The common thread among LNs - when do they unanimously become CTs?
Peter Fokes
<quote on>
Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
died as a result of a conspiracy. And George Bernard Shaw said, �All
professions are conspiracies against the laity�.
<quote off>
Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
regarding genuine conspiracies.
For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
assassination?
Other events?
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Anthony Marsh
> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087363.html
>
> <quote on>
>
> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> professions are conspiracies against the laity?.
>
> <quote off>
>
> Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
> regarding genuine conspiracies.
>
> For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
> assassination?
>
No, certain die-hard WC defenders will go to any length to deny ANY
conspiracies. To them Watergate was just a third-rate burglary. To them
the Lincoln assassination was a lone nut nobody. To them Caesar
accidentally fell on a knife. 47 times! In the BACK!
Sandy McCroskey
> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
> <quote on>
>
> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> died as a result of a conspiracy. And George Bernard Shaw said, “All
> professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
>
> <quote off>
>
> Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
> regarding genuine conspiracies.
>
> For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
> assassination?
>
> Other events?
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
What a strange question. There is no need for a conspiracy *theory*
regarding the Lincoln assassination. It is simply a fact that John Wilkes
Boothe did not "act alone."
Why might someone who doesn't think a conspiracy was behind JFK's
assassination have, for that reason, any difficulty believing that there
have been any real conspiracies? This is a very odd notion, but my guess
is that it is supposed to be a CTer's tit-for-tat retaliation for some
LN's observation that many JFK CTists also believe in other unproven
conspiracy theories.
/sandy
Bud
> On 11/26/2009 4:36 PM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> > <quote on>
>
> > Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> > died as a result of a conspiracy. And George Bernard Shaw said, ?All
> > professions are conspiracies against the laity?.
>
> > <quote off>
>
> > Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
> > regarding genuine conspiracies.
>
> > For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
> > assassination?
>
> No, certain die-hard WC defenders will go to any length to deny ANY
> conspiracies. To them Watergate was just a third-rate burglary. To them
> the Lincoln assassination was a lone nut nobody. To them Caesar
> accidentally fell on a knife. 47 times! In the BACK!
>
> > Other events?
>
> > Regards,
> > Peter Fokes,
> > Toronto
Marsh- one, Imaginary group he invents and attacks- nothing.
Bud
> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
>
> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> died as a result of a conspiracy. And George Bernard Shaw said, “All
> professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
>
> <quote off>
>
> Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
> regarding genuine conspiracies.
>
> For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
> assassination?
Of course LN accept conspiracies that are shown.
> Other events?
Depends. The more extraordinary the tale being sold, the higher the
burden of proof. I`ve always been skeptical of the claims that there were
pows that Vietnam didn`t surrender. Sketchy reports of caucasians just
didn`t sway me.
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
jas
> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
>
> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> died as a result of a conspiracy. And George Bernard Shaw said, “All
> professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
>
> <quote off>
>
> Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
> regarding genuine conspiracies.
>
> For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
> assassination?
>
> Other events?
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
Of course conspiracies exist. To maintain they don't would be as ludicrous
as, say, a CT believing there were five shooters in Dealey.
The Lincoln assassination was a small conspiracy with 3 planned
assassinations that night -- one successful -- and a few plotters that
were quickly rounded up afterward. The JFK assassination had one planned
assassination and one perpetrator, and since the event 46 years ago
nothing has surfaced that points to a conspiracy. This is a huge
difference between the two events.
The 9/11 attacks were an al Qaeda conspiracy involving numerous
participants and plotters, and there have been plenty of other
conspiracies carrying out all types of crimes throughout history.
Just because we believe Oswald acted alone doesn't automatically quash all
belief in conspiracies. And dare I say, any LN out there who would deny
conspiracies exist AT ALL would be incorrect, and quite narrow- minded.
Here's a question for you: post an LNer's name who believes that
conspiracies absolutely don't exist.
Peter Fokes
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Nov 26, 4:36�pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>> <quote on>
>>
>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>> died as a result of a conspiracy. And George Bernard Shaw said, �All
>> professions are conspiracies against the laity�.
>>
>> <quote off>
>>
>> Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
>> regarding genuine conspiracies.
>>
>> For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
>> assassination?
>>
>> Other events?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
>What a strange question. There is no need for a conspiracy *theory*
>regarding the Lincoln assassination. It is simply a fact that John Wilkes
>Boothe did not "act alone."
>Why might someone who doesn't think a conspiracy was behind JFK's
>assassination have, for that reason, any difficulty believing that there
>have been any real conspiracies?
Precisely. And of course we can ask the question this way:
Why might someone who does think there was a conspiracy behind JFK's
assassination have, for that reason, any difficulty believing that
there have been events of a non-conspiratorial nature?
> This is a very odd notion, but my guess
>is that it is supposed to be a CTer's tit-for-tat retaliation for some
>LN's observation that many JFK CTists also believe in other unproven
>conspiracy theories.
Well, very often the word "many" is absent and the word "all" appears.
In my many years moderating here, I have rarely read a post from an LN
stating what you have so eloquently observed.
Many CTs are also LNs. They have no problem recognizing murders or
events are committed by one person. It is indeed odd that so many LNs
resort to overgeneralization. I suppose they are frustrated. You see
the CT mindset is really not so different than the LN mindset.
We are all peas in the same pod, so to speak!
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
>
>/sandy
John Blubaugh
> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
> > <quote on>
>
> > Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> > died as a result of a conspiracy. And George Bernard Shaw said, “All
> > professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
>
> > <quote off>
>
> > Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
> > regarding genuine conspiracies.
>
> > For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
> > assassination?
>
> > Other events?
>
> > Regards,
> > Peter Fokes,
> > Toronto
>
> Of course conspiracies exist. To maintain they don't would be as ludicrous
> as, say, a CT believing there were five shooters in Dealey.
>
> The Lincoln assassination was a small conspiracy with 3 planned
> assassinations that night -- one successful -- and a few plotters that
> were quickly rounded up afterward. The JFK assassination had one planned
> assassination and one perpetrator, and since the event 46 years ago
> nothing has surfaced that points to a conspiracy. This is a huge
> difference between the two events.
>
fact. The statement about JFK is merely an opinion but both are
written the same way. Your opinion does not make something a fact. LNs
just do not understand this simple concept.
> The 9/11 attacks were an al Qaeda conspiracy involving numerous
> participants and plotters, and there have been plenty of other
> conspiracies carrying out all types of crimes throughout history.
>
> Just because we believe Oswald acted alone doesn't automatically quash all
> belief in conspiracies. And dare I say, any LN out there who would deny
> conspiracies exist AT ALL would be incorrect, and quite narrow- minded.
>
Again, the first statement is a fact. The second is merely his opinion
with a quick change of direction in the hope that you will not notice.
JB
WhiskyJoe
> For example, are the LNers unanimously CTers
> when it comes to the Lincoln assassination?
No. I think it was a coincidence that Lincoln
was murdered and Secretary of State Seward
was almost murdered on the same night.
No, seriously, all LNers believe that Lincoln
was killed as a result of a conspiracy.
Although I am confident that this was a small
conspiracy. Not a conspiracy that lead to
the U.S. Government. Not a conspiracy that
lead to the Confederate Government. But a
small conspiracy formed by the leadership
of Booth.
In essence, I think Booth was like the three
other lone nuts who assassinated a President,
except he was a lone nut who had some influence
with other people and was able to recruit them.
And this task was made easier by having part of
the U. S. at war with another part of the U. S.
so, unlike normal times, their were many
Americans who felt the President was their
enemy.
If Oswald was a famous actor with a lot of
money, perhaps he would have tried recruiting
others. Since he wasn't, he had to go it
alone.
Of all Presidential assassins, Booth was
the odd man out. Unlike all the others,
he had a successful path for him.
He came from a famous acting family.
He was a popular actor. While a top
actor then could not make near the money
a top actor can now, even after accounting
for inflation, they could still make a
very comfortable living. While the other
assassins where losers with nothing much
to lose, Booth really did throw away a
lot when he decided to assassinate Lincoln.
I guess he was the nuttiest of the
Presidential assassins.
ShutterBun
John Wilkes Booth planned his shooting with others beforehand: fine.
John Wilkes Booth had a second gunman shooting from the stage: I have
a problem.
Marsh tips his hand a bit here, by invoking Watergate and Julius
Caesar. Both were conspiracies, we know. But HOW do we know?
Because someone TALKED.
Now, there are 2 different aspects to a possible Oswald vs. JFK
conspiracy: 1: Were there other shooters? and 2: Did he have
backers; plotters behind the scenese?
Point 1 is, of couse, the reason most of us are here. But really:
does anyone here have ANY reason to suspect (because I sure as hell
know you don't have evidence) that Oswald had backers? And if you
think Oswald's totally innocent, of course, let's take it to another
thread.
Conspiracy Theorists seem to always be trying to convince the masses
that "we" (i.e. Lone Nutters) don't believe that ANY conspiracies
exist. Well yeah, I believe conspiracies do exist. I believe
Watergate was a conspiracy. And it took 2 reporters* a couple of
years to bring the most powerfull man in the world to his knees and
resign. But, by the same token, the CT'ers appear not to accept the
fact that, yes, sometimes "Shoot happens." Yes, sometimes a
disgruntled ex-marine can take a rifle to a high place and shoot
people. Yes, sometimes the Secret Service can fail in its duty. Yes,
sometimes a guy will just SNAP and shoot people. I realize that it's
hard to accept.
If you analyzed every victim of a high powered rifle fired by a
disgruntled marksman, yeah, you'd probably see some jerk backward,
some forward, some sideways. You'd see bullets that did all kinds of
crazy stuff, like causing wounds without being deformed to your
liking. But you don't see that. You don't study the reactions of
Charles Whitman's victims, because they aren't the President of the
United States. You make inaccurate comparisons to the Lincoln
assassination, because you "know" it was a conspiracy, but you ignore
countless other Presidential assassinations (and attempted
assassinations) because they don't fit your mold. Compare someone
like Czolgosz to Oswald, and little differs but the weapon of
choice.
Maybe I don't fit this post's title of "a common thread amongst LN's"
but I'll just say this:
1. Any man with a gun can kill any other man in his sights.
2. There is no EVIDENCE to suggest other than Oswald doing same to
JFK.
3. Resolve yourself to the truism in #1 and #2 becomes a lot easier to
grasp. Does this mean "anyone shot anyone"? Of course not. But,
given the evidence implicating Oswald, and Oswald alone, come on. You
don't think O.J. is innocent, do you?
davidemerling
> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
>
> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> died as a result of a conspiracy. And George Bernard Shaw said, “All
> professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
>
> <quote off>
>
> Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
> regarding genuine conspiracies.
>
> For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
> assassination?
>
> Other events?
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
I don't think there is any intelligent person in this debate who would
deny the existence of conspiracies, altogether. The common (and very
silly) contention by CTs that LNs deny all conspiracies is ridiculous.
Of course we do not!
Technically speaking, the Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. If
the definition of a conspiracy is more-than-one-person acting in
concert toward the single goal of committing a crime then, yes, it's a
conspiracy. But it was on a very small scale - nothing at all like the
grand conspiracies foisted in the Kennedy assassination.
The difference between a CT and LN is that LNs believe in conspiracies
when there is compelling evidence to suggest that one existed. If the
evidence indicates there is a conspiracy - then there's a conspiracy.
If the evidence does not suggest a conspiracy - then there wasn't.
CTs, on the other hand, seem to have a strong predisposition toward
believing everything is a conspiracy. They start off with the
assumption that there is a conspiracy and, if they find even the
tiniest, most minuscule, suggestion of one, they dig in and argue that
point even when faced with a mountain of contradicting evidence.
Basically, what it comes down to is personality types. CTs tend to be
extremely distrusting of authority, even in instances when there's no
justification for it. They tend to be a bit radical. They enjoy
contradicting any official pronouncement. They enjoy the intrigue of a
good mystery and, consequently, they have a natural disdain for
ordinary, mundane explanations for events that could have (no matter
how unlikely) a far more interesting explanation.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Peter Fokes
> On Nov 26, 3:36 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
> > <quote on>
>
> > Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> > died as a result of a conspiracy. And George Bernard Shaw said, “All
> > professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
>
> > <quote off>
>
> > Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
> > regarding genuine conspiracies.
>
> > For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
> > assassination?
>
> > Other events?
>
> > Regards,
> > Peter Fokes,
> > Toronto
>
> I don't think there is any intelligent person in this debate who would
> deny the existence of conspiracies, altogether.
Indeed!
>The common (and very
> silly) contention by CTs that LNs deny all conspiracies is ridiculous.
> Of course we do not!
I suppose there might be one or two folks who claim LNs deny all
conspiracies. Of course, by reading the very title of this thread
that I started, you can deduce I am not one of those folks. I am
simply asking where LN minds meet at a crossroads with CTs regarding
the fact that conspiracies do exist. The Lincoln assassination seems
to be one intersection of agreement.
> Technically speaking, the Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. If
> the definition of a conspiracy is more-than-one-person acting in
> concert toward the single goal of committing a crime then, yes, it's a
> conspiracy. But it was on a very small scale - nothing at all like the
> grand conspiracies foisted in the Kennedy assassination.
Here you overgeneralize. You see some CTs have proposed a very small
conspiracy.
> The difference between a CT and LN is that LNs believe in conspiracies
> when there is compelling evidence to suggest that one existed.
The idea that CTs do not believe in conspiracies when there is
compelling evidence to do so is ridiculous.
Of course they do! So do LNs. Nothing different between those two
mindsets.
>If the
> evidence indicates there is a conspiracy - then there's a conspiracy.
Well, this is problematic. It is one reason why many countries have
banned the death penalty.
We make mistakes. Perhaps the evidence seems to indicate there was a
conspiracy, but in fact there was no conspiracy.
> If the evidence does not suggest a conspiracy - then there wasn't.
Again, one wishes absolutes were so easy to come by ... but Einstein
taught us such is not the case.
>
> CTs, on the other hand, seem to have a strong predisposition toward
> believing everything is a conspiracy.
Just above you said, and I quote: " The common (and very
silly) contention by CTs that LNs deny all conspiracies is ridiculous.
Of course we do not!"
Strangely you are now using the corrollary of the same thought as if
it was true!
You appear to know what you are writing is silly, yet you write it
anyway!
I could write: "LNs, on the other hand, seem to have a strong
predisposition toward believing everything is not a conspiracy."
I do not believe that statement.
LNs, if sane, certainly believe in conspiracies.
Similarly CTs, if sane, believe some events are not the result of
conspiracies.
It is as equally ridiculous to suggest that CTs have a strong
predisposition toward believing everything is a conspiracy, as it
would be to suggest that LNs have a strong predisposition toward
believing there are no conspiracies.
Yet you seem advocate the first statement yet deny the second
statement!
They start off with the
> assumption that there is a conspiracy and, if they find even the
> tiniest, most minuscule, suggestion of one, they dig in and argue that
> point even when faced with a mountain of contradicting evidence.
Overgeneralization in the extreme. Did you start off with the
assumption that the take down of the Towers was a conspiracy or a
random accident?
You were a CT from the get go!
> Basically, what it comes down to is personality types. CTs tend to be
> extremely distrusting of authority, even in instances when there's no
> justification for it.
Here we go!
So shall we deploy the same construction for LNs?
Basically, what it comes down to is personality types. LNs tend to be
extremely trusting of authority,
never check their gas or cable bills, let anyone into the house who
knocks and stick their hand in a dog's face, even when
the last gas bill was wrong, the last person who entered the house
stole the silver and the last dog they tried to pat bite their finger
off!
>They tend to be a bit radical.
Oh my! LBJ was radical all right! Of course, LNs, for example, those
that eat up intelligent design and pooh-pooh Darwin,
are so staid, conservative and establishmentarian!
>They enjoy
> contradicting any official pronouncement.
I have never heard a non-radical complain about official
pronouncements! Lol!
>They enjoy the intrigue of a
> good mystery and, consequently, they have a natural disdain for
> ordinary, mundane explanations for events that could have (no matter
> how unlikely) a far more interesting explanation.
I love a good mystery! I enjoy watching a flower grow (although I do
believe it grows because the soil has nutrients and the sun shine and
it is not too cold ... yet!)
But ask a non-radical about climate warming!
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>> <quote on>
>>
>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>> professions are conspiracies against the laity?.
>>
>> <quote off>
>>
>> Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
>> regarding genuine conspiracies.
>>
>> For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
>> assassination?
>>
>> Other events?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
> Of course conspiracies exist. To maintain they don't would be as ludicrous
> as, say, a CT believing there were five shooters in Dealey.
>
Then why do some WC defenders deny ANY conspiracy ever existed anywhere?
> The Lincoln assassination was a small conspiracy with 3 planned
> assassinations that night -- one successful -- and a few plotters that
Ok, small conspiracy. They only hanged a few people. The size could be
exactly the same as the Kennedy assassination.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 26, 4:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>> <quote on>
>>
>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>> professions are conspiracies against the laity�.
>>
>> <quote off>
>>
>> Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
>> regarding genuine conspiracies.
>>
>> For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
>> assassination?
>>
>> Other events?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
> What a strange question. There is no need for a conspiracy *theory*
> regarding the Lincoln assassination. It is simply a fact that John Wilkes
> Boothe did not "act alone."
>
> Why might someone who doesn't think a conspiracy was behind JFK's
> assassination have, for that reason, any difficulty believing that there
> have been any real conspiracies? This is a very odd notion, but my guess
> is that it is supposed to be a CTer's tit-for-tat retaliation for some
> LN's observation that many JFK CTists also believe in other unproven
> conspiracy theories.
>
Please get with the program. You are supposed to deny any conspiracies
lest it give some credibility to JFK conspiracy beliefs.
> /sandy
>
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Lincoln assassination was of course a conspiracy, but the execution of
the asssassination was carried out by Booth alone. Had it not been for the
attack on Seward and discovery of evidence in Booth's hotel room that
incriminated his accomplices, the Lincoln assassination might have gone
down in history as the act of a lone assassin. Likewise, it is
theoretically possible Oswald could have been part of a conspiracy but
executed the act by himself. In that case the physical evidence would be
exactly what it is, indicating a lone assassin and the unknown accomplices
would have gotten away with it. But unfortunately for the CTs, there is no
known evidence that Oswald had any accomplices. There is only evidence
that one man was involved. Most LNs hold out the theoretical possibility
that Oswald could have had accomplices, but there is no evidence of such
and numerous reasons to believe he was not involved with anyone else.
Sandy McCroskey
> On 11/26/2009 8:54 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 4:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
> >> <quote on>
>
> >> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> >> professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
>
> >> <quote off>
>
> >> Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
> >> regarding genuine conspiracies.
>
> >> For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
> >> assassination?
>
> >> Other events?
>
> >> Regards,
> >> Peter Fokes,
> >> Toronto
>
> > What a strange question. There is no need for a conspiracy *theory*
> > regarding the Lincoln assassination. It is simply a fact that John Wilkes
> > Boothe did not "act alone."
>
> > Why might someone who doesn't think a conspiracy was behind JFK's
> > assassination have, for that reason, any difficulty believing that there
> > have been any real conspiracies? This is a very odd notion, but my guess
> > is that it is supposed to be a CTer's tit-for-tat retaliation for some
> > LN's observation that many JFK CTists also believe in other unproven
> > conspiracy theories.
>
> Please get with the program. You are supposed to deny any conspiracies
> lest it give some credibility to JFK conspiracy beliefs.
>
> > /sandy
>
>
I've never known anyone who does that.
How would the existence of any other conspiracy lend credence to JFK
conspiracy beliefs?
That would be egregiously fallacious reasoning.
The only logical approach is to judge each case on its own merits.
What other conspiracies would you like to discuss, Tony?
Sandy McCroskey
On the contrary, "the very title of this thread" implies that there is
some *question* whether any "LN" would "become a CT" in relation to
another case. What a peculiar notion.
I don't see the terms "LN" and "CT" as having any relevance outside the
debate around the JFK assassination.
There are very few people who think *everything* happens as a result of a
conspiracy. That's known as paranoid schizophrenia, not as being a "CT."
It would be just as bizarre and pathological for anyone to believe that
conspiracies are impossible by definition.
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
Anyone who would adopt such a global view of things has a screw loose, to
use a clinical term.
We might ask which came first, in such a hypothetical person, the
disposition to believe that everything is the result of a conspiracy, or
the belief in a conspiracy behind the killing of JFK?
> > This is a very odd notion, but my guess
> >is that it is supposed to be a CTer's tit-for-tat retaliation for some
> >LN's observation that many JFK CTists also believe in other unproven
> >conspiracy theories.
>
> Well, very often the word "many" is absent and the word "all" appears.
>
> In my many years moderating here, I have rarely read a post from an LN
> stating what you have so eloquently observed.
>
> Many CTs are also LNs. They have no problem recognizing murders or
> events are committed by one person.
Well, I can't see the terms "CT" and "LN" as having any relevance
outside the debate around the JFK case.
They are merely nominal references to the two general positions in
that context.
/sandy
jas
Don't know what the heck you're talking about.
It is a historical fact that no evidence has come forward in 46 years to
show a conspiracy in JFK's assassination, just as it is a historical fact
that the Lincoln killing had 3 assassins.
The "ploy" as you call it is the CTs who continue to make up their "facts"
about how JFK was killed.
John Blubaugh
There is so much evidence a true blue LN has to ignore to believe that
Oswald acted alone. You claim there isn't any because you refuse to see or
acknowledge that it exists. You can go back to your Warren Report now, I
am sure you treat it like the Bible is treated in most homes.
JB
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 27, 8:36 am, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity�.
What the Hell are YOU talking about? You are in denial.
> It is a historical fact that no evidence has come forward in 46 years to
> show a conspiracy in JFK's assassination, just as it is a historical fact
> that the Lincoln killing had 3 assassins.
It is a historical fact that the HSCA and ARRB found a conspiracy in
JFK's assassination, just as it is a historical fact you know little
about the Lincoln killing.
So tell me, Mr. Assassination Expert, who were the other two assassins
beside Booth who killed Lincoln? Was one of them shooting from the
grassy knoll?
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 27, 10:27 am, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> On 26 Nov 2009 20:54:51 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
>>
>>
>>
>> <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 26, 4:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity?.
>>
>>>> <quote off>
>>
>>>> Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
>>>> regarding genuine conspiracies.
>>
>>>> For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
>>>> assassination?
>>
>>>> Other events?
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Peter Fokes,
>>>> Toronto
>>
>>> What a strange question. There is no need for a conspiracy *theory*
>>> regarding the Lincoln assassination. It is simply a fact that John Wilkes
>>> Boothe did not "act alone."
>>> Why might someone who doesn't think a conspiracy was behind JFK's
>>> assassination have, for that reason, any difficulty believing that there
>>> have been any real conspiracies?
>>
>> Precisely. And of course we can ask the question this way:
>>
>> Why might someone who does think there was a conspiracy behind JFK's
>> assassination have, for that reason, any difficulty believing that
>> there have been events of a non-conspiratorial nature?
>>
>
> Anyone who would adopt such a global view of things has a screw loose, to
> use a clinical term.
>
> We might ask which came first, in such a hypothetical person, the
> disposition to believe that everything is the result of a conspiracy, or
> the belief in a conspiracy behind the killing of JFK?
>
Do you actually know any person who believes that everything is the result
of a conspiracy? Of course not. But you know a lot of straw men and liars.
>
>
>>> This is a very odd notion, but my guess
>>> is that it is supposed to be a CTer's tit-for-tat retaliation for some
>>> LN's observation that many JFK CTists also believe in other unproven
>>> conspiracy theories.
>>
>> Well, very often the word "many" is absent and the word "all" appears.
>>
>> In my many years moderating here, I have rarely read a post from an LN
>> stating what you have so eloquently observed.
>>
>> Many CTs are also LNs. They have no problem recognizing murders or
>> events are committed by one person.
>
>
> Well, I can't see the terms "CT" and "LN" as having any relevance
> outside the debate around the JFK case.
>
9/11 cover-up artists frequently use the term conspiracy theorist to
describe anyone who does not accept the official story about anything.
> They are merely nominal references to the two general positions in
> that context.
>
LN is inaccurate. That would be someone who thinks that Oswald was a solo
assassin unconnected to anyone else. That does not accurately describe the
vast majority of people who defend the Warren Commission. They believe
that Oswald was the solo shooter, but believe he was acting on behalf of
the Communists.
> /sandy
Anthony Marsh
>> On Nov 27, 10:42 am, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 3:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity�.
So, you're an expert on psychology? And you can cite a person who
believes that EVERYTHING is a conspiracy?
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 27, 11:31 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2009 8:54 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 4:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity?.
Well, it's rather hard to explain, but the WC defenders minimize all
conspiracy notions in order to foist the idea that there was no conspiracy
in the JFK case because conspiracies are exceedingly rare and easily
proven.
So they will go to any length to deny all conspiracies.
jas
Yes, but re Lincoln: there were 3 planned executions that night to be
performed simultaneously as act against the North whose government
prevailed in the Civil War. One got drunk and scared then hightailed it
out of town, and one didn't succeed with Seward, so Booth didn't act
alone.
Booth was seen jumping to the stage in front of the audience, everyone and
their uncle that saw him recognized him. Had he escaped successfully, and
the other 2 intended victims successfully killed with their killers
escaping, the plot would have been uncovered simply by linking Booth with
the others. I personally don't see how the authorities would have not
discovered the plot at all. Someone would have talked, or some piece of
evidence would have come to light, and quite quickly.
The Lincoln assassination is a classic example of what blunders can occur
in a conspiracy where several people, and their normal, human frailties
are involved.
This example supports why there was no conspiracy in JFK's killing -- no
one else was around to get caught.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>> <quote on>
>>
>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity�.
The Kennedy assassination was of course a conspiracy. Had it not been
for the fact that Oswald's gun jammed and necessitated the grass knoll
shot it might have gone down in history as the act of a lone assassin.
> theoretically possible Oswald could have been part of a conspiracy but
> executed the act by himself. In that case the physical evidence would be
Here we go again with the WC defenders secretly believing it was a
conspiracy.
> exactly what it is, indicating a lone assassin and the unknown accomplices
> would have gotten away with it. But unfortunately for the CTs, there is no
> known evidence that Oswald had any accomplices. There is only evidence
Unfortunately for the WC defenders, there is evidence of more than one
weapon being used, which means conspiracy.
> that one man was involved. Most LNs hold out the theoretical possibility
> that Oswald could have had accomplices, but there is no evidence of such
> and numerous reasons to believe he was not involved with anyone else.
>
And here we finally have the admission that I am always correct that
most WC defenders secretly believe it was a conspiracy.
jas
> On 11/27/2009 1:50 PM, jas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 8:36 am, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
> >>>> <quote on>
>
> >>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> >>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
Please tell me you aren't that ignorant of the history behind the
Lincoln killing.
Marsh said: "So tell me, Mr. Assassination Expert, who were the other
two assassins
> beside Booth who killed Lincoln? Was one of them shooting from the
> grassy knoll?"
...and please refrain from speaking like a child when you choose to
rebut my posts.
2 other assassins were involved with Booth to simultaneously kill two
other government officials while Booth was at Ford's Theatre.
yeuhd
Name one such person.
jas
Yes, you are correct-- so much incorrect, made up, and hitherto
unproven evidence to ignore.
And, here's another ignoring for you to chew on: the crack about the
Warren Report and the Bible.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 26, 3:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>> <quote on>
>>
>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>> professions are conspiracies against the laity�.
>>
>> <quote off>
>>
>> Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
>> regarding genuine conspiracies.
>>
>> For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
>> assassination?
>>
>> Other events?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
> I don't think there is any intelligent person in this debate who would
> deny the existence of conspiracies, altogether. The common (and very
> silly) contention by CTs that LNs deny all conspiracies is ridiculous.
> Of course we do not!
>
> Technically speaking, the Lincoln assassination was a conspiracy. If
> the definition of a conspiracy is more-than-one-person acting in
> concert toward the single goal of committing a crime then, yes, it's a
> conspiracy. But it was on a very small scale - nothing at all like the
> grand conspiracies foisted in the Kennedy assassination.
>
That is not the only definition of conspiracy.
It doesn't take two shooters for a conspiracy.
One shooter hired by someone else is a conspiracy.
> The difference between a CT and LN is that LNs believe in conspiracies
> when there is compelling evidence to suggest that one existed. If the
> evidence indicates there is a conspiracy - then there's a conspiracy.
> If the evidence does not suggest a conspiracy - then there wasn't.
>
No. The difference is that WC defenders are in continual denial.
> CTs, on the other hand, seem to have a strong predisposition toward
> believing everything is a conspiracy. They start off with the
> assumption that there is a conspiracy and, if they find even the
> tiniest, most minuscule, suggestion of one, they dig in and argue that
> point even when faced with a mountain of contradicting evidence.
>
> Basically, what it comes down to is personality types. CTs tend to be
> extremely distrusting of authority, even in instances when there's no
> justification for it. They tend to be a bit radical. They enjoy
There is ALWAYS a justification for distrust of authority.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 26, 7:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>> <quote on>
>>
>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity?.
So, just because someone talked that is PROOF of the conspiracy? So when
E. Howard Hunt talked THAT proved the conspiracy? Did Booth talk? No, he
was killed before he could talk.
> Now, there are 2 different aspects to a possible Oswald vs. JFK
> conspiracy: 1: Were there other shooters? and 2: Did he have
> backers; plotters behind the scenese?
>
> Point 1 is, of couse, the reason most of us are here. But really:
> does anyone here have ANY reason to suspect (because I sure as hell
> know you don't have evidence) that Oswald had backers? And if you
> think Oswald's totally innocent, of course, let's take it to another
> thread.
>
Most WC defenders think that Oswald was working for Castro.
> Conspiracy Theorists seem to always be trying to convince the masses
> that "we" (i.e. Lone Nutters) don't believe that ANY conspiracies
> exist. Well yeah, I believe conspiracies do exist. I believe
> Watergate was a conspiracy. And it took 2 reporters* a couple of
How do you KNOW Watergate was a conspiracy. Prove it.
Some WC defenders would call it just a third-rate burglary.
> years to bring the most powerfull man in the world to his knees and
> resign. But, by the same token, the CT'ers appear not to accept the
It was much more than just 2 reporters. So what if 2 reporters have
written about the facts of the JFK assassination. You would dismiss them.
> fact that, yes, sometimes "Shoot happens." Yes, sometimes a
> disgruntled ex-marine can take a rifle to a high place and shoot
> people. Yes, sometimes the Secret Service can fail in its duty. Yes,
> sometimes a guy will just SNAP and shoot people. I realize that it's
> hard to accept.
>
> If you analyzed every victim of a high powered rifle fired by a
> disgruntled marksman, yeah, you'd probably see some jerk backward,
> some forward, some sideways. You'd see bullets that did all kinds of
Fun to guess isn't it? Look at all the films you want of previous
killings and show me one exhibiting the jet effect.
Sandy McCroskey
> On 11/27/2009 1:48 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 11:20 am, Peter Fokes<boreal4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 27, 10:42 am, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 26, 3:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
> >>>> <quote on>
>
> >>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> >>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
Some paranoid schizophrenics believe that God controls absolutely every
little thing in the world and that everything is a sign... pointing to
them. See, for example, "Memoirs of My Nervous Illness," by Daniel Paul
Schreber (1842-1911), a very famous case.
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
It was clear what you were claiming. What isn't clear is where you got
this impression.
I've just never met anyone, or read anyone, who "den[ies] all
conspiracies."
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
>
>> For example, are the LNers unanimously CTers
>> when it comes to the Lincoln assassination?
>
> No. I think it was a coincidence that Lincoln
> was murdered and Secretary of State Seward
> was almost murdered on the same night.
>
> No, seriously, all LNers believe that Lincoln
> was killed as a result of a conspiracy.
> Although I am confident that this was a small
> conspiracy. Not a conspiracy that lead to
> the U.S. Government. Not a conspiracy that
> lead to the Confederate Government. But a
> small conspiracy formed by the leadership
> of Booth.
>
I don't know the exact percentage, but only a small fraction who admit
it was a conspiracy think that someone in the US government was behind it.
Likewise a small fraction believe that Booth was a Confederate agent
acting on orders from Jefferson Davis.
> In essence, I think Booth was like the three
> other lone nuts who assassinated a President,
> except he was a lone nut who had some influence
> with other people and was able to recruit them.
There is nothing wrong with having a theory that lone nuts are hired by
others or can recruit small conspiracies.
> And this task was made easier by having part of
> the U. S. at war with another part of the U. S.
> so, unlike normal times, their were many
> Americans who felt the President was their
> enemy.
>
The same applies for both Lincoln and Kennedy. And also Obama.
> If Oswald was a famous actor with a lot of
> money, perhaps he would have tried recruiting
> others. Since he wasn't, he had to go it
> alone.
>
So your own theory is that Booth paid for the other assassins?
Well then maybe you also think that Castro could pay Oswald $6,500 to
assassinate President Kennedy.
> Of all Presidential assassins, Booth was
> the odd man out. Unlike all the others,
> he had a successful path for him.
> He came from a famous acting family.
> He was a popular actor. While a top
> actor then could not make near the money
> a top actor can now, even after accounting
> for inflation, they could still make a
> very comfortable living. While the other
> assassins where losers with nothing much
> to lose, Booth really did throw away a
> lot when he decided to assassinate Lincoln.
> I guess he was the nuttiest of the
> Presidential assassins.
>
So in your mind only nobody lone nuts are qualified to be assassins?
Does that include all the CIA assassination plots?
Sandy McCroskey
I'm saying that any such person who really did believe such a thing
would fall into the category mentioned.
I'm not on a first-name basis with anyone like that, no.
Yet a minute's Googling turns up this:
http://www.interfire.org/features/legalview.asp?date=05062002
Specifically, Dr. Heinrich and Dr. Obolsky believed the defendant's
paranoid schizophrenia caused him to think he was the target of a
universal conspiracy in which God, the Devil, and all of mankind,
including the police and judges, conspired to destroy him. The
defendant believed he was left with no choice other than to try to
eliminate his foremost and easily identifiable conspirators: Eric West
and his family.
I have no way of knowing whether this "defendant" really did believe
such an outlandish thing.
My point is that such a belief would be utterly insane.
>
>
>
>
> >>> This is a very odd notion, but my guess
> >>> is that it is supposed to be a CTer's tit-for-tat retaliation for some
> >>> LN's observation that many JFK CTists also believe in other unproven
> >>> conspiracy theories.
>
> >> Well, very often the word "many" is absent and the word "all" appears.
>
> >> In my many years moderating here, I have rarely read a post from an LN
> >> stating what you have so eloquently observed.
>
> >> Many CTs are also LNs. They have no problem recognizing murders or
> >> events are committed by one person.
>
> > Well, I can't see the terms "CT" and "LN" as having any relevance
> > outside the debate around the JFK case.
>
> 9/11 cover-up artists frequently use the term conspiracy theorist to
> describe anyone who does not accept the official story about anything.
>
> > They are merely nominal references to the two general positions in
> > that context.
>
> LN is inaccurate. That would be someone who thinks that Oswald was a solo
> assassin unconnected to anyone else. That does not accurately describe the
> vast majority of people who defend the Warren Commission. They believe
> that Oswald was the solo shooter, but believe he was acting on behalf of
> the Communists.
>
I don't know any "LN" who says this. Can you cite just one?
I can only speak for myself: I certainly don't think Oswald was
"acting on behalf of the Communists."
I guess you are basing this on your belief that you can read minds.
You have implied, again and again, that you possess this magical
power.
/sandy
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
Would you care to share what you believe is "so much evidence" of a
conspiracy. The only "evidence" of a conspiracy comes in the form of
witness observations which point to a second gun but those observations
contradict the observations of other witnesses and there is not one shread
of physical evidence which cooberates witnesses who's observations support
a second gunman. All the physical evidence support the witnesses who
indicate that there was one gun and it was fired from the TSBD.
If you really believe there is "so much evidence" of a conspiracy, why
don't you just list the top three?
bigdog
>
> LN is inaccurate. That would be someone who thinks that Oswald was a solo
> assassin unconnected to anyone else. That does not accurately describe the
> vast majority of people who defend the Warren Commission. They believe
> that Oswald was the solo shooter, but believe he was acting on behalf of
> the Communists.
>
You never look more foolish than when you claim that most people who
defend the WC believe there was a conspiracy. Where do you get the
arrogance to pretend to know what other people believe?
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
We deny all JFK conspiracies because their isn't a shred of credible
evidence that supports any of them. Conspiracy theories are the stuff of
overlay active imaginations by people who don't believe anything is as it
seems, and that includes yours, which is as absurd as any of them. Phantom
gunmen firing phantom bullets with phantom rifles from phantom locations.
Take your pick. One theory is as kooky as another.
bigdog
> On 11/27/2009 1:50 PM, jas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 8:36 am, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
> >>>> <quote on>
>
> >>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> >>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
HUH!!! The ARRB came to no findings. That wasn't their job. Their job was
to supervise the release of government held materials related to the JFK
assassination. They were not an investigating body. Their function was to
make as much data as possible available to the public.
> So tell me, Mr. Assassination Expert, who were the other two assassins
> beside Booth who killed Lincoln? Was one of them shooting from the
> grassy knoll?
>
>
>
> > The "ploy" as you call it is the CTs who continue to make up their "facts"
> > about how JFK was killed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
davidemerling
Yet, in this group, I would say the majority of CTs believe that
Oswald is innocent of the shooting.
Don't you think that's a fair statement?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Coondog
> On Nov 26, 4:36 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
> > <quote on>
>
> > Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> > died as a result of a conspiracy. And George Bernard Shaw said, “All
> > professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
>
> > <quote off>
>
> > Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
> > regarding genuine conspiracies.
>
> > For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
> > assassination?
>
>
> > Other events?
>
> Depends. The more extraordinary the tale being sold, the higher the
> burden of proof. I`ve always been skeptical of the claims that there were
> pows thatVietnamdidn`t surrender. Sketchy reports of caucasians just
> didn`t sway me.
True Bud, these “sightings” and such stuff have mostly been proven as
a hoax and usually the work of swindlers raising money in the U.S. to
“find” these poor men. This evolved into a cottage industry and a not
so small one at that. We see the same with people making money
writing books and movies of fiction and giving “interviews” about the
Kennedy assassination. How totally disgusting. Now this, like the
JFK assassination, is an emotional thing and tempers flare on both
ends unfortunately.
What I do believe, however, is the testimony of the POWs that were
returned and claimed they saw American POWs that were not returned or
accounted for. There is simply too much of this evidence out there
that can’t be dismissed.
I have a friend that was a POW for five years, a chopper jock that was
shot down in the Que Son Valley in which we also worked. He is
unusual in that he survived the southern camps to finally arrive in
Hanoi at the Hilton. Most of the POWs were airmen shot down over the
north and sent straight to the big prisons. If you are interested
I’ll ask his permission to give you his addy so you can visit. Also
if you are interested there is one good and unbiased book on these
unaccounted for POWs I’ll dig out the title and author for you. Best
shot from the book is that around 150 men made it to the north and was
seen their by fellow inmates only to never be seen again. I imagine
all were dead by the time of the POW transfer.
Bill Clarke
Anthony Marsh
You don't get out much, do you?
> /sandy
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 27, 11:42 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity?.
Did the authorities trace the plot back to the mastermind? Did the
authorities track Booth's links to the Confederate intelligence service?
> The Lincoln assassination is a classic example of what blunders can occur
> in a conspiracy where several people, and their normal, human frailties
> are involved.
>
How about the carelessness of Lincoln's bodyguard? Vince Palamara would
conclude that he was part of the plot. How about the carelessness of a
guard the other day letting the TV show couple get into the State dinner
uninvited? I guess you never saw the movie plot where the beautiful
assassin kisses the President with poison lipstick.
> This example supports why there was no conspiracy in JFK's killing -- no
> one else was around to get caught.
>
>
The other person WAS caught. By officer Joe Smith. And then let go.
Peter Fokes
That's debatable. Doug Horne diligently interviewed direct witnesses
to the autopsy and surrounding events. His conclusion is based on the
evidence they presented, and laying that evidence out in a logical and
non-contradictory manner.
Conspiracy theories are the stuff of
>overlay active imaginations by people who don't believe anything is as it
>seems, and that includes yours, which is as absurd as any of them.
Of course, your comment is simply partisan rhetoric. Reasonable
people on both sides recognize that some things are as they seem.
However, if it makes you feel better to rant, go ahead.
Phantom
>gunmen firing phantom bullets with phantom rifles from phantom locations.
>Take your pick. One theory is as kooky as another.
Yup there are kooky theories and kooky comments.
Your comment falls in the latter category!
Regards,
Peter Fokes
bigdog
reasonable conclusion other than Oswald was the assassin. You can spin
it any way you want. Any other conclusion is ludicrous.
> Phantom
>
> >gunmen firing phantom bullets with phantom rifles from phantom locations.
> >Take your pick. One theory is as kooky as another.
>
> Yup there are kooky theories and kooky comments.
>
> Your comment falls in the latter category!
>
And your credibility takes a serious hit with that comment.
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes- Hide quoted text -
>
Peter Fokes
More partisan rhetoric. Reasonable people who are familiar with the
evidence do come to different and reasonable conclusions. No spin
required. Overstating your case does not help your cause.
>
>> �Phantom
>>
>> >gunmen firing phantom bullets with phantom rifles from phantom locations.
>> >Take your pick. One theory is as kooky as another.
>>
>> Yup there are kooky theories and kooky comments.
>>
>> Your comment falls in the latter category!
>>
>And your credibility takes a serious hit with that comment.
Again, more partisan rhetoric. Nothing I wrote above places my
credibility in question at all. The facts are plain to see. You are
overstating your case. To suggest that anyone who postulates a
conspiracy after diligent study of the evidence is less than
reasonable is just bunk.
But each to their own. There are plenty of reasonable LNs and then
there are some who are less than reasonable. Most of the time you seem
to be quite reasonable so it is interesting to see you flail away with
an outpouring of rhetoric! Quite interesting.
bigdog
> On 11/27/2009 1:42 PM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
> >>> <quote on>
>
> >>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> >>> professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
> > theoretically possible Oswald could have been part of a conspiracy but
> > executed the act by himself. In that case the physical evidence would be
>
> Here we go again with the WC defenders secretly believing it was a
> conspiracy.
>
Here we go again with Tony Marsh not being able to understand the word
theoretically. Here we go again with Tony Marsh pretending he can read
minds.
> > exactly what it is, indicating a lone assassin and the unknown accomplices
> > would have gotten away with it. But unfortunately for the CTs, there is no
> > known evidence that Oswald had any accomplices. There is only evidence
>
> Unfortunately for the WC defenders, there is evidence of more than one
> weapon being used, which means conspiracy.
>
The only evidence of a second gun exists in your mind. All traceable
bullet fragments were linked to one gun. All medical evidence
indicates the shot came from one direction. Your amateurish
imaginative ramblings do not pass for evidence.
> > that one man was involved. Most LNs hold out the theoretical possibility
> > that Oswald could have had accomplices, but there is no evidence of such
> > and numerous reasons to believe he was not involved with anyone else.
>
> And here we finally have the admission that I am always correct that
> most WC defenders secretly believe it was a conspiracy.- Hide quoted text -
>
Tony, link to one of the numerous online dictionaries and look up the
word theoretical. It's a word you seem to have trouble comprehending.
Just because someone acknowledges a theoretical possibility does not
mean they believe in that possibility. It is theoretically possible
that unicorns exist even they no one has yet found evidence of such.
There is as much chance of unicorns existing as there is a grassy
knoll shooter and every bit as much evidence for such.
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
That seems to be the consensus among the CTs, at least on this forum.
Some believe Oswald was completely innocent while others believe he
was involved but not as a shooter. Why they can't accept the obvious
fact that Oswald was the shooter is difficult to comprehend. The link
to Oswald and the murder weapons of both JFK and JDT is unimpeachable,
even though they try. We have eyewitness testimony that fingers him as
the gunman in both shootings. Physical evidence which places him at
the scene of both crimes. But we are supposed to believe he was
innocent. Anyone who is familiar with the evidence against Oswald and
doesn't accept that he was the shooter in both murders has no
credibility. They are people who seem incapable of putting two and two
together.
Sandy McCroskey
Not to loony bins.
/sandy
Sandy McCroskey
In my opinion, it's long past the time when any intelligent and unbiased
(aye, there's the rub) person should be able to claim there are "two
sides" as to whether Oswald was guilty. I think the problem is that
certain myths held sway for so long that some people have virtually built
their worldview around the assumption that there was something fishy about
the WCR's conclusions. People that have studied the evidence and still
tell themselves otherwise may be quite reasonable in other aspects of
their life. I do not think they are being reasonable in regards to the JFK
assassination. There are too many logical fallacies in their arguments. An
airtight case is an airtight case, and the LNs have one.
>
> >> Phantom
>
> >> >gunmen firing phantom bullets with phantom rifles from phantom locations.
> >> >Take your pick. One theory is as kooky as another.
>
> >> Yup there are kooky theories and kooky comments.
>
> >> Your comment falls in the latter category!
>
> >And your credibility takes a serious hit with that comment.
>
> Again, more partisan rhetoric. Nothing I wrote above places my
> credibility in question at all. The facts are plain to see. You are
> overstating your case. To suggest that anyone who postulates a
> conspiracy after diligent study of the evidence is less than
> reasonable is just bunk.
>
Can you tell me *one* thing, indisputably true, that indicates that
conspiracy is likely or even possible?
It seems to me that once it is established that Oswald is guilty,
conspiracy becomes almost entirely unthinkable.
That is why CTs usually first try to exonerate Oswald, either by
postulating a highly improbable series of individually improbable mishaps
in the handling of the evidence or (and if you reject the former
hypothesis, there is no way around this) a baroquely elaborate, and
overpopulated, conspiracy.
/sandy
jas
The CT assertion that Oswald was completely innocent is simply slapping
the face of the mainstream findings, and anyone who agrees with them.
Some people get their kicks from throwing out there anything they can to
get a reaction. By mainstream I mean what was referred to in the 60s as
the "establishment."
The motive is to incite, inflame, piss off, and generally disrupt, and in
the process, maybe make a few bucks doing it. Above all, DO NOT take into
consideration the hard evidence because it has, obviously, been fabricated
by the establishment's nefarious forces.
The CTers that agree that Oswald was a shooter, but was one of several
other participants, are the CTers who care about their credibility enough
to at least concede that Oswald shot at the motorcade because they simply
can't dismiss the evidence, lest they be laughed out of the research
community, possibly thwarting their chances as making a few dollars and
getting some recognition.
This is so obvious, it reeks.
This is why 'ol Ollie Stone got away with the biggest hoax in the entire
JFK conspiracy saga -- and made millions doing it -- by offering up
EXACTLY what the anti-government, anti-establishment crowd wanted.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 28, 12:45 am, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 12:42 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity�.
The reason why we can't be sure that Oswald was a shooter is because you
WC defenders have destroyed and covered up so much evidence.
> to Oswald and the murder weapons of both JFK and JDT is unimpeachable,
> even though they try. We have eyewitness testimony that fingers him as
> the gunman in both shootings. Physical evidence which places him at
> the scene of both crimes. But we are supposed to believe he was
And unreliable eyewitness which raises reasonable doubt.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 27, 10:40 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/27/2009 1:42 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity?.
Here we go again with the WC defenders admitting that they secretly
believe it was a conspiracy and then when caught they claim that they were
only speaking theoretically. If it was not a possibility at all you
wouldn't be speaking theoretically. Do you speak theoretically about our
Sun going Supernova tomorrow? Geesh!
>>> exactly what it is, indicating a lone assassin and the unknown accomplices
>>> would have gotten away with it. But unfortunately for the CTs, there is no
>>> known evidence that Oswald had any accomplices. There is only evidence
>>
>> Unfortunately for the WC defenders, there is evidence of more than one
>> weapon being used, which means conspiracy.
>>
> The only evidence of a second gun exists in your mind. All traceable
> bullet fragments were linked to one gun. All medical evidence
You have not examined all the fragments and you have not proven that the
skull fragments came from Oswald's rifle.
> indicates the shot came from one direction. Your amateurish
> imaginative ramblings do not pass for evidence.
>
Then how do you explain the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone?
Cat got your tongue again?
>>> that one man was involved. Most LNs hold out the theoretical possibility
>>> that Oswald could have had accomplices, but there is no evidence of such
>>> and numerous reasons to believe he was not involved with anyone else.
>>
>> And here we finally have the admission that I am always correct that
>> most WC defenders secretly believe it was a conspiracy.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> Tony, link to one of the numerous online dictionaries and look up the
> word theoretical. It's a word you seem to have trouble comprehending.
Theoretical means you secretly believe it.
> Just because someone acknowledges a theoretical possibility does not
> mean they believe in that possibility. It is theoretically possible
You got caught and now you're backpedaling as fast as you can. I don't see
you talking about the theoretical possibility that Oswald was completely
innocent. Now, why is that? I think most people can figure it out.
> that unicorns exist even they no one has yet found evidence of such.
So, now you believe that unicorns might be real?
> There is as much chance of unicorns existing as there is a grassy
> knoll shooter and every bit as much evidence for such.
>
There is as much chance of unicorns existing as there is for your idea
that Castro paid $6,500 for Oswald to shoot President Kennedy.
Anthony Marsh
Guess he's never heard of a thing called juries. In his mind once the
police arrest someone the person is automatically guilty. Well, in this
case the police automatically thought that Oswald was part of an
"International Communist Conspiracy" so I guess that means he agrees that
it was a conspiracy.
Peter Fokes
>This is why 'ol Ollie Stone got away with the biggest hoax in the entire
>JFK conspiracy saga -- and made millions doing it -- by offering up
>EXACTLY what the anti-government, anti-establishment crowd wanted.
Oliver Stone's movie JFK was entertainment. He never claimed it was
factually accurate.
It becomes simply an exercise in propaganda to say over and over again
that Stone perpetrated a hoax whne in fact he did exactly what he set
out to do: create an exciting and interesting movie.
He never claimed it was a documentary.
You do know the difference between a documentary and a Hollywood
movie, do you not?
By the way, the movie could not have made millions if the only people
who paid money to see it were anti-government, anti-establishment
crowds.
Apparently you saw it. Apparently many LNs have seen it because they
ramble on about it endlessly.
You contradict yourself, or are you saying LNs are part of the
anti-government and anti-establishment crowd?
Regards,
Peter Fokes
Peter Fokes
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> People that have studied the evidence and still
>tell themselves otherwise may be quite reasonable in other aspects of
>their life.
Praise the Lord!
I feel normal now!
:-)
Regards,
Peter Fokes
Bud
> On Nov 26, 5:56 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 4:36 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
> > > <quote on>
>
> > > Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> > > died as a result of a conspiracy. And George Bernard Shaw said, “All
> > > professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
>
> > > <quote off>
>
> > > Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
> > > regarding genuine conspiracies.
>
> > > For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
> > > assassination?
>
> > Of course LN accept conspiracies that are shown.
>
> > > Other events?
>
> > Depends. The more extraordinary the tale being sold, the higher the
> > burden of proof. I`ve always been skeptical of the claims that there were
> > pows thatVietnamdidn`t surrender. Sketchy reports of caucasians just
> > didn`t sway me.
>
> a hoax and usually the work of swindlers raising money in the U.S. to
> “find” these poor men. This evolved into a cottage industry and a not
> so small one at that. We see the same with people making money
> writing books and movies of fiction and giving “interviews” about the
> Kennedy assassination. How totally disgusting. Now this, like the
> JFK assassination, is an emotional thing and tempers flare on both
> ends unfortunately.
>
> What I do believe, however, is the testimony of the POWs that were
> returned and claimed they saw American POWs that were not returned or
> accounted for. There is simply too much of this evidence out there
> that can’t be dismissed.
>
> I have a friend that was a POW for five years, a chopper jock that was
> shot down in the Que Son Valley in which we also worked. He is
> unusual in that he survived the southern camps to finally arrive in
> Hanoi at the Hilton. Most of the POWs were airmen shot down over the
> north and sent straight to the big prisons. If you are interested
> I’ll ask his permission to give you his addy so you can visit. Also
> if you are interested there is one good and unbiased book on these
> unaccounted for POWs I’ll dig out the title and author for you. Best
> shot from the book is that around 150 men made it to the north and was
> seen their by fellow inmates only to never be seen again. I imagine
> all were dead by the time of the POW transfer.
>
> Bill Clarke
Thanks for the reply, Bill. As you can tell, my understanding of the
issue is pretty vague, only impressions really. It just never made sense
that the Vietnamese would keep US soldiers, it never added up to me in any
"risk vs. reward" kind of way. That they killed American POWs I have no
problem believing, but keeping them for slave labor (in a country where
labor is dirt cheap) or some political purpose (can`t imagine what
political purpose a prisoner you can never admit to having could have)
just left me skeptical. You are right to suggest that more information
might make the issue clearer for me.
bigdog
AMEN!!! At one time, reasonable people could differ about whether the
earth was flat or round. Scientific observations made the former
position implausible. Reasonable people cannot disagree on whether
Oswald shot JFK. The evidence for that is absolutely overwhelming and
a good deal of it was gathered within hours of the crime. There was a
very brief window for reasonable people to doubt his guilt. The
evidence is that conclusive.
> I think the problem is that
> certain myths held sway for so long that some people have virtually built
> their worldview around the assumption that there was something fishy about
> the WCR's conclusions. People that have studied the evidence and still
> tell themselves otherwise may be quite reasonable in other aspects of
> their life. I do not think they are being reasonable in regards to the JFK
> assassination. There are too many logical fallacies in their arguments. An
> airtight case is an airtight case, and the LNs have one.
>
Again, Amen. Hard core conspiracists defend their turf with a religous
fervor. No amount of evidence, reason, or logic can disuade them from
their position. They convinced themselves of a conspiracy a long time
ago and refuse to believe they could possibly be wrong, no matter what
the evidence says.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > >> Phantom
>
> > >> >gunmen firing phantom bullets with phantom rifles from phantom locations.
> > >> >Take your pick. One theory is as kooky as another.
>
> > >> Yup there are kooky theories and kooky comments.
>
> > >> Your comment falls in the latter category!
>
> > >And your credibility takes a serious hit with that comment.
>
> > Again, more partisan rhetoric. Nothing I wrote above places my
> > credibility in question at all. The facts are plain to see. You are
> > overstating your case. To suggest that anyone who postulates a
> > conspiracy after diligent study of the evidence is less than
> > reasonable is just bunk.
>
> Can you tell me *one* thing, indisputably true, that indicates that
> conspiracy is likely or even possible?
>
> It seems to me that once it is established that Oswald is guilty,
> conspiracy becomes almost entirely unthinkable.
>
> That is why CTs usually first try to exonerate Oswald, either by
> postulating a highly improbable series of individually improbable mishaps
> in the handling of the evidence or (and if you reject the former
> hypothesis, there is no way around this) a baroquely elaborate, and
> overpopulated, conspiracy.
>
> /sandy- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 27, 2:49 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 27, 1:50 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 27, 8:36 am, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity�.
Another hollow challenge. You don't care about evidence. You refuse to
look at evidence.
bigdog
> On 28 Nov 2009 09:13:42 -0500, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >And your credibility takes a serious hit with that comment.
>
> Again, more partisan rhetoric. Nothing I wrote above places my
> credibility in question at all. The facts are plain to see. You are
> overstating your case. To suggest that anyone who postulates a
> conspiracy after diligent study of the evidence is less than
> reasonable is just bunk.
>
It is not overstating the case to say that Oswald was the one and only
shooter, no ifs, ands, or buts. It is the one and only possible truth
given the evidence for that. That is no more of an overstatement than
to say the earth revolves around the sun.
> But each to their own. There are plenty of reasonable LNs and then
> there are some who are less than reasonable. Most of the time you seem
> to be quite reasonable so it is interesting to see you flail away with
> an outpouring of rhetoric! Quite interesting.
>
I am not going to be the least bit apologetic for stating something as
fact which is so crystal clear. Oswald was the shooter. Period. Most
LNs, including myself, allow for a theoretical, but very unlikely
possibility that he could have been the shooter for a small band of
conspirators. In 46 years, no credible evidence for such has been
produced and therefore no reason to believe in such a conspiracy.
However, to say that a reasonable person can conclude that Oswald was
innocent gives that position a respect it does not deserve. It is a
ridiculous position and it should be so stated. I'm not into political
correctness.
Anthony Marsh
They reveal it every day by the arguments they make.
Anthony Marsh
Many messages from now you'll be denying that you ever called the grassy
knoll position a phantom location. When I note that most WC defenders
deny simple facts like the man behind the fence you'll challenge me to
back that up by citing even one WC defender. Then I'll cite you and
you'll deny every making the statement you just did. Then I'll quote it
for you and you'll go silent, the log on with another alias months later
and say the same thing. Lather, rinse, repeat.
bigdog
> On 11/28/2009 9:31 AM, bigdog wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 12:45 am, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 27, 12:42 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
> >>>>> <quote on>
>
> >>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> >>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
This is beautiful. You just demonstrate exactly what jas stated in the
post immediately preceding this one. As he stated, "Above all, DO NOT take
into consideration the hard evidence because it has, obviously, been
fabricated by the establishment's nefarious forces.". Your timing was
impeccable.
> > to Oswald and the murder weapons of both JFK and JDT is unimpeachable,
> > even though they try. We have eyewitness testimony that fingers him as
> > the gunman in both shootings. Physical evidence which places him at
> > the scene of both crimes. But we are supposed to believe he was
>
> And unreliable eyewitness which raises reasonable doubt.
>
The physical evidence alone establishes Oswald's guilt in both murders.
The eyewitnesses are just icing on the cake.
>
>
> > innocent. Anyone who is familiar with the evidence against Oswald and
> > doesn't accept that he was the shooter in both murders has no
> > credibility. They are people who seem incapable of putting two and two
> > together.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
bigdog
You can go back as far on this or any other forum as you want and you will
not find one statement I have ever made in which I stated or even implied
that I believed in a conspiracy. I don't have to claim I was speaking
theoretically, because whenever I have allowed for the possibility of a
conspiracy, I have stated it as a theoretical possibility. Recognizing
that there is a theoretical possibility does not mean you believe in that
possibility. That is an unreasonable conclusion you have drawn which is
perfectly consistent with every other conclusion you have drawn in this
case. There is nothing reasonable about any of your conclusions.
> >>> exactly what it is, indicating a lone assassin and the unknown accomplices
> >>> would have gotten away with it. But unfortunately for the CTs, there is no
> >>> known evidence that Oswald had any accomplices. There is only evidence
>
> >> Unfortunately for the WC defenders, there is evidence of more than one
> >> weapon being used, which means conspiracy.
>
> > The only evidence of a second gun exists in your mind. All traceable
> > bullet fragments were linked to one gun. All medical evidence
>
> You have not examined all the fragments and you have not proven that the
> skull fragments came from Oswald's rifle.
>
It isn't necessary to prove it. It is simply the only conclusion that
makes any sense. You have to create magic bullets to believe those
fragments came from any other shot. But your real reason for bringing this
up is deflect attention away from the fact that you have no ballistic
evidence whatsoever to support your theory of an exploding bullet fired
from the GK.
> > indicates the shot came from one direction. Your amateurish
> > imaginative ramblings do not pass for evidence.
>
> Then how do you explain the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone?
> Cat got your tongue again?
>
I don't have to explain something that exists only in your overly active
imagination. There is no frontal bone defect. The bullet exited in the
temporal region. Last I checked, that is on the side of the head, not the
front. Even CT darling Dr. Cyril Wecht agrees that the medical evidence
indicates a rear head shot and doesn't claim there is any medical evidence
of a frontal shot. But of course, you know more about forensic pathology
than he does. You know more about just about every subject than everyone
else. You have become a legend in your own mind.
> >>> that one man was involved. Most LNs hold out the theoretical possibility
> >>> that Oswald could have had accomplices, but there is no evidence of such
> >>> and numerous reasons to believe he was not involved with anyone else.
>
> >> And here we finally have the admission that I am always correct that
> >> most WC defenders secretly believe it was a conspiracy.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Tony, link to one of the numerous online dictionaries and look up the
> > word theoretical. It's a word you seem to have trouble comprehending.
>
> Theoretical means you secretly believe it.
>
OMG!!! You are really sounding desperate. Do you honestly believe that is
what the word theoretical means. Since you can't seem to find any of a
number of online dictionaries, I've done you the favor of looking up
"theoretical". Here is one dictionary defintion of the word:
1. of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical
(distinguished from applied ).
2. existing only in theory; hypothetical.
3. given to, forming, or dealing with theories; speculative.
Take special note of #2. That is how I used the word. Now why don't
you stay true to form and claim this is online dictionary is a CIA
front.
> > Just because someone acknowledges a theoretical possibility does not
> > mean they believe in that possibility. It is theoretically possible
>
> You got caught and now you're backpedaling as fast as you can. I don't see
> you talking about the theoretical possibility that Oswald was completely
> innocent. Now, why is that? I think most people can figure it out.
>
You're starting to rant and rave and you are really making yourself sound
foolish. You should quit while you're behind. I haven't had to backpedal
from anything. My beliefs have remained firm and constant, just as the
fundamental truths presented by the Warren Commision have remained firm
and constant for over 45 years. When you know the truth, you don't have to
keep reinventing your position.
> > that unicorns exist even they no one has yet found evidence of such.
>
> So, now you believe that unicorns might be real?
>
Now you have gone over the cliff.
> > There is as much chance of unicorns existing as there is a grassy
> > knoll shooter and every bit as much evidence for such.
>
> There is as much chance of unicorns existing as there is for your idea
> that Castro paid $6,500 for Oswald to shoot President Kennedy.
Now this is really getting funny. I'd love to hear how you concluded
it was my idea that Castro paid Oswald to shoot JFK.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 28, 7:31 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 12:45 am, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 27, 12:42 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity�.
So in your world dissent will not be tolerated and heretics will be
burned at the stake.
> Some people get their kicks from throwing out there anything they can to
> get a reaction. By mainstream I mean what was referred to in the 60s as
> the "establishment."
>
Establishment fall down and go BOOM.
> The motive is to incite, inflame, piss off, and generally disrupt, and in
> the process, maybe make a few bucks doing it. Above all, DO NOT take into
> consideration the hard evidence because it has, obviously, been fabricated
> by the establishment's nefarious forces.
>
> The CTers that agree that Oswald was a shooter, but was one of several
No, and stop claiming to speak for conspiracy believers.
Go sell your straw elsewhere.
> other participants, are the CTers who care about their credibility enough
> to at least concede that Oswald shot at the motorcade because they simply
> can't dismiss the evidence, lest they be laughed out of the research
> community, possibly thwarting their chances as making a few dollars and
> getting some recognition.
>
> This is so obvious, it reeks.
>
Someone here reeks.
Anthony Marsh
Begging the question.
> certain myths held sway for so long that some people have virtually built
> their worldview around the assumption that there was something fishy about
> the WCR's conclusions. People that have studied the evidence and still
> tell themselves otherwise may be quite reasonable in other aspects of
> their life. I do not think they are being reasonable in regards to the JFK
> assassination. There are too many logical fallacies in their arguments. An
> airtight case is an airtight case, and the LNs have one.
>
>
>
>>
>>>> Phantom
>>
>>>>> gunmen firing phantom bullets with phantom rifles from phantom locations.
>>>>> Take your pick. One theory is as kooky as another.
>>
>>>> Yup there are kooky theories and kooky comments.
>>
>>>> Your comment falls in the latter category!
>>
>>> And your credibility takes a serious hit with that comment.
>>
>> Again, more partisan rhetoric. Nothing I wrote above places my
>> credibility in question at all. The facts are plain to see. You are
>> overstating your case. To suggest that anyone who postulates a
>> conspiracy after diligent study of the evidence is less than
>> reasonable is just bunk.
>>
>
>
> Can you tell me *one* thing, indisputably true, that indicates that
> conspiracy is likely or even possible?
>
5 shots.
> It seems to me that once it is established that Oswald is guilty,
> conspiracy becomes almost entirely unthinkable.
>
Silly. The DPD thought that Oswald was guilty AND part of a conspiracy.
So did Washington.
> That is why CTs usually first try to exonerate Oswald, either by
More flame baiting nonsense egged on by the moderators. Many conspiracy
believers think that Oswald was part of the conspiracy.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 27, 12:42 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>>> died as a result of a conspiracy. And George Bernard Shaw said, ?All
>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity?.
>>
>>>> <quote off>
>>
>>>> Perhaps the LNs would tell us at what point they reach agreement
>>>> regarding genuine conspiracies.
>>
>>>> For exame, are the LNs unanimously CTs when it comes to the Lincoln
>>>> assassination?
>>
>>>> Other events?
>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Peter Fokes,
>>>> Toronto
>>
>>> as, say, a CT believing there were five shooters in Dealey.
>>
>>> The Lincoln assassination was a small conspiracy with 3 planned
>>> assassinations that night -- one successful -- and a few plotters that
>>> were quickly rounded up afterward. The JFK assassination had one planned
>>> assassination and one perpetrator, and since the event 46 years ago
>>> nothing has surfaced that points to a conspiracy. This is a huge
>>> difference between the two events.
>>
>>> The 9/11 attacks were an al Qaeda conspiracy involving numerous
>>> participants and plotters, and there have been plenty of other
>>> conspiracies carrying out all types of crimes throughout history.
>>
>>> Just because we believe Oswald acted alone doesn't automatically quash all
>>> belief in conspiracies. And dare I say, any LN out there who would deny
>>> conspiracies exist AT ALL would be incorrect, and quite narrow- minded.
>>
>>> Here's a question for you: post an LNer's name who believes that
>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> the asssassination was carried out by Booth alone. Had it not been for the
>> attack on Seward and discovery of evidence in Booth's hotel room that
>> incriminated his accomplices, the Lincoln assassination might have gone
>> down in history as the act of a lone assassin. Likewise, it is
>> theoretically possible Oswald could have been part of a conspiracy but
>> executed the act by himself. In that case the physical evidence would be
>> exactly what it is, indicating a lone assassin and the unknown accomplices
>> would have gotten away with it. But unfortunately for the CTs, there is no
>> known evidence that Oswald had any accomplices. There is only evidence
>> that one man was involved. Most LNs hold out the theoretical possibility
>> that Oswald could have had accomplices, but there is no evidence of such
>> and numerous reasons to believe he was not involved with anyone else.
>
> Yet, in this group, I would say the majority of CTs believe that
> Oswald is innocent of the shooting.
>
> Don't you think that's a fair statement?
>
I'd say that you are not qualified to speak for the conspiracy believers.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
jas
I don't contradict myself. Of course I saw the movie and at the time was a
devout CTer. Everyone who has ever had even a passing interest in the
assassination has probably seen it. Just because I have subsequently read
and studied the evidence and changed my viewpoints doesn't mean I
contradict myself.
And don't BS like Stone does and say the movie was just "entertainment."
He has touted his belief in the conspiracy angle many times, in articles
and interviews along the way. BS terms like calling his movie a "metaphor"
for all the conspiracy theories, and "using artistic license" doesn't let
him off the hook.
> Folks said: " You do know the difference between a documentary and a
> Hollywood
> movie, do you not?
No need to patronize.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 28, 9:26 am, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> On 28 Nov 2009 09:13:42 -0500, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> And your credibility takes a serious hit with that comment.
>>
>> Again, more partisan rhetoric. Nothing I wrote above places my
>> credibility in question at all. The facts are plain to see. You are
>> overstating your case. To suggest that anyone who postulates a
>> conspiracy after diligent study of the evidence is less than
>> reasonable is just bunk.
>>
> It is not overstating the case to say that Oswald was the one and only
> shooter, no ifs, ands, or buts. It is the one and only possible truth
> given the evidence for that. That is no more of an overstatement than
> to say the earth revolves around the sun.
>
You are begging the question. You are stating that something is an
absolute proof and need not be debated simply because you can not prove it
and dare not debate it. Your position is in the extreme minority now. And
yet you misframe the analogy. The WC position is like the pronouncement of
the Catholic Church that the Earth is the center of the universe and the
WC critics are the heretics. Our position has held over the years. What do
you have on your side? Evidence, reason? No, like the Catholic Church all
you have is pronouncements from on high and the Inquisition. Red Baiting,
ad hominems, any trick in the book to discredit the heretics. But it won't
work. You've lost.
>> But each to their own. There are plenty of reasonable LNs and then
>> there are some who are less than reasonable. Most of the time you seem
>> to be quite reasonable so it is interesting to see you flail away with
>> an outpouring of rhetoric! Quite interesting.
>>
> I am not going to be the least bit apologetic for stating something as
> fact which is so crystal clear. Oswald was the shooter. Period. Most
So what if Oswald was a shooter? That doesn't ispo facto prove there was
not a conspiracy. Many WC defenders believe Oswald was the lone shooter,
but paid by Castro. That is also conspiracy.
> LNs, including myself, allow for a theoretical, but very unlikely
> possibility that he could have been the shooter for a small band of
> conspirators. In 46 years, no credible evidence for such has been
> produced and therefore no reason to believe in such a conspiracy.
The mere fact that you mention what you call a theoretical possibility and
then claim absolute truth for Oswald being the shooter reveals what you
secretly believe, that Oswald was working for Castro.
> However, to say that a reasonable person can conclude that Oswald was
> innocent gives that position a respect it does not deserve. It is a
> ridiculous position and it should be so stated. I'm not into political
> correctness.
>
Very few people say that Oswald was innocent.
Anthony Marsh
No, no reasonable person was allowed to claim that the Earth is round. If
anyone did so he'd be put to death. Your position is like the Catholic
Church position. Just proclaim an absolute truth and kill anyone who
disagrees. No one is allowed to disagree.
> position implausible. Reasonable people cannot disagree on whether
> Oswald shot JFK. The evidence for that is absolutely overwhelming and
Poisoning the Well.
> a good deal of it was gathered within hours of the crime. There was a
> very brief window for reasonable people to doubt his guilt. The
> evidence is that conclusive.
>
During that very brief window everyone thought that it was a conspiracy.
No one doubted his guilt and that he was part of a conspiracy. You have a
backdoor approach. You think that if you can claim that Oswald was guilty
that means no conspiracy. The HSCA conclusion was that Oswald was guilty
AND part of a conspiracy. That's what we are debating here, the nature of
that conspiracy.
jas
> On 11/28/2009 5:01 PM, jas wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 28, 7:31 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 28, 12:45 am, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 27, 12:42 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>
> >>>>>> <quote on>
>
> >>>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
> >>>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity”.
No, in my world dissent will be tolerated when there's something REAL to
dissent.
> So in your world dissent will not be tolerated and heretics will be
> burned at the stake.
This cheap shot implying I am a fanatic rightist nut doesn't cut it,
and only makes you look foolish.
>
> > Some people get their kicks from throwing out there anything they can to
> > get a reaction. By mainstream I mean what was referred to in the 60s as
> > the "establishment."
>
> Establishment fall down and go BOOM.
For a while -- until lots of those anti-establishment counter-culture
types finally had to conform (OMG! Did I say conform?) to eventually
became today's fat cat establishment.
>
> > The motive is to incite, inflame, piss off, and generally disrupt, and in
> > the process, maybe make a few bucks doing it. Above all, DO NOT take into
> > consideration the hard evidence because it has, obviously, been fabricated
> > by the establishment's nefarious forces.
>
> > The CTers that agree that Oswald was a shooter, but was one of several
>
> No, and stop claiming to speak for conspiracy believers.
I will if you stop trying to play Madam Crystal Ball by thinking you
can read poster's minds.
> Go sell your straw elsewhere.
Oh, like you?
>
> > other participants, are the CTers who care about their credibility enough
> > to at least concede that Oswald shot at the motorcade because they simply
> > can't dismiss the evidence, lest they be laughed out of the research
> > community, possibly thwarting their chances as making a few dollars and
> > getting some recognition.
>
> > This is so obvious, it reeks.
>
> Someone here reeks.
Personal jab. Moderators where are you?
Oh, that's ok. I can take it. And I know that a personal attack is the
attacker's way of revealing their insecurities when confronted with a
point they can't rationally and reasonably refute.
jas
As I read through this exchange, and after I stopped my gales of laughter
from reading Marsh's responses, I can only think of one thing:
You're traveling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight
and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries are
that of imagination. That's the signpost up ahead — your next stop, the
JFK Conspiracy Zone.
bigdog
>
> > Would you care to share what you believe is "so much evidence" of a
> > conspiracy. The only "evidence" of a conspiracy comes in the form of
>
> Another hollow challenge. You don't care about evidence. You refuse to
> look at evidence.
>
Asking people to show evidence to support their theories is a hollow
challenge??? Coming from someone who invents theories with complete
absence of evidence or even contradictory to the evidence, it doesn't
surprise me that you feel that way. In the CT world, suspiscion and
speculation trump evidence every day.
bigdog
That's three real shots, and two imaginary ones. Yup. That adds up to
five.
> > It seems to me that once it is established that Oswald is guilty,
> > conspiracy becomes almost entirely unthinkable.
>
> Silly. The DPD thought that Oswald was guilty AND part of a conspiracy.
> So did Washington.
>
Too bad they could only find evidence for the former.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 29, 2:26 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2009 5:01 PM, jas wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 28, 7:31 am, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 28, 12:45 am, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 27, 12:42 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>>>>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>>>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>>>>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity�.
Oh, so YOU decide what is real. If you decide that the Earth is flat it
is ok to burn to death anyone who dissents.
>
>> So in your world dissent will not be tolerated and heretics will be
>> burned at the stake.
>
> This cheap shot implying I am a fanatic rightist nut doesn't cut it,
> and only makes you look foolish.
>
I'm not sure that it makes you a rightist.
>
>>
>>> Some people get their kicks from throwing out there anything they can to
>>> get a reaction. By mainstream I mean what was referred to in the 60s as
>>> the "establishment."
>>
>> Establishment fall down and go BOOM.
>
> For a while -- until lots of those anti-establishment counter-culture
> types finally had to conform (OMG! Did I say conform?) to eventually
> became today's fat cat establishment.
>
You mean the Yuppies who sold out?
>>
>>> The motive is to incite, inflame, piss off, and generally disrupt, and in
>>> the process, maybe make a few bucks doing it. Above all, DO NOT take into
>>> consideration the hard evidence because it has, obviously, been fabricated
>>> by the establishment's nefarious forces.
>>
>>> The CTers that agree that Oswald was a shooter, but was one of several
>>
>> No, and stop claiming to speak for conspiracy believers.
>
> I will if you stop trying to play Madam Crystal Ball by thinking you
> can read poster's minds.
>
You reveal your opinions by what you write.
>> Go sell your straw elsewhere.
>
> Oh, like you?
>
>
>>
>>> other participants, are the CTers who care about their credibility enough
>>> to at least concede that Oswald shot at the motorcade because they simply
>>> can't dismiss the evidence, lest they be laughed out of the research
>>> community, possibly thwarting their chances as making a few dollars and
>>> getting some recognition.
>>
>>> This is so obvious, it reeks.
>>
>> Someone here reeks.
>
> Personal jab. Moderators where are you?
>
> Oh, that's ok. I can take it. And I know that a personal attack is the
> attacker's way of revealing their insecurities when confronted with a
> point they can't rationally and reasonably refute.
>
You don't care to debate freely. You want to proclaim and claim victory
without debating.
John Blubaugh
Well, apparently is is necessary to patronize because you obviously
don't see the difference.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> > Someone here reeks.
>
> Personal jab. Moderators where are you?
>
> Oh, that's ok. I can take it. And I know that a personal attack is the
> attacker's way of revealing their insecurities when confronted with a
> point they can't rationally and reasonably refute.
>
I don't think you have any hope of winning a contest with Marsh and he
just turns your words around on you and you don't like it. Marsh can
refute any argument you can make and he has been doing that for years.
JB
Anthony Marsh
As usual you argue about some subject and don't even understand the terms.
There is no ballistics evidence in the head. Those tiny lead fragments can
not be ballistically matched to anything. You can only ballistically match
a bullet JACKET to other bullet JACKETS fired from a known weapon. There
are no bullet jacket fragments in the head. You didn't even know where the
two large bullet fragments were found.
>>> indicates the shot came from one direction. Your amateurish
>>> imaginative ramblings do not pass for evidence.
>>
>> Then how do you explain the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone?
>> Cat got your tongue again?
>>
>
> I don't have to explain something that exists only in your overly active
> imagination. There is no frontal bone defect. The bullet exited in the
Here we have another professional denier. You can't even admit the simple
fact that there is a semi-circular defect on the frontal bone. You must
think that Dr. Lawrence Angel was lying when it called it a bullet wound.
You think he's a conspiracy monger?
> temporal region. Last I checked, that is on the side of the head, not the
> front. Even CT darling Dr. Cyril Wecht agrees that the medical evidence
> indicates a rear head shot and doesn't claim there is any medical evidence
> of a frontal shot. But of course, you know more about forensic pathology
> than he does. You know more about just about every subject than everyone
> else. You have become a legend in your own mind.
>
Yes, I do. And I know they lied.
>>>>> that one man was involved. Most LNs hold out the theoretical possibility
>>>>> that Oswald could have had accomplices, but there is no evidence of such
>>>>> and numerous reasons to believe he was not involved with anyone else.
>>
>>>> And here we finally have the admission that I am always correct that
>>>> most WC defenders secretly believe it was a conspiracy.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>> Tony, link to one of the numerous online dictionaries and look up the
>>> word theoretical. It's a word you seem to have trouble comprehending.
>>
>> Theoretical means you secretly believe it.
>>
>
> OMG!!! You are really sounding desperate. Do you honestly believe that is
> what the word theoretical means. Since you can't seem to find any of a
> number of online dictionaries, I've done you the favor of looking up
> "theoretical". Here is one dictionary defintion of the word:
>
> 1. of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical
> (distinguished from applied ).
> 2. existing only in theory; hypothetical.
> 3. given to, forming, or dealing with theories; speculative.
>
> Take special note of #2. That is how I used the word. Now why don't
> you stay true to form and claim this is online dictionary is a CIA
> front.
>
Why don't you stay true to form and misrepresent whatever I say and deny
simple facts?
>>> Just because someone acknowledges a theoretical possibility does not
>>> mean they believe in that possibility. It is theoretically possible
>>
>> You got caught and now you're backpedaling as fast as you can. I don't see
>> you talking about the theoretical possibility that Oswald was completely
>> innocent. Now, why is that? I think most people can figure it out.
>>
>
> You're starting to rant and rave and you are really making yourself sound
> foolish. You should quit while you're behind. I haven't had to backpedal
Nice try to silence dissent. If anyone dissents just call them hysterical.
> from anything. My beliefs have remained firm and constant, just as the
> fundamental truths presented by the Warren Commision have remained firm
> and constant for over 45 years. When you know the truth, you don't have to
> keep reinventing your position.
>
When you know nothing you have to guess. I prefer evidence.
Anthony Marsh
> On Nov 28, 5:12 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 11/28/2009 9:31 AM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 28, 12:45 am, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 27, 12:42 pm, bigdog<jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Nov 26, 10:46 pm, jas<lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Nov 26, 2:36 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2009/1105/1224258087...
>>
>>>>>>> <quote on>
>>
>>>>>>> Of course genuine conspiracies do exist, for example Abraham Lincoln
>>>>>>> professions are conspiracies against the laity?.
I didn't say fabricated. I said said destroyed and covered up. Now are you
going to be a typical WC defender and deny that?
>
>>> to Oswald and the murder weapons of both JFK and JDT is unimpeachable,
>>> even though they try. We have eyewitness testimony that fingers him as
>>> the gunman in both shootings. Physical evidence which places him at
>>> the scene of both crimes. But we are supposed to believe he was
>>
>> And unreliable eyewitness which raises reasonable doubt.
>>
>
> The physical evidence alone establishes Oswald's guilt in both murders.
> The eyewitnesses are just icing on the cake.
>
Don't lecture me about the Tippit shooting. Leave that out. I have
always thought that Oswald killed Tippit.
jas
Yes, I know the difference alright. One cannot describe Stone's movie
as either a documentary, nor a movie, because it's both. He uses real
assassination footage mixed in with staged scenes, and in doing so,
intentionally attempts to muddle the distinction between the two.
People who watched this that happen to be impressionable and don't
know much about the assassination would understandably be duped into
thinking the staged scenes are real.
That is what you call a hoax.
Peter Fokes
>On Nov 29, 4:56�pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 29, 6:05�pm, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Nov 28, 7:12�pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On 28 Nov 2009 17:01:18 -0500, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >This is why 'ol Ollie Stone got away with the biggest hoax in the entire
>> > > >JFK conspiracy saga -- and made millions doing it -- by offering up
>> > > >EXACTLY what the anti-government, anti-establishment crowd wanted.
>>
>> > > Oliver Stone's movie JFK was entertainment. He never claimed it was
>> > > factually accurate.
>>
>> > > It becomes simply an exercise in propaganda to say over and over again
>> > > that Stone perpetrated a hoax when in fact he did exactly what he set
>> > > out to do: create an exciting and interesting movie.
>>
>> > > He never claimed it was a documentary.
>>
>> > > You do know the difference between a documentary and a Hollywood
>> > > movie, do you not?
>>
>> > > By the way, the movie could not have made millions if the only people
>> > > who paid money to see it were anti-government, anti-establishment
>> > > crowds.
>>
>> > > Apparently you saw it. Apparently many LNs have seen it because they
>> > > ramble on about it endlessly.
>>
>> > > You contradict yourself, or are you saying LNs are part of the
>> > > anti-government and anti-establishment crowd?
>>
>> > > Regards,
>> > > Peter Fokes
>>
>> > I don't contradict myself.
Yes you do.
>>> Of course I saw the movie and at the time was a
>> > devout CTer.
That does not change the fact you contradicted yourself.
>>> Everyone who has ever had even a passing interest in the
>> > assassination has probably seen it.
So the movie made millions because all sorts of people went to see it,
not just anti-government, anti-establisment crowds.
>>>Just because I have subsequently read
>> > and studied the evidence and changed my viewpoints doesn't mean I
>> > contradict myself.
Yes you did. It has nothing to do with what you have read or studied.
It is directly the result of what you wrote on the newsgroup.
>>
>> > And don't BS like Stone does and say the movie was just "entertainment."
>> > He has touted his belief in the conspiracy angle many times, in articles
>> > and interviews along the way. BS terms like calling his movie a "metaphor"
>> > for all the conspiracy theories, and "using artistic license" doesn't let
>> > him off the hook.
The movie was made for entertainment purposes. Stone has made many
movies. The fact that he is a CT does not preclude his ability to
make a successful and entertaining movie.
>> > > Folks said: " You do know the difference between a documentary and a
>> > > Hollywood
>> > > movie, do you not?
No. Peter Fokes said.
>> > No need to patronize.
>>
>> Well, apparently is is necessary to patronize because you obviously
>> don't see the difference.
>>
>> JB
>
>Yes, I know the difference alright. One cannot describe Stone's movie
>as either a documentary, nor a movie, because it's both. He uses real
>assassination footage mixed in with staged scenes, and in doing so,
>intentionally attempts to muddle the distinction between the two.
Well, I'm afraid you are one of the few who did not realize when real
footage was being shown and when Hollywood footage was shown.
The use of actual news reel footage is common in all sorts of
Hollywood and TV shows. The TV series American Dreams regularly used
newsreel footage: Kennedy, Beatles, etc. Yet they also used actors to
play the parts of famous pop singers. The series Mad Men used actual
footage in a recent episode centered around the JFK assassination. I
did not hear one critic complain that the director was intentionally
trying to muddle the distinction between the reality and fantasy.
>
>People who watched this that happen to be impressionable and don't
>know much about the assassination would understandably be duped into
>thinking the staged scenes are real.
Well. people who are impressionable and watch anything or listen to
self-help gurus and other TV psuedo evangelists might also be duped
into thinking they really can make a zillion dollars or be healed by
touching the TV screen. Where is your outrage about such things?
Do you own a Vegamatic!
>
>That is what you call a hoax.
Nah.
That's entertainment!
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
jas
>
> > > Someone here reeks.
>
> > Personal jab. Moderators where are you?
>
> > Oh, that's ok. I can take it. And I know that a personal attack is the
> > attacker's way of revealing their insecurities when confronted with a
> > point they can't rationally and reasonably refute.
>
> I don't think you have any hope of winning a contest with Marsh and he
> just turns your words around on you and you don't like it.
Winning a contest? So, Marsh is the supreme patriarch of this forum only
because he's hung around here longer than I have, and peppers this forum
with hundreds of responses?
ROTFLOL!!
Please...
>Marsh can
> refute any argument you can make and he has been doing that for years.
>
Refute any argument? Ha! Hardly. If you mean refute as in "successfully
answer" you're way off base, my friend. More like post a lot of blather
when he's caught in a corner and can't seem to muster up a reasonable
argument. Then he loses it.
Sure, anyone is capable of posting over and over with, at times,
ridiculous assertions. Doesn't take a lot of effort.
You can see it all over this forum.
> JB
jas
Yes, some people thought it could have been a conspiracy, until it was
shown not to be one.
> No one doubted his guilt and that he was part of a conspiracy.
Says who? You?
You make it up as you go along. It's really quite amazing.
>You have a
> backdoor approach.
What the heck does that mean?
>You think that if you can claim that Oswald was guilty
> that means no conspiracy.
No, it means no evidence of a conspiracy has come to light and that
all the evidence points to Oswald.
Why do you have trouble understanding that?
>The HSCA conclusion was that Oswald was guilty
> AND part of a conspiracy.
Why do you keep repeating the original HSCA findings like a broken
record when you know they were based on since- debunked acoustic
evidence?
Wow... talk about believing the earth is flat!
>That's what we are debating here, the nature of
> that conspiracy.
No, pay attention now class. We're debating whether your alleged
conspiracy exists in the first place, and so far you're batting .000.
bigdog
Arguing about subjects you know nothing about is your forte, such as in
the area of forensic medicine. You also misstate what can be done with
ballistics. Ballistics can also be used to determine that a bullet
definitely did NOT come from a particular weapon. So if there were any
bullets or identifiable fragments which could be excluded from having come
from Oswald's gun, you would have your evidence of a second gun and a
conspiracy. Of course no such bullets or fragments exist. Every
identifiable piece could be traced to Oswald's gun and no fragments could
be excluded from Oswald's gun. So I am 100% correct in stating that there
is no ballistic evidence of a second gun. The case for a second gun can
only be made in absence of evidence, reason, or logic.
> >>> indicates the shot came from one direction. Your amateurish
> >>> imaginative ramblings do not pass for evidence.
>
> >> Then how do you explain the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone?
> >> Cat got your tongue again?
>
> > I don't have to explain something that exists only in your overly active
> > imagination. There is no frontal bone defect. The bullet exited in the
>
> Here we have another professional denier. You can't even admit the simple
> fact that there is a semi-circular defect on the frontal bone. You must
> think that Dr. Lawrence Angel was lying when it called it a bullet wound.
> You think he's a conspiracy monger?
>
I believe you take his findings out of context and spin them to your
heart's content. If you think Dr. Angel supports your theory of a frontal
gun shot, why don't you post HIS words and let them speak for themselves.
> > temporal region. Last I checked, that is on the side of the head, not the
> > front. Even CT darling Dr. Cyril Wecht agrees that the medical evidence
> > indicates a rear head shot and doesn't claim there is any medical evidence
> > of a frontal shot. But of course, you know more about forensic pathology
> > than he does. You know more about just about every subject than everyone
> > else. You have become a legend in your own mind.
>
> Yes, I do. And I know they lied.
>
We can believe the unanimous opinion of some of the leading forensic
pathologists in the nation or we can believe you. Gee, that's a tough
call. Why should we believe you.
What a crock. Nothing you propose is based on evidence except the
evidence you have created in your mind.
bigdog
Oh, there's a real distinction. Whether you are talking about fabricating,
destroying, or covering up, it all comes under the category of evidence
tampering. Like all true blue CTs, you must allege evidence tampering
because the evidence points in the opposite direction of your conclusions.
The evidence points to one man, Lee Harvey Oswald, as the shooter and you
don't like it. So you can't accept the evidence and have to invent an
excuse to dismiss it and claim the "real" evidence has been destroyed and
covered up.
>
>
> >>> to Oswald and the murder weapons of both JFK and JDT is unimpeachable,
> >>> even though they try. We have eyewitness testimony that fingers him as
> >>> the gunman in both shootings. Physical evidence which places him at
> >>> the scene of both crimes. But we are supposed to believe he was
>
> >> And unreliable eyewitness which raises reasonable doubt.
>
> > The physical evidence alone establishes Oswald's guilt in both murders.
> > The eyewitnesses are just icing on the cake.
>
> Don't lecture me about the Tippit shooting. Leave that out. I have
> always thought that Oswald killed Tippit.
>
Well congratulations. You got one right. Your long losing streak is
over.
Sandy McCroskey
Stone has backpedaled somewhat from the claims he originally made for the
movie. It was not intended as a fantasy about "what might have happened"
but as a polemic arguing for the truth of Garrison's accusations. There
may be instances where Stone knowingly twisted the truth for dramatic
effect, as movie-makers will do, but most of the the long list of
falsehoods in his film are more plausibly attributed to his sincere
misconstrual of the evidence and ready acceptance of many urban legends.
Stone's hubris produced a highly irresponsible piece of work, however
"entertaining" some may find it.
/sandy
jas
Where's my contradiction? You keep harping on that and I don't have a
clue what you're talking about.
>
> >>> Everyone who has ever had even a passing interest in the
> >> > assassination has probably seen it.
>
> So the movie made millions because all sorts of people went to see it,
> not just anti-government, anti-establisment crowds.
Of course, along with the CT crowd who revered it like the Bible.
Having A list actors, a top-notch musical score (that I happen to think is
one of Williams' best movie scores), and Stone's overall expertise as a
film maker, helped bring in the mainstream crowd. Anyone who knows
anything about basic marketing understands this.
Stone knew exactly how to please the masses, and in doing so touted his CT
angle, writing his own version of history. I feel this is extremely
irresponsible, and does a major dis-service to the young and more
impressionable people who don't really know much about the event. When one
makes a movie about a factual historical event they should strive for
accuracy, not write his own (and Garrison's) version of it.
It's spin meistering, and Stone's intentions are as plain as day.
>
> >>>Just because I have subsequently read
> >> > and studied the evidence and changed my viewpoints doesn't mean I
> >> > contradict myself.
>
> Yes you did. It has nothing to do with what you have read or studied.
> It is directly the result of what you wrote on the newsgroup.
What, pray tell, did I write that contradicted myself? Please post it
here:
______________________________________________________________
Thank you.
>
>
> >> > And don't BS like Stone does and say the movie was just "entertainment."
> >> > He has touted his belief in the conspiracy angle many times, in articles
> >> > and interviews along the way. BS terms like calling his movie a "metaphor"
> >> > for all the conspiracy theories, and "using artistic license" doesn't let
> >> > him off the hook.
>
> The movie was made for entertainment purposes. Stone has made many
> movies. The fact that he is a CT does not preclude his ability to
> make a successful and entertaining movie.
Oh, so you agree he is a CT?
If you really think Stone made the movie purely for entertainment
purposes, you really have been duped yourself.
Sure Stone has made, and continues to make, good films. But in these other
films he hasn't turned history on its head. He used a storyline based on
Ron Kovic's experiences in "Born on the 4th..." but he didn't butcher and
change the major facts behind it. He may have embellished at times for the
sake of entertainment, but this is NOT the same as completely ignoring the
official conclusions that Oswald acted alone and interject many assassins,
conspiratorial meetings, events, and dialog THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PROVEN TO
HAVE OCCURRED to parlay his own version of history.
I know you don't see it because you must support your CT opinions at all
costs, but there is a huge difference between what Stone did in "JFK" and
his approaches and choices of subject matter in his other films.
>
> >> > > Folks said: " You do know the difference between a documentary and a
> >> > > Hollywood
> >> > > movie, do you not?
>
> No. Peter Fokes said.
Oh, excuse me. Do you have a particular title you would like me to
address you with? Dr? Esq? MD? the III? etc? Please, let me know.
>
> >> > No need to patronize.
>
> >> Well, apparently is is necessary to patronize because you obviously
> >> don't see the difference.
>
> >> JB
>
> >Yes, I know the difference alright. One cannot describe Stone's movie
> >as either a documentary, nor a movie, because it's both. He uses real
> >assassination footage mixed in with staged scenes, and in doing so,
> >intentionally attempts to muddle the distinction between the two.
>
> Well, I'm afraid you are one of the few who did not realize when real
> footage was being shown and when Hollywood footage was shown.
Nope, sorry. You're indignant attack insinuating that I can't discern
the real from the staged is incorrect, and actually, quite laughable.
>
> The use of actual news reel footage is common in all sorts of
> Hollywood and TV shows. The TV series American Dreams regularly used
> newsreel footage: Kennedy, Beatles, etc. Yet they also used actors to
> play the parts of famous pop singers. The series Mad Men used actual
> footage in a recent episode centered around the JFK assassination. I
> did not hear one critic complain that the director was intentionally
> trying to muddle the distinction between the reality and fantasy.
Weak example. Sure they used real footage. But THEY DID NOT TURN
IMPORTANT HISTORIC FACTS ON THEIR HEADS.
Did the Beatles die in a plane crash back in '65?
You probably believe the "Paul is dead" hoax that Lennon later
admitted to, eh?
>
>
>
> >People who watched this that happen to be impressionable and don't
> >know much about the assassination would understandably be duped into
> >thinking the staged scenes are real.
>
> Well. people who are impressionable and watch anything or listen to
> self-help gurus and other TV psuedo evangelists might also be duped
> into thinking they really can make a zillion dollars or be healed by
> touching the TV screen. Where is your outrage about such things?
I have outrage in such things. Whats makes you think I don't? Reading
my mind like Marsh?
These things are fraud to turn a buck, pure and simple, like Stone's
"JFK."
>
> Do you own a Vegamatic!
>
>
>
> >That is what you call a hoax.
>
> Nah.
>
> That's entertainment!
I wish I could share your passive attitude and dismissal of what Stone
did in "JFK," but it's too important to let it go.
If you don't think so, that's your prerogative.
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
John McAdams
wrote:
>On 30 Nov 2009 10:15:21 -0500, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Everyone who has ever had even a passing interest in the
>>> > assassination has probably seen it.
>
>So the movie made millions because all sorts of people went to see it,
>not just anti-government, anti-establisment crowds.
>
>
>>>>Just because I have subsequently read
>>> > and studied the evidence and changed my viewpoints doesn't mean I
>>> > contradict myself.
>
>Yes you did. It has nothing to do with what you have read or studied.
>It is directly the result of what you wrote on the newsgroup.
>
>>>
>>> > And don't BS like Stone does and say the movie was just "entertainment."
>>> > He has touted his belief in the conspiracy angle many times, in articles
>>> > and interviews along the way. BS terms like calling his movie a "metaphor"
>>> > for all the conspiracy theories, and "using artistic license" doesn't let
>>> > him off the hook.
>
>The movie was made for entertainment purposes. Stone has made many
>movies. The fact that he is a CT does not preclude his ability to
>make a successful and entertaining movie.
>
Suppose somebody made a successful and entertaining movie about the
life of Senator Joe McCarthy?
And suppose it convinced a lot of people that McCarthy was a victim of
a conspiracy among comunists and liberal allies?
Would you be saying "it's just entertainment?"
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
And when his movie was released I was here warning people about that
blurred reality.
> People who watched this that happen to be impressionable and don't
> know much about the assassination would understandably be duped into
> thinking the staged scenes are real.
>
They are intended to look real. He is trying to recreate what he thinks
is reality. Lots of TV shows do that when they recreate crimes.
> That is what you call a hoax.
>
That's what we call Hollywood.
Anthony Marsh
It's a hollow challenge because we've been over these things thousands of
times and you've had ample opportunity to see each theory and the
evidence. But you refuse to look at the evidence. Then you demand to see
the evidence. Then you refuse to look at the evidence. Then you demand to
see the evidence. Then you refuse to look at the evidence. Then you demand
to see the evidence.
Coondog
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don’t believe I have ever heard it better said. Good job.
Bill Clarke
John Blubaugh
Well, someone is batting .000 but it ain't Marsh.
JB
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You didn't win this argument either. Perhaps you should throw in the
towell and it is clear you do not know the difference between a work
of fiction and a documentary.
JB
John Blubaugh
Of course it would be just entertainment and it would be fiction or in
this case fantasy. If you don't like it, make your own fiction movie and
distribute it. Fiction, that is the key word. LNs just don't understand
the word and apparently have no sense of humor either. By the way, when
are you going to run or reject my disinformation post?
JB
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Nov 30, 4:07=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:28:26 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >The movie was made for entertainment purposes. Stone has made many
>> >movies. =A0The fact that he is a CT does not preclude his ability to
>> >make a successful and entertaining movie.
>>
>> Suppose somebody made a successful and entertaining movie about the
>> life of Senator Joe McCarthy?
>>
>> And suppose it convinced a lot of people that McCarthy was a victim of
>> a conspiracy among comunists and liberal allies?
>>
>> Would you be saying "it's just entertainment?"
>>
>> .John
>>
>
>Of course it would be just entertainment and it would be fiction or in
>this case fantasy. If you don't like it, make your own fiction movie and
>distribute it. Fiction, that is the key word. LNs just don't understand
>the word and apparently have no sense of humor either. By the way, when
>are you going to run or reject my disinformation post?
>
I dumped both those posts on the Nuthouse. Go there, if you want to
see them.
Peter Fokes
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 30 Nov 2009 10:15:21 -0500, jas <lle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> Everyone who has ever had even a passing interest in the
> >>> > assassination has probably seen it.
>
> >So the movie made millions because all sorts of people went to see it,
> >not just anti-government, anti-establisment crowds.
>
> >>>>Just because I have subsequently read
> >>> > and studied the evidence and changed my viewpoints doesn't mean I
> >>> > contradict myself.
>
> >Yes you did. It has nothing to do with what you have read or studied.
> >It is directly the result of what you wrote on the newsgroup.
>
> >>> > And don't BS like Stone does and say the movie was just "entertainment."
> >>> > He has touted his belief in the conspiracy angle many times, in articles
> >>> > and interviews along the way. BS terms like calling his movie a "metaphor"
> >>> > for all the conspiracy theories, and "using artistic license" doesn't let
> >>> > him off the hook.
>
> >The movie was made for entertainment purposes. Stone has made many
> >movies. The fact that he is a CT does not preclude his ability to
> >make a successful and entertaining movie.
>
> Suppose somebody made a successful and entertaining movie about the
> life of Senator Joe McCarthy?
I believe there have been some entertaining movies about Sen. Joe
McCarthy. One that comes to mind is "Good Night, and Good Luck."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433383/
(Nominated for 6 Oscars. Another 22 wins & 61 nominations)
Here's a comment from one viewer:
<quote on>
The film does not - as some have suggested - unfairly portray McCarthy
as a sub-human monster. Its presentation of McCarthy is limited
strictly to the thread of the storyline and never does it waver toward
name-calling or character assassination."
The USA Today reviewer wrote:
<quote on>
Flip, you say? Well, this viable awards contender isn't. So even-
keeled that it allows McCarthy to play himself, using kinescopes from
the era ...
The extensive footage of McCarthy is artfully integrated. His flop-
sweat and gauchely overbearing demeanor are almost guaranteed to scare
the few little children who wander into this movie. For older
audiences, he'll hang himself, just as he did in 1954 — not just on
CBS but also on the televised Army-McCarthy hearings that crushed him.
<quote off>
> And suppose it convinced a lot of people that McCarthy was a victim of
> a conspiracy among comunists and liberal allies?
Television shows are supported by advertisers who try to convince the
public that their products serve a special purpose: quench a thirst,
cure an illness,
make cooking more fun, secure your home from vandals ... not all their
claims are true. There is an old saying, "Buyer Beware."
A movie is also a product. It is advertised on television as an
entertainment option. You could go to the ballet, a baseball game or
you could go see a movie.
Typically, a moviegoer sits in a comfy chair in the theatre, eats
popcorn and wants to be entertained. They do not expect the movie
theatre to resemble a lecture hall.
Most people do not believe what they are seeing in a theatre is the
truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. Folks are not convinced
Hogwarts actually exists, they are not convinced Arnold Schwarzenegger
could pull off the stunts he appears to do in the movies now that he
is temporarily governor of California, no one really believes a nun
can fly, a Martian lives on Earth or a horse talks. We suspend our
disbelief and enjoy ourselves for an hour or two. It is a movie. We
protect younger folks by putting ratings and age limits on movies.
Older folks are expected to use their judgement, and be able to
distinguish reality from fantasy,
There are some people who would probably not question the veracity of
the portrayal, and simply enjoy the movie. Of course, portrayals of
famous people are regularly the topic of Hollywood movies, and those
portrayals often vary widely from the truth. Nothing new there. Other
people might be intrigued by the portrayal of McCarthy and decide to
learn more about the man. They might search the internet, or buy books
to learn more details. At that point, it is likely they would begin
comparing
the movie version with the version presented by academics and other
authors. In any event, if the movie spurred them on to learn more
about McCarthy and American history, that would be an excellent
outcome. Those folks who simply accept the portrayal in the movie and
move on might, at some random point in time, discuss McCarthy with
someone else and regurgitate the portrayal presented by the movie.
They might be surprised by the counter arguments of the folks they are
talking to, and urge those people to see the movie. The folks might
tell the viewer to read some books on McCarthy to broaden their
perspective.
A movie is a movie. It is presumed to be an entertainment vehicle, not
a study tool, so one must take the contents with some skepticism. On
the other hand, a film that purports to be a documentary has a higher
bar to cross when it comes to accuracy, or else it simply becomes an
exercise in propaganda. One of the finest documentaries I have seen
in recent years in The Fog of War. Robert McNamara discusses his years
in the JFK Administration. Highly recommended.
>
> Would you be saying "it's just entertainment?"
Most definitely.
>
> .John
>
> --
> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
claviger
A number of historians roundly denounced Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" for
blending fact with fiction. As professional scholars they spend their life
trying to separate the two, so a movie like this is an affront to all
historians. A perfect example is this past Sunday, Nov 22 the subject on
the Coast-to-Coast radio program was the assassination of President
Kennedy. At one point the host George Knapp cited the movie JFK as if it
was a valid source of information. Evidently he does not understand it was
only "entertainment!"
The good news is movies that try to deceive the public usually end up
backfiring on the perpetrator. "JFK" is one of those movies. The extreme
close up of the Zapruder film used by Stone for shock value clearly showed
the head first moves forward before jerking back and to the left. Watching
the movie is the first time I noticed this fact. Others have told me the
same thing. So a boulder of truth was unintentionally exposed by Stone. At
the time Kevin Costner was saying "back and to the left" over and over,
the film was showing forward, back and to the left. Say goodbye to the GKS
theory.
Anyone looking for authenticity will be shocked to find out Garrison never
even made that speech to the jury. The next question then what else is
wrong with this script? As they continue to search they will find numerous
discrepancies, and will soon realize this house that Stone built has a
foundation made of sand.
claviger
> > That is what you call a hoax.
>
> That's what we call Hollywood.
Where the motto is: "We hoax the folks for fame and fortune." Most of the
movies are based on fiction so not a problem, but when a movie tries to
depict a modern historical event the temptation is always there to spin
the facts according to the producer's political point of view. Maybe Stone
was aware that polls show 80% of the public believes in conspiracy so he
plays to the crowd and makes a ton of money. Therefore in reality he's
just a big time carney willing to scam the suckers for filthy lucre.
However, he doesn't hide his opinions about this tragedy so obviously his
intent was to pour gasoline on that fire and indoctrinate a whole new
generation of gullible guppies.
claviger
> As usual you argue about some subject and don't even understand the terms.
> There is no ballistics evidence in the head. Those tiny lead fragments can
> not be ballistically matched to anything. You can only ballistically match
> a bullet JACKET to other bullet JACKETS fired from a known weapon. There
> are no bullet jacket fragments in the head. You didn't even know where the
> two large bullet fragments were found.
The skull itself is ballistic evidence. There was an entrance hole and
exit hole. That means some type of missile penetrated all the way through
the skull. Evidently scrapings were taken from the entrance wound that
were never turned over to the Clark panel for analysis.
> >>> indicates the shot came from one direction. Your amateurish
> >>> imaginative ramblings do not pass for evidence.
>
> >> Then how do you explain the semi-circular defect in the frontal bone?
It was identified during the autopsy. There are three big problems in
trying to claim this is an entrance wound: it had the well known
characteristics of an exit wound, the President was leaning forward and
slightly to the left, and no one yet has found any evidence of a sniper on
the Grassy Knoll. The viaduct and GK were surrounded by witnesses. No one
saw a person with a rifle in this area at any time during the motorcade,
other than the SS agent in the following vehicle. Every panel of doctors
who studied the photos and x-rays agreed all wounds came from behind.
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
The last movie about McCarthy that I recall was "Tailgunner Joe".
JB