What Has Happened To The Newsgroup Postings?

[Steve Barber]

Pardon me for asking this, but on my end, I am only seeing a max of 4
posts going up on a daily basis--is something going on with the server?
I'm just curious.

[John McAdams]

On 1 Oct 2019 19:02:45 -0400, Steve Barber <elpdr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> Pardon me for asking this, but on my end, I am only seeing a max of 4
>posts going up on a daily basis--is something going on with the server?
>I'm just curious.

No problem with the server, so far as I can tell. It's just that
traffic is way down.

It goes up, and it goes down.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

Some of the heavy posters have disappeared. Mainframetech, Bob Harris,
Ralph Cinque, ect. Once Marsh croaks this will be a ghost town.

[Mark]

My guess, Steve, is that many on here have gotten tired of the CT BS,
their refusal to respond as reasonable adults. I have. You can only
present the hard evidence to them (for instance, the curtain rods) so many
times, and have them deny it, before the drill gets tiresome.

I'm sure the number of posts will pick back up in the near future.

Mark

[deke]

I've wondered the same thing. Going back more than five years, this seemed
to be a much more active and interesting group. A good number of the
posters were knowledgeable researchers. Where did everybody go?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/1/2019 7:06 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2019 19:02:45 -0400, Steve Barber <elpdr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Pardon me for asking this, but on my end, I am only seeing a max of 4
>> posts going up on a daily basis--is something going on with the server?
>> I'm just curious.
>
> No problem with the server, so far as I can tell. It's just that
> traffic is way down.
>
> It goes up, and it goes down.
>

Gee, I wonder why? Could be hacked by the Russians.
Are you using Hillary's server at home?

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>

[nonuser]

maybe chasing new conspiracy from President. Maybe he goes to Dallas
soon I believe

[BT George]

It's all about technology and the current generation has taken to either
social media or more advanced platforms. Often arguing among themselves as
the groups tend to eventually become dominated by either CT or LN voices.
The former usually by choice and because they don't want any LN's to
intrude on their silliness.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

> On 1 Oct 2019 19:02:45 -0400, Steve Barber <elpdr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Pardon me for asking this, but on my end, I am only seeing a max of 4
> >posts going up on a daily basis--is something going on with the server?
> >I'm just curious.
>
> No problem with the server, so far as I can tell. It's just that
> traffic is way down.
>
> It goes up, and it goes down.
>

My postings are way down and it is for a very simple reason. Most of the
threads don't interest me. Either they are going over the same ground for
the umpteenth time or they are so ridiculous as to not be worth the time
to type out a reply. Also many longtime posters are no longer
contributing, either because they have lost interest or are on the wrong
side of the grass.

[bigdog]

Very astute observation. It will be like those one time thriving tourist
attractions along the old Route 66 that have been bypassed by the new
freeway system and are now decaying relics of days gone by.

PS. I drove a good portion of the old Route 66 a few years ago and there
are parts that are still traveled and still have some of those quirky
little tourist attractions that Route 66 was famous for but others have
simply been bypassed by the freeways that replaced the old route. A
perfect example is the Cadillac Ranch. It's been moved from its original
location and not sits along and access road that parallels the freeway but
it is still a popular stop. It's out in the middle of nowhere yet when I
stopped there were dozens of people taking pictures and spray painting
graffiti and the Cadillacs that are buried hood deep into the ground. Why?
Who the hell knows? I don't and I went out of my way to stop there.

[donald willis]

Yes, it's all our fault. Then again, it takes two to tango....

[deke]

The positive side to all of this is that some of the trolls that used to
post quit a bit here have seemed to go away.

[Steve Barber]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 4:24:17 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

This where Tony Marsh lives. All at once, he, and all these poster's
vanish? It must be something in the water?

[BT George]

The format is dying, as are a lot of first generation participants.
Everyone else has gone over to FB or at least other more modern Internet
platforms. The former is convenient, but highly inferior since searching
for your past responses is extremely difficult. It's set up to
accommodate group discussions, but only in a rudimentary fashion.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ask McAdams how many posts he has blocked.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's why I'm still here. Just for you.

[Anthony Marsh]

Ever read the rules?
3 monitors.
1 HAS to be a WC defender.
1 HAS to be a conspiracy believer.
Who killed the other moderator?

[Anthony Marsh]

Definely ON TOPIC.
But are you old enough to have watched the TV show?
I don't remember who shows the reruns. Maye METV.

[Anthony Marsh]

How come I'm the only one posting ON TOPIC?

[Anthony Marsh]

I think you'd have more fun in the Nuthouse.

[Anthony Marsh]

Who? Which President? Who's going to Dallas?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/3/2019 3:04 PM, deke wrote:
> The positive side to all of this is that some of the trolls that used to
> post quit a bit here have seemed to go away.
>

You say that quit a bit? But now they're back for more?

[Mark]

I'm betting on rogue CIA operatives. Mark

[Mitch Todd]

A large number of the CT posters left for CT-friendly web
forums like the ones run by Simkin, PDS, Rich DellaRosa, etc.
Somewhat ironically, a number of those communities fractured
due to the infighting and spun off into their own forums.
Others turned to Facebook groups, which to me seems to be too
limiting a platform for useful discussion.

Another factor is simply bullshit fatigue. Too many trolls,
spammers, and bullshit artists stinking up any forum they
can reach. After a while, people get tired of wading
through it all and just quit.

And one more thing: the line-by-line replies common to
(indeed, encouraged by) online exchanges get convoluted
and difficult to keep track of pretty quickly. I admit
to having been an offender on this front. I've been trying
to do better, though I don't post much any more.

[David Emerling]

I seldom post here anymore because it's like arguing against
Flat-Earthers. I'm not confused about what happened in the Kennedy
assassination. It's no mystery to me. I think the evidence and testimony
make it plainly clear to anybody who is using their commonsense
faculties.

There was a time when this subject had an historical interest to me - and,
in some ways, it still does. But a forum like this is like a person who is
interested in the historical aspects of the Civil War having to debate
people who think the South actually won. It's not a productive discussion.

Over the years, my interest in the Kennedy assassination has morphed more
into a psychological fascination in how normally intelligent people are
not immune from believing incredibly unintelligent narratives. This is now
playing out in politics in a glaring fashion.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[John Deagle]

FRANK BENDER KILLED THE OTHER MODERATOR.

[donald willis]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 10:23:12 AM UTC-7, Mitch Todd wrote:
> On 10/2/2019 9:55 PM, deke wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 7:02:47 PM UTC-4, Steve Barber wrote:
> >> Pardon me for asking this, but on my end, I am only seeing a max of 4
> >> posts going up on a daily basis--is something going on with the server?
> >> I'm just curious.
> >
> > I've wondered the same thing. Going back more than five years, this seemed
> > to be a much more active and interesting group. A good number of the
> > posters were knowledgeable researchers. Where did everybody go?
>
> A large number of the CT posters left for CT-friendly

I like CT-"unfriendly" forums such as this. The better to help me hone my
arguments. John King was especially helpful in this regard, though I
guess I finally (more or less on purpose) pissed him off, and he vanished.
I'm not sure he ID'd himself as LN....

dcw

[bigdog]

With Holmes and Healy? No, thank you.

[bigdog]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 1:23:12 PM UTC-4, Mitch Todd wrote:
> On 10/2/2019 9:55 PM, deke wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 7:02:47 PM UTC-4, Steve Barber wrote:
> >> Pardon me for asking this, but on my end, I am only seeing a max of 4
> >> posts going up on a daily basis--is something going on with the server?
> >> I'm just curious.
> >
> > I've wondered the same thing. Going back more than five years, this seemed
> > to be a much more active and interesting group. A good number of the
> > posters were knowledgeable researchers. Where did everybody go?
>
> A large number of the CT posters left for CT-friendly web
> forums like the ones run by Simkin, PDS, Rich DellaRosa, etc.
> Somewhat ironically, a number of those communities fractured
> due to the infighting and spun off into their own forums.
> Others turned to Facebook groups, which to me seems to be too
> limiting a platform for useful discussion.
>
> Another factor is simply bullshit fatigue. Too many trolls,
> spammers, and bullshit artists stinking up any forum they
> can reach. After a while, people get tired of wading
> through it all and just quit.
>

That's the trade off with having an unmoderated group. I participate in
one other newsgroup and it is political in nature but trolls dominate.
There is one particularly prolific poster who dumps dozens of anti-Semitic
posts everyday. Mostly everyone knows his game and ignores him but he
keeps cluttering up the works.

> And one more thing: the line-by-line replies common to
> (indeed, encouraged by) online exchanges get convoluted
> and difficult to keep track of pretty quickly. I admit
> to having been an offender on this front. I've been trying
> to do better, though I don't post much any more.

When a conversation gets too cluttered with the past posts, I simply cut
out the deadwood and try to leave enough to keep the context of the
discussion. That requires a judgement call at times and not everyone
agrees with my judgement but I do it anyway for sake of brevity.

[Mitch Todd]

This group is moderated, if liberally so. The web groups
are moderated such that offenders and heretics can easily
be removed, as DVP can tell you. Moderation hasn't really
helped all that much. The trolls still troll and spammers
still spam in the more liberal places, while other venues
lurch towards ideological uniformity. The Simkin forum
in particular seems to have collapsed into a hive of
John Armstrong worshipers.

Anyway, my bigger point is that the infrastructure that
once supported a surprising (in hindsight) amount of
thoughtful exchange between a large number of different
views has shattered into a scattered mess of lowest common
denominator thinking. It's sad to think that the vibrancy
and quality of thought I used to enjoy on a.a.jfk or
the ed forum is just not out there anymore.

Some of this is due to the controversy itself winding down.
Few researchers anymore are younger than being middle aged.
And to be honest, the voice of the CT side has increasingly
veered into a solipsistic position that sees everything as
fake: two Oswalds, two Marguerite's, Zapruder fakery, body
alteration, backyard photo fakery, duplex Rubys, etc. As
I've said before, their war with Earl Warren ended years ago,
having been eclipsed by their war on reality itself. More
thoughtful CTs like Barb J or Pat S seem to have tired of it
and left the public sphere. That everything-is-fake worldview
is hard to argue with in any rational or productive way, no
matter where you stand.

>> And one more thing: the line-by-line replies common to
>> (indeed, encouraged by) online exchanges get convoluted
>> and difficult to keep track of pretty quickly. I admit
>> to having been an offender on this front. I've been trying
>> to do better, though I don't post much any more.
>
> When a conversation gets too cluttered with the past posts, I simply cut

It's not so much about the clutter. I try to cut out
dead sections of a thread whenever I can, but it's only
a little help. The problem is that the line-by-line style of
argument tends to keep one's mind out of really thoughtful,
well-put-together argument. And it encourages far too much
snarkery. Not that snarkery isn't fun, but it doesn't get
you very far.

[Mitch Todd]

I agree that a dialectical approach is really valuable.
Or maybe I just like to argue. Then again, if you're not
willing to be proven wrong, you're not likely to wind up
being right. That being said, those who argue in bad faith
tend to kill a good environment. The BobFontaines are a
great example of this.

[bigdog]

This has never been anything more than a hobby for me as I suspect it is
for most of the people who post here. I've learned things about the
assassination that I otherwise would not have and feel I have a fairly
good command of the facts as opposed to the average Joe. Unless I am
someday a contestant on Jeopardy and one of the categories is The JFK
Assassination, I don't expect this knowledge to pay any great
dividends.

One of my other hobbies is model railroading and it is becoming
increasingly an old man's hobby. I hear others lament that they hobby is
dying because so few young people are getting into it. Whenever I hear
this I think to myself, "So what". After I'm gone, what do I care if the
hobby survives. If there aren't enough people interested enough to keep it
going, why should it survive. So it is with the JFK assassination. I doubt
very many millennials and younger give the subject any thought at all
during their normal daily activities. If the subject holds no interest for
them, let it be relegated to the history books. That's probably where it
belongs anyway.

[Steven M. Galbraith]

On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 3:33:58 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

I would suggest that the majority - vast majorities at that - of people in
*other* countries believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination.
Even in the so-called "more sophisticated" European nations.

I've only seen one poll to support that - it was a poll of people in the
UK - but I don't think I'm making a baseless claim.

Conspiracy belief among Americans on this has always been over 50% and was
much higher in the seventies. And it transcends party affiliation.

[Anthony Marsh]

Nah, he was already dead by then.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/4/2019 3:33 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 11:57:18 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 7:06:25 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 1 Oct 2019 19:02:45 -0400, Steve Barber <elpdr...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Pardon me for asking this, but on my end, I am only seeing a max of 4
>>>> posts going up on a daily basis--is something going on with the server?
>>>> I'm just curious.
>>>
>>> No problem with the server, so far as I can tell. It's just that
>>> traffic is way down.
>>>
>>> It goes up, and it goes down.
>>>
>>
>> My postings are way down and it is for a very simple reason. Most of the
>> threads don't interest me. Either they are going over the same ground for
>> the umpteenth time or they are so ridiculous as to not be worth the time
>> to type out a reply. Also many longtime posters are no longer
>> contributing, either because they have lost interest or are on the wrong
>> side of the grass.
>
> I seldom post here anymore because it's like arguing against
> Flat-Earthers. I'm not confused about what happened in the Kennedy
> assassination. It's no mystery to me. I think the evidence and testimony
> make it plainly clear to anybody who is using their commonsense
> faculties.
>

Yes, that's why 81% of the public said it was a conspiracy and the HSCA
voted 7-5 for conspiracy. What percentage of the public do you claim are
flatearthers? 99%?

Are you a flatearther, too?

> There was a time when this subject had an historical interest to me - and,
> in some ways, it still does. But a forum like this is like a person who is
> interested in the historical aspects of the Civil War having to debate
> people who think the South actually won. It's not a productive discussion.
>

Do you understand that this NEWSGROUP is dominated by WC defenders? There
are only a couple of conspiracy believers left.

BTW, your analogy was very accurate. This Newsgroup is dominated by people
who still think the South was right. Trump supporters who attack Democracy
and want to kill Liberals.

> Over the years, my interest in the Kennedy assassination has morphed more
> into a psychological fascination in how normally intelligent people are
> not immune from believing incredibly unintelligent narratives. This is now
> playing out in politics in a glaring fashion.
>

So you confirm that you do not believe in Science. Science proves that
it was a conspiracy, but YOU don't want that conspiracy uncovered.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/4/2019 1:23 PM, Mitch Todd wrote:
> On 10/2/2019 9:55 PM, deke wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 7:02:47 PM UTC-4, Steve Barber wrote:
>>> Pardon me for asking this, but on my end, I am only seeing a max of 4
>>> posts going up on a daily basis--is something going on with the server?
>>> I'm just curious.
>>
>> I've wondered the same thing. Going back more than five years, this
>> seemed
>> to be a much more active and interesting group. A good number of the
>> posters were knowledgeable researchers. Where did everybody go?
>
> A large number of the CT posters left for CT-friendly web
> forums like the ones run by Simkin, PDS, Rich DellaRosa, etc.

OMG, you mean some plac whch allows Freedom of Speech? Oh, the horror!

> Somewhat ironically, a number of those communities fractured
> due to the infighting and spun off into their own forums.
> Others turned to Facebook groups, which to me seems to be too
> limiting a platform for useful discussion.
>
> Another factor is simply bullshit fatigue. Too many trolls,
> spammers, and bullshit artists stinking up any forum they
> can reach. After a while, people get tired of wading
> through it all and just quit.
>

Ever hear of Trolls? WHo psys hem to infest and destroy Newsgroups?
Putin?

> And one more thing: the line-by-line replies common to
> (indeed, encouraged by) online exchanges get convoluted
> and difficult to keep track of pretty quickly. I admit

Yes, beyond the ccapability of most posters here.
It helps to use a good newsrader that clearly marks who said what.

> to having been an offender on this front. I've been trying
> to do better, though I don't post much any more.
>
>
>

Well, at least you tried. Thanks.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

If you are a serious conspiracy believer it helps to know what bullshit
the cover-up is putting out.

[donald willis]

I espouse none of those viewpoints, though I guess some of my own ideas
are pretty heretical (even for my fellow CTs). I admit I'm tantalized by
Claviger's theory re an accidental SS shot from behind, and by Marsh's
theory re a shot from circa the Knoll, but I'm not 100% on either....

dcw

[bigdog]

Current polls show belief in conspiracy around 60%. That's roughly the
same percentage as the HSCA vote.

> Are you a flatearther, too?
>
> > There was a time when this subject had an historical interest to me - and,
> > in some ways, it still does. But a forum like this is like a person who is
> > interested in the historical aspects of the Civil War having to debate
> > people who think the South actually won. It's not a productive discussion.
> >
>
> Do you understand that this NEWSGROUP is dominated by WC defenders? There
> are only a couple of conspiracy believers left.
>

In about 20 years, you will be able to say the same thing about the United
States.

> BTW, your analogy was very accurate. This Newsgroup is dominated by people
> who still think the South was right. Trump supporters who attack Democracy
> and want to kill Liberals.
>

Marsh flies off on another tangent. I wonder if he expects people to take
his rants seriously.

> > Over the years, my interest in the Kennedy assassination has morphed more
> > into a psychological fascination in how normally intelligent people are
> > not immune from believing incredibly unintelligent narratives. This is now
> > playing out in politics in a glaring fashion.
> >
>
> So you confirm that you do not believe in Science. Science proves that
> it was a conspiracy, but YOU don't want that conspiracy uncovered.
>

Keep telling yourself that if it floats your boat.

[Anthony Marsh]

But are you H or N gauge?
Let's start a brand new thread dedicated only to model railroading and
never mentioning JFK.

> dying because so few young people are getting into it. Whenever I hear

Yes, very few young people are into model railroading, but there is the
very popular Thomas the Train.

> this I think to myself, "So what". After I'm gone, what do I care if the
> hobby survives. If there aren't enough people interested enough to keep it

You could will them to the Goodwill.



When my father died I gave away his extensive collection and only saved a
few of his magazines. One of his duddies tried to send me a message
through one of the magazines left on my car, but I couldn't decode it.

> going, why should it survive. So it is with the JFK assassination. I doubt
> very many millennials and younger give the subject any thought at all
> during their normal daily activities. If the subject holds no interest for
> them, let it be relegated to the history books. That's probably where it
> belongs anyway.
>
>

That is how a cover-up works. Stall until it becomes ancient history.
Do you think there is an alt.assassination.Lincoln?

[David Emerling]

First of all, European history is fraught with conspiracies to a much
higher degree than American history.

The belief in a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination is mostly a pop
culture belief. The "Kennedy assassination" has become a replacement
phrase, or a metaphor, for all conspiracies in our American lexicon. It's
the default belief of those who do not possess enough information on the
topic to contradict what has become a pop(ular) belief. Basically, the
respondents to polls on the topic are not even qualified to have an
opinion on the topic about which they are being asked. Consequently, they
parrot the pop culture belief, because that's the belief that has
bombarded their psyche to the greatest extent.

Let's face it, conspiracy believers have always been more vocal, more
strident, and far more prolific in their beliefs. That energy consistently
manifests itself in the "over 50%" poll results of which you speak.

Asking the average person on the street whether they believe there was a
conspiracy involved in the Kennedy assassination is not too much unlike
polling kindergartners about whether Santa Claus really exists. They are
not equipped to answer intelligently - but they are certainly capable of
parroting what they've been told ... what they've heard ... what they
think their peers believe ... or what they emotionally WANT to be true.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[19efppp]

"Tantalized?" You find the wacky theory that a Secret Service agent
accidentally blew JFK's brains out to be tantalizing? Good lord!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I've always said that belief in a JFK assassination conspiracy is a mile
wide and an inch deep. The AVERAGE person--who perhaps has read Crossfire
and saw the movie JFK and heard the dad of one of his friends who was in
the Marines say that the shots were impossible--can be convinced Oswald
acted alone if they read both sides of the argument.

However, the hardcore hobbyist/buff--Anthony Marsh at this board being the
prime example--will NEVER be convinced that a large conspiracy didn't kill
JFK. Marsh will take it to his grave that a large conspiracy killed JFK,
as did Mark Lane and tens of thousands of lesser known buffs.

Anecdotally, I do believe minds have been changing, at least regarding
those who participate in online discussions about the case. It is true
that the older buffs are retiring from the hobby or passing on, but among
the younger buffs without a connection to the 60s, there is at least a
willingness to read both sides of the debate and be more objective about
it. I participate at a Facebook JFK board which is over 50% CT, and it's
remarkable how often these same people who join the group, after perhaps
trotting out out a cherished factoid about the assassination that is
quickly and convincingly rebutted, announce at some point that they've
"converted" to the Oswald Alone viewpoint. It seems that many of these
casual buffs have one or two sticking points, and when the sticking point
is "unstuck", their mind is free to accept the obvious: Oswald alone, no
known help. There's just too much evidence pointing directly to Oswald.

This willingness to convert to the Oswald alone camp can in part be
chalked up to the larger number of folks who believe there WAS a
conspiracy, but nonetheless I do not see people who read in their HS
history book that Oswald killed JFK then going online to this board or
watching ABC's Beyond Conspiracy on YouTube, etc. and suddenly becoming a
JFK buff.

I'm an example of a converted "buff" who spent my teen years in the 70s
believing Oswald killed JFK but that there was foreknowledge and some
additional connections. I stumbled upon John's website in the early 2000s
and read it for five minutes and all of the CT silliness fell away from
me. It turns out that the internet--which is great at spreading fake
news--is also pretty powerful in combating it.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I've made a similar observation about debating 9/11 Truthers, which I once
did online (that conspiracy has faded away to zippo, BTW). I used to point
out that you can debate a Truther about say, WTC 7 being "pulled" by the
FDNY, and then find out in the course of your discussion the Truther
doesn't believe any planes struck the towers at all. (Called "No Planers"
in the Truther community.)

If you haven't read Among the Truthers, by Jonathan Kay, I strongly
encourage you to pick it up. He describes the psychology behind JFK, 9/11,
and so on. He uses the term 'conspiracism' when referring to the idea
nebulous, malevolent forces are plotting to spread poisons through
chemtrails or the QAnon conspiracies, etc.

It all comes from the same place: a desire to find order in a chaotic
world. Psychologically, many do not want to believe a loser with a rifle
can change history, or believe 19 Muslim fanatics can take down our
tallest buildings and strike our Pentagon, etc.

In fact, when I migrated over to the JFK discussion boards in the early
2000s, I was struck by how similar the arguments sounded. Take out "9/11"
and some other key words and replace it with "JFK" and you have the same
arguments going on.

[donald willis]

Says the person who maintains that the DPD squired Oswald around town
after the assassination!

[Anthony Marsh]

So you admit hat you do not believe in Science. Are you a flatearther,
anti-Evolutionist, and Climate Change denier?

[Anthony Marsh]

Of course he is only repeating Donahue's theory, but at least he calls it
accidental. I met an Alterationist who had a theory that the limo stopped
behind the Stemmons Freeway sign and the SS agents ran up from the
follow-up car and shot the President.

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 4:02:47 PM UTC-7, Steve Barber wrote:
> Pardon me for asking this, but on my end, I am only seeing a max of 4
> posts going up on a daily basis--is something going on with the server?
> I'm just curious.

Were just trying to make John's job easier....

[19efppp]

I never said it was tantalizing that the DPD drove Oswald to his rooming
house and then to the Texas Theatre. That's just the truth, but I don't
find it tantalizing. I'm not in it for the thrills, just the truth. BTW,
John Connally and William Greer shot JFK. What's the matter? Not
tantalizing enough for you? Bwahahahahahahahah!

[David Von Pein]

It's nice to hear that there are at least some people who post on Internet
forums who are willing to accept the evidence in the JFK case as valid
evidence, instead of trying to pretend (as most Internet conspiracy
theorists do) that all (or most) of the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald
was fake, planted, or manufactured from whole cloth.

Here are some recent quotes I saw at The Education Forum from a CTer named
Rich Pope:

"I don't think LBJ did it, I know he did! .... Anyone who claims Jack Ruby
wasn't connected to Carlos Marcello is a fool. .... Anyone who doesn't
think LBJ was part of the conspiracy to murder JFK is laughable."

Now, we all know as surely as night follows day and as surely as a
thunderstorm follows a car wash that Rich Pope has absolutely no hard
evidence whatsoever to back up his claims about LBJ, Ruby, and Marcello.
Mr. Pope is doing nothing more than talking through his hat (as all JFK
CTers have been doing since 1963).

But despite a total lack of evidence for their claims, the JFK conspiracy
theorists continue to spout their unsupportable and outlandish claims year
after year (such as Pope's rant that I quoted above). But no matter how
dedicated the CTers of the world remain, the true FACTS of Lee Oswald's
lone guilt in John Kennedy's murder will never fade into cyberspace.

Here's an exchange I had just a couple of days ago at Duncan MacRae's JFK
forum. (For some reason, though, Duncan decided to delete this whole
thread entirely, which has me perplexed. So I'm glad I copied these posts
before they disappeared.) ....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

All reasonable people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond
any and all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President
Kennedy.

MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Does this mean that I have to agree with your opinion to be deemed to be
reasonable?

DVP SAID:

Yes. Of course.

MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Or could it be you are in fact the unreasonable one by considering your
opinion to be superior to those of people who disagree with you?

DVP SAID:

No. And for one simple (and blatantly obvious) reason:

The evidence (overwhelmingly) shows Lee Harvey Oswald to be guilty of two
1963 murders.

Therefore, the opinion of a person who thinks Oswald didn't shoot anybody
on 11/22/63 cannot possibly be a "reasonable" opinion. .... The evidence
shows that the Warren Commission was right. Maybe more CTers should learn
to face the reality of that fact. It's either facing that unchangeable
reality or remaining super-glued to the silly and unprovable notion that
all this stuff [at the link below] was faked.

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

[Anthony Marsh]

OK, so you think 9/11 was NOT a conspiracy. Maybe just one lone nut or
maybe just an accident. So when the government tells us that it was a
conspiracy, they must be kooks?

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

I touched on this above in a response to David Emerling, but arguing with
people who do not believe Oswald at least shot at the motorcade, or do not
believe he killed JD Tippit, is akin to arguing with 9/11 Truthers who
don't believe planes hit the WTCs. It's just an absolutely futile
exercise.

Jim Fetzer was once asked in a 9/11 debate whether he believed airplanes
hit the WTCs. He responded, "At this point, I'm leaning that way."

But he wasn't sure. Iy's impossible to have sane argument with someone who
believes the insane.

There are a slew of CTs at the various online forums who don't believe
Oswald shot at ANYONE, the equivalent of the Truthers who believe no
planes hit the WTCs. They are no longer worth wasting any bandwidth on.

I echo David Emerling in his statement that he's more interested in the
history of this event and as a sideline, the psychology behind those who
believe Oswald was some innocent patsy railroaded by thousands. I've
learned that people like Ben Holmes, for example, probably lead pretty
"normal" lives and function as normal adults, provided they are away from
this topic. How "normal" adults can believe that JFK's body was kidnapped
while being watched or that a bullet was fired through the limo
windshield, and so on, and that this could all be covered up by countless
worker bee government bureaucrats operating in march-step to LBJ's orders
for some nebulous intertwined reasons that they uniquely can untangle, is
amazing. But it's out there. The name for this psychological behavior is
conspiracism. A conspiracy has boundaries, and a real conspiracy can be
defined. Conspriacism only expands.

No JFK CTs currently argue for an actual conspiracy. They are utterly
uninterested in putting up something to examine or to compare to the WC's
narrative. They are here (and at other forums) to recruit someone to
answer their begged questions, all of which, after 56 years, most
certainly have been answered.

[donald willis]

Hard to tell when you're serious & when you're just joshing.

And how did the DPD disguise O so no one who might see him in the car, or
getting out of the car, would know it was he?

[19efppp]

They threw a white sheet over him. Can you tell now?

[Anthony Marsh]

So, you don't appreciate the fact that often I am the onlty one here
debunking the Alterationists.

I know of only a couple of pieces of "evidence" that are fake and I have
pointed out those hoaxes. And as you might remember I am the researcher
who proved that the Zapruder film is authentic.

The second problem is that you and I can agree that some piece of evidence
i genuine, but it does not have to mean what you think it means. For
example, the dent of the cartridge CE 543 found in the sniper's nest. Tink
thought it could not have been fired during the assassination and thus
indicates conspiracy. But I showed that he was wrong because I had
examples of dented lips like that which happened during ejection and
sometimes they jammed the rifle.

That is ridiculous. I doubt that Oswald fired any shots in Dealey Plaza,
but it is possible that he fired some shots and missed. That would stil
mke him guilty of conspiracy. But I know that he shot and killed Tippit.
One crime does not prove the other.

> shows that the Warren Commission was right. Maybe more CTers should learn
> to face the reality of that fact. It's either facing that unchangeable
> reality or remaining super-glued to the silly and unprovable notion that
> all this stuff [at the link below] was faked.
>

Not fact. LIES. Why do you just accept the WC lies without doing any
research to test their claims?

Need I remind you again that I was the first researcher to point out the
errors in the HSCA investigation? And I even corrected a couple of them. I
was the only person to do what W&A wanted to do, but were not allowed to
do: Use their methods of acoustical analysis in a computer program to
study all the shots.

> http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
>

[Anthony Marsh]

I can't remember his name, but there was one kook who made up a theory
that the planes were holograms projected onto the towers.

> But he wasn't sure. Iy's impossible to have sane argument with someone who
> believes the insane.
>

Why should you even debate or argue anything? Just say that you are
perfect and everyone HAS to agree with you.That way you never have to
get your lovely fingernails dirty.

> There are a slew of CTs at the various online forums who don't believe
> Oswald shot at ANYONE, the equivalent of the Truthers who believe no
> planes hit the WTCs. They are no longer worth wasting any bandwidth on.
>
> I echo David Emerling in his statement that he's more interested in the
> history of this event and as a sideline, the psychology behind those who
> believe Oswald was some innocent patsy railroaded by thousands. I've
> learned that people like Ben Holmes, for example, probably lead pretty
> "normal" lives and function as normal adults, provided they are away from
> this topic. How "normal" adults can believe that JFK's body was kidnapped
> while being watched or that a bullet was fired through the limo
> windshield, and so on, and that this could all be covered up by countless
> worker bee government bureaucrats operating in march-step to LBJ's orders
> for some nebulous intertwined reasons that they uniquely can untangle, is
> amazing. But it's out there. The name for this psychological behavior is
> conspiracism. A conspiracy has boundaries, and a real conspiracy can be
> defined. Conspriacism only expands.
>
> No JFK CTs currently argue for an actual conspiracy. They are utterly
> uninterested in putting up something to examine or to compare to the WC's
> narrative. They are here (and at other forums) to recruit someone to
> answer their begged questions, all of which, after 56 years, most
> certainly have been answered.
>

YOU are afraid to answer MY questions.

[Mark]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 6:06:25 PM UTC-5, John McAdams wrote:
> On 1 Oct 2019 19:02:45 -0400, Steve Barber <elpdr...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Pardon me for asking this, but on my end, I am only seeing a max of 4
> >posts going up on a daily basis--is something going on with the server?
> >I'm just curious.
>
> No problem with the server, so far as I can tell. It's just that
> traffic is way down.
>
> It goes up, and it goes down.
>

> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Well, it made for quicker turn-around times while it lasted. Mark