor. Then you have an exploding
>>
>> No. Stop telling me what I have.
>> I have one bullet going through Connally's torso and a different bullet
>> hitting his wrist.
>
> OK, let's stop and count. You have Connally getting shot twice. You have
> JFK shot twice. You have a deliberate missed shot. That's five shots. So
> why did most people only hear three? Why did the accoustical evidence
> which you place so much faith in only indicate four?
>
Yes, five shots.
The acoustical evidence indicates five shots. Why didn't you read the
Don Thomas article I posted which explained the fifth shot. You refuse
to read anything and then ask stupid questions which have already been
answered hundreds of times. Just to be annoying.
>> BTW, it is not hitting the windshield which leaves the two large
>> fragments on the floor and one was on the floor while the other was IN
>> the front seat cushion. You don't know the basic facts of this case.
>> It is the chrome topping which causes that ricochet, not the windshield.
>>
>>> bullet striking JFK above the right eye, blowing out the right side and
>>> disappearing without a trace. And apparently that bullet hole above his
>>
>> Not without a trace. Leaving a snowstorm of minute particles,
>> uncharacteristic of a FMJ bullet.
>>
> So why were the trace fragments in a cone shaped pattern emanating
> from the back of the skull?
>
>>> right eye managed to heal immediately since no one at Parkland saw such a
>>
>> No one at Parkland could see the hole in the hair.
>>
> Oh, so now you have moved your head wound from the forehead to above
> the hairline. If you are going to propose magic bullets, you might as
> well throw in a few magic bullet wounds.
>
The wound is right there for anyone to see. But you refuse to look.
>>> wound, nor did anyone at Bethesda, nor did it show up on any photograph.
>>
>> Of course they saw the hole at Bethesda. They took a photograph of it.
>> They were too incompetent to understand what it was.
>
> And you are claiming that you are competent?
Yes. Competent enough to prove the Zapruder film is authentic and prove
that the chrome topping was undented before the assassination.
>
>> I showed you the autopsy photograph and you refused to see the obvious
>> wound. Dr. Lawrence Angel recognized it as a bullet wound.
>>
>>> No magic bullets here. I sure am glad you aren't one of the kooky CTs.
>>
>>>>> have no idea where he thinks that was fired from. Then we have CE399 to
>>
>>>> Because you refuse to read my articles. I state clearly it was the last
>>>> shot from the sniper's nest.
>>
>
> I didn't think this through the first time you said this. You have JBC
> hearing the first shot and then hit by the second which he didn't hear.
> Now you are adding a second shot to JBC plus your deliberate missed shot.
> Just how many shots were fired from the SN?
>
Three.
>>> Don't take it personally. I don't read comic books either. It sure was
>>> thoughtful of JFK to have the presence of mind, despite having been shot
>>> through the throat, to lean out of the way so the SN shooter could get a
>>> shot at JBC.
>>
>> No leaning needed. The Dale Myers diagrams show that there is enough
>> room for a bullet to miss Kennedy and hit Connally.
>>
>
> Oh, so now you are a Myers proponent?
>
No, just saying that you are required to believe what his diagrams show.
I am not, but I can use it against you.
Anthony Marsh
No, they don't. You are making up crap.
Anthony Marsh
No, because the official story is a lie.
>>>> I said that I do NOT know of any CTers who say
>>>> the back wound was ABOVE the top of the shoulders.
>>
>>> After first saying that they did.
>>
>> No, I did not say that. Ever.
>
> Sure you did. The people I was discussing was conspiracy theorists. You
> said "Sure if they LIE about the medical evidence. Like claiming the back
> wound was ABOVE the shoulders."
>
You included everyone. You did not specify ONLY conspiracy theorists.
I have not seen any conspiracy theories say the back wound was ABOVE the
top of the shoulders.
>>>> The only ones I have
They worship Mary instead of Jesus.
And many Jews were converted to Christianity rather than being killed
and they never believed in Jesus Christ.
They believe that Jesus is just one of the great prophets.
But they are still waiting for the Christ.
tomnln
Eat your Heart Out ! ! !
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f93292a5-4947-421b...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
jas
I think you're the one making up the crap-ola my friend when you say
there was an entry wound in the right forehead/temple area.
bigdog
> Accounts by First-Hand Witnesses ! ! !
>
> Eat your Heart Out ! ! !
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Let's just clear the air here, Rossley. Are we allowed to reference
sources which are not in the "official records" or not. You are always
making a big deal about "official records" so I'm just trying to
establish the ground rules.
PS. What's the latest from Anton Batey?
bigdog
scam. I will say that it might very well be a bullet wound. AN EXIT
WOUND!!! That is the conclusion of every qualified forensic expert who
has seen the actual medical evidence.
> >>>>> wonder why they would bother with an exploding bullet. Did they figure
> >>>>> that just shooting JFK in the head with a good old fashioned bullet
> >>>>> wouldn't kill him. You also have to wonder why they would station an
>
> >>>> Maybe a good old fashioned bullet wouldn't kill him. Other people have
> >>>> been shot in the head and survived.
>
> >>> Not from a high powered rifle.
>
> >> And who said it was a high powered rifle?
>
> > So what are you suggesting? Did your imaginary shooter fire his magical
> > exploding bullet from a .22 LR? This is your fictional tale so you get to
>
> No. And a .22 LR is not the only bullet which could fail to exit.
>
So tell us, Carnac the Magificent, what kind of weapon and ammo could fire
a shot into the front right side of a human head, blow out the skull and
not only not exit on the left side but leave no trace of material on the
left hemisphere of the brain?
> > give your shooter any kind of weapon you want. It gets more amusing the
> > more you try to fill in the details. Please don't stop. I'd love to hear
> > what kind of weapon you think they fired your magic bullet from and why
> > they would choose such a weapon. You see, Tony, this is what happens when
>
> As I've said 1,000 times before I think it was an explosive bullet.
>
And 1000 times before, you have been completely wrong.
> > you stray from the obviously correct conclusions of the WC and try to
> > invent a viable alternative. The devil is in the details. You get caught
> > in a spiral of coming up with so many things that are ridiculous and then
> > have to come up even more ridiculous things to try to make your story seem
> > viable. It's much easier to accept the very simple fact that a disgruntled
> > little insignificant puke found out he was being dealt a once in a
> > lifetime chance to do something monumental, fetched his cheap Italian war
> > surplus rifle, brought it into work, then stuck it out the window and
> > became one of the most infamous men in history.
>
> It's easier for you to just believe government lies.
>
It would be easy if the government lied all the time but they cross us
up by sometimes telling us the truth so that we actually have to use
our minds to figure out when they are lying and when they are being
truthful. The dirty bastards!!!
> >>>>> insurance shooter in plain sight where he might easily alert those in DP
>
> >>>> He wasn't out in plain sight. He was hidden behind a fence. No one saw
> >>>> him. Even YOU can't see him.
>
> >>> He would have been in plain sight of anyone on that side of the fence.
> >>> A fence only hides you from one side.
>
> >> There was no one else on the same side to see him except Bowers and
> >> Bowers did see those two men.
> >> You can't even admit that you see the man's head in the Moorman photo.
>
> > So why didn't Bowers see a shooter.
>
> Because he was not looking at that specific spot at the time of the shot.
>
Right. A gunman fires a rifle in plain view of Bowers who is looking
in that direction but doesn't see him. Amazing!!!
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> that an assassination was in the works which could have deprived the
> >>>>> primary shooter of even getting one shot in. I'm guessing he believes the
>
> >>>> So what if spectators saw a shooter? People saw a man with a rifle in
> >>>> the TSBD before the shooting and did nothing about it.
>
> >>> And of course, the plotters would have counted on such indifference by
> >>> the spectators.
>
> >> The plotters counted on having genuine SS identification to get away.
> >> And it worked perfectly. They were caught and they were let go.
>
> > We weren't talking about how they would get away. We were talking about
> > exposing the plot prematurely. How did your imaginary SS agents manage to
> > do that.
>
> You aren't making any sense. I did not suggest that the fake SS agents
> intentionally exposed the plot.
>
That's not what I said. We were discussing how the plotters could have
safely assumed that spectators would not have observed their insurance
shooter behind the GK fence and alerted law enforcement before the
President arrived.
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> fragmented bullet (or bullets) found in the front of the limo are from the
> >>>>> bullet that hit JBC. Should we count that as magic bullet number three? I
>
> >>>> Yes, I do.
> >>>> No, you are the only one with a Magic Bullet.
>
> >>> You have a bullet fired from above and behind hitting JFK in the back,
> >>> leveling off through his throat and then going up and over the windshield.
>
> >> I did not say that.
> >> But it is one possibility.
>
> > In another thread, you said the back and throat wounds were at the
> > same height. That means you need the bullet to level out in transit.
>
> No, not level out. Richocet. Deflect.
>
You've already painted yourself into a corner by your stated belief that
the back on throat wounds were on the same level. You have the bullet
entering on a downward trajectory and exiting on an upward trajectory, but
you have both wounds on the same level. So if the bullet was not traveling
level as it transited JFK's throat, just what path do you think it was on
during it's journey from the entrance to the exit wound. Just how many
times are you going to have that bullet change directions?
>
>
> >>> You have a bullet going through JBC's torso and wrist, and then shattering
> >>> with the fragments flying up and over the front seat, hitting the
> >>> windshield and then settling on the floor. Then you have an exploding- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 23, 4:18 pm, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Accounts by First-Hand Witnesses ! ! !
>>
>> Eat your Heart Out ! ! !
>>
>> "bigdog"<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f93292a5-4947-421b...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 23, 12:15 am, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> SEE>>>http://www.veoh.com/collection/peterp41/watch/e97495KAZA2acj#
>>
>>> SEE>>>http://www.veoh.com/collection/JFKfiles/watch/e125022YS5aT4WW#
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw
>>
>>> LEE BOWERS INTERVIEW Below Part 1of 2
>>
>>> http://www.veoh.com/videos/e97495KAZA2acj
>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm3neVe8Nlw
>>
By OFFICIAL RECORDS he means ONLY the government documents HE has. So,
he worships lies.
Anthony Marsh
I think you are misrepresenting what I said.
I did not say anything about the temple area. I said the semi-circular
defect above the right eye on the frontal bone.
Anthony Marsh
No, it isn't. No one else reported that defect as a wound. Only Dr. Angel.
The HSCA ignored it. The Clark panel ignored it.
>>>>>>> wonder why they would bother with an exploding bullet. Did they figure
>>>>>>> that just shooting JFK in the head with a good old fashioned bullet
>>>>>>> wouldn't kill him. You also have to wonder why they would station an
>>
>>>>>> Maybe a good old fashioned bullet wouldn't kill him. Other people have
>>>>>> been shot in the head and survived.
>>
>>>>> Not from a high powered rifle.
>>
>>>> And who said it was a high powered rifle?
>>
>>> So what are you suggesting? Did your imaginary shooter fire his magical
>>> exploding bullet from a .22 LR? This is your fictional tale so you get to
>>
>> No. And a .22 LR is not the only bullet which could fail to exit.
>>
>
> So tell us, Carnac the Magificent, what kind of weapon and ammo could fire
> a shot into the front right side of a human head, blow out the skull and
I didn't say right side.
> not only not exit on the left side but leave no trace of material on the
> left hemisphere of the brain?
>
I said it left a snowstorm of lead fragments.
An explosive bullet. Like the one which hit James Brady, fragmented into 4
or 5 very small pieces and did not exit.
And one of the bullets in that shooting hit a window and left dozens of
tiny fragments inside the building, but the base was blown backwards and
fell to the sidewalk.
>>> give your shooter any kind of weapon you want. It gets more amusing the
>>> more you try to fill in the details. Please don't stop. I'd love to hear
>>> what kind of weapon you think they fired your magic bullet from and why
>>> they would choose such a weapon. You see, Tony, this is what happens when
>>
>> As I've said 1,000 times before I think it was an explosive bullet.
>>
> And 1000 times before, you have been completely wrong.
>
>>> you stray from the obviously correct conclusions of the WC and try to
>>> invent a viable alternative. The devil is in the details. You get caught
>>> in a spiral of coming up with so many things that are ridiculous and then
>>> have to come up even more ridiculous things to try to make your story seem
>>> viable. It's much easier to accept the very simple fact that a disgruntled
>>> little insignificant puke found out he was being dealt a once in a
>>> lifetime chance to do something monumental, fetched his cheap Italian war
>>> surplus rifle, brought it into work, then stuck it out the window and
>>> became one of the most infamous men in history.
>>
>> It's easier for you to just believe government lies.
>>
> It would be easy if the government lied all the time but they cross us
> up by sometimes telling us the truth so that we actually have to use
> our minds to figure out when they are lying and when they are being
> truthful. The dirty bastards!!!
>
They must. That's how propaganda works.
>>>>>>> insurance shooter in plain sight where he might easily alert those in DP
>>
>>>>>> He wasn't out in plain sight. He was hidden behind a fence. No one saw
>>>>>> him. Even YOU can't see him.
>>
>>>>> He would have been in plain sight of anyone on that side of the fence.
>>>>> A fence only hides you from one side.
>>
>>>> There was no one else on the same side to see him except Bowers and
>>>> Bowers did see those two men.
>>>> You can't even admit that you see the man's head in the Moorman photo.
>>
>>> So why didn't Bowers see a shooter.
>>
>> Because he was not looking at that specific spot at the time of the shot.
>>
> Right. A gunman fires a rifle in plain view of Bowers who is looking
> in that direction but doesn't see him. Amazing!!!
Right. A gunman fires in plain view of 700-800 spectators and only a
couple of people see him. Amazing.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> that an assassination was in the works which could have deprived the
>>>>>>> primary shooter of even getting one shot in. I'm guessing he believes the
>>
>>>>>> So what if spectators saw a shooter? People saw a man with a rifle in
>>>>>> the TSBD before the shooting and did nothing about it.
>>
>>>>> And of course, the plotters would have counted on such indifference by
>>>>> the spectators.
>>
>>>> The plotters counted on having genuine SS identification to get away.
>>>> And it worked perfectly. They were caught and they were let go.
>>
>>> We weren't talking about how they would get away. We were talking about
>>> exposing the plot prematurely. How did your imaginary SS agents manage to
>>> do that.
>>
>> You aren't making any sense. I did not suggest that the fake SS agents
>> intentionally exposed the plot.
>>
> That's not what I said. We were discussing how the plotters could have
> safely assumed that spectators would not have observed their insurance
> shooter behind the GK fence and alerted law enforcement before the
> President arrived.
Who said the insurance shooter was there ALL the time? He could have
arrived at that spot just before the limo made the turn when all the
spectators are focused on the limo.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> fragmented bullet (or bullets) found in the front of the limo are from the
>>>>>>> bullet that hit JBC. Should we count that as magic bullet number three? I
>>
>>>>>> Yes, I do.
>>>>>> No, you are the only one with a Magic Bullet.
>>
>>>>> You have a bullet fired from above and behind hitting JFK in the back,
>>>>> leveling off through his throat and then going up and over the windshield.
>>
>>>> I did not say that.
>>>> But it is one possibility.
>>
>>> In another thread, you said the back and throat wounds were at the
>>> same height. That means you need the bullet to level out in transit.
>>
>> No, not level out. Richocet. Deflect.
>>
>
> You've already painted yourself into a corner by your stated belief that
> the back on throat wounds were on the same level. You have the bullet
> entering on a downward trajectory and exiting on an upward trajectory, but
> you have both wounds on the same level. So if the bullet was not traveling
> level as it transited JFK's throat, just what path do you think it was on
I diagrammed it for you, but you refuse to look.
http://the-puzzle-palace.com/limo.gif
> during it's journey from the entrance to the exit wound. Just how many
> times are you going to have that bullet change directions?
>
The word is ricochet.
>>
>>
>>>>> You have a bullet going through JBC's torso and wrist, and then shattering
>>>>> with the fragments flying up and over the front seat, hitting the
>>>>> windshield and then settling on the floor. Then you have an exploding- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -...
>>
>> read more ?
>
>
bigdog
> On 11/24/2009 8:30 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 23, 2:41 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> It's easier for you to just believe government lies.
>
> > It would be easy if the government lied all the time but they cross us
> > up by sometimes telling us the truth so that we actually have to use
> > our minds to figure out when they are lying and when they are being
> > truthful. The dirty bastards!!!
>
> They must. That's how propaganda works.
>
Good propaganda mixes lies with known truths. That's what makes it
believeable.
Bud
> On 11/22/2009 7:17 PM,Budwrote:
Focus, Tony, make me proud. The topic is the "medical evidence", not the
"official story". Do you thing a shooting scenario can be devised that
satisfies all the medical evidence?
> >>>> I said that I do NOT know of any CTers who say
> >>>> the back wound was ABOVE the top of the shoulders.
>
> >>> After first saying that they did.
>
> >> No, I did not say that. Ever.
>
> > Sure you did. The people I was discussing was conspiracy theorists. You
> > said "Sure if they LIE about the medical evidence. Like claiming the back
> > wound was ABOVE the shoulders."
>
> You included everyone. You did not specify ONLY conspiracy theorists.
The two words I started with were "Conspiracy theorists..." Tony. I
can`t help if you think that is everyone.
Wouldn`t that make them Martians instead of Christians?
> And many Jews were converted to Christianity rather than being killed
> and they never believed in Jesus Christ.
You count these as Christians?
Anthony Marsh
Officially the church counted them as Christians.