Getting Tough With Political Posts

[John McAdams]

I'm going to clamp down on political posts, starting right now.

A few are in the moderator's mailbox, and will be reposted (if they
aren't "rejects" otherwise).

But anything new posts must have something to do with the
assassination. And simply adding "Oswald" to the subject line won't
suffice.

Neither will comparing JFK to Trump or anybody else, unless the
subject really is the assassination.

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

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/14/2019 9:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> I'm going to clamp down on political posts, starting right now.
>
> A few are in the moderator's mailbox, and will be reposted (if they
> aren't "rejects" otherwise).
>
> But anything new posts must have something to do with the
> assassination. And simply adding "Oswald" to the subject line won't
> suffice.
>

Ok, then every time I want to post about trump I will bring up his crazy
conspiracy theory that ted Cruz's father conspired with Oswald. How about
if I accuse Trump of being the grassy knoll gunman? Nope, that won't work,
he had bone spurs then.

> Neither will comparing JFK to Trump or anybody else, unless the
> subject really is the assassination.
>

How about comparing Trump to Hitler? You will protect Trump at all costs.

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

[BOZ]

This is racism. just kidding.

[Bud]

I`ll reply to Tony`s response to me in the "Fine people on both sides"
thread over on the Nuthouse.

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:43:48 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:

> I'm going to clamp down on political posts, starting right now.
>
> A few are in the moderator's mailbox, and will be reposted (if they
> aren't "rejects" otherwise).
>
> But anything new posts must have something to do with the
> assassination. And simply adding "Oswald" to the subject line won't
> suffice.
>
> Neither will comparing JFK to Trump or anybody else, unless the
> subject really is the assassination.
>

I don't disagree with your decision. However, it seems to me that this
newsgroup is running out of things to discuss regarding the assassination.
Recently most of the activity I've seen has been around claviger's attempt
to resurrect the Mortal Error theory and Ramon's JFK Numbers project. Have
we kicked this subject to death?

[Ramon F Herrera]

On 5/16/2019 7:13 AM, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:43:48 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>> I'm going to clamp down on political posts, starting right now.
>>
>> A few are in the moderator's mailbox, and will be reposted (if they
>> aren't "rejects" otherwise).
>>
>> But anything new posts must have something to do with the
>> assassination. And simply adding "Oswald" to the subject line won't
>> suffice.
>>
>> Neither will comparing JFK to Trump or anybody else, unless the
>> subject really is the assassination.
>>
>

> Recently most of the activity I've seen has been around claviger's attempt
> to resurrect the Mortal Error theory

Here's the movie:

https://vimeo.com/334167823

Media Coverage:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/accidental-assassin-jfk-theory-alleges-secret-service-agent-fumbled-gun-flna2D11634276

> and Ramon's JFK Numbers project.

At this point I am too depressed to talk about it.

See this thread:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/zWQ4ol4KMb0/fHddgAClAwAJ

-Ramon
JFK Numbers (about to abandon it)

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Pretty much. The only relatively new subject - say the past five or so
years - is Morley's claims that the CIA perhaps followed Oswald more
closely than they revealed. And were using/manipulating him for
operational purposes. Specifically that Joannides, who "managed" the DRE
for the CIA, and maybe CI used Oswald in an attempt to discredit the FPCC.
And that after the assassination they were promoting a "Oswald working for
Castro shot JFK" theory.

Yes, it's the "If my aunt had a mustache she would have been my uncle"
sort of claims.

[BT George]

The problem is that we have run out of enough CT's to keep a lively
assassination debate going. We really ran out a while back, but the
frequent postings of Chris/Mainframe and Bob Harris tended to mask how few
of them really posted here anymore.

Part of the problem is UseNet is going by the wayside in favor of FB
Groups and the like. The other part is that most CT's have enough
pro-conspiracy venues that they can post elsewhere to their hearts content
with few of their ideas being challenged or tested.

[claviger]

On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 7:13:30 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

No need to resuscitate the Mortal Error Theory that has multiplied to
Five.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/16/2019 8:35 PM, Steve M. Galbraith wrote:
> On Thursday, May 16, 2019 at 8:13:30 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
>> On Tuesday, May 14, 2019 at 9:43:48 PM UTC-4, John McAdams wrote:
>>> I'm going to clamp down on political posts, starting right now.
>>>
>>> A few are in the moderator's mailbox, and will be reposted (if they
>>> aren't "rejects" otherwise).
>>>
>>> But anything new posts must have something to do with the
>>> assassination. And simply adding "Oswald" to the subject line won't
>>> suffice.
>>>
>>> Neither will comparing JFK to Trump or anybody else, unless the
>>> subject really is the assassination.
>>>
>>
>> I don't disagree with your decision. However, it seems to me that this
>> newsgroup is running out of things to discuss regarding the assassination.
>> Recently most of the activity I've seen has been around claviger's attempt
>> to resurrect the Mortal Error theory and Ramon's JFK Numbers project. Have
>> we kicked this subject to death?
>
> Pretty much. The only relatively new subject - say the past five or so
> years - is Morley's claims that the CIA perhaps followed Oswald more
> closely than they revealed. And were using/manipulating him for

Sure, but please don't look into the Mexican police following Oswald
around.

> operational purposes. Specifically that Joannides, who "managed" the DRE
> for the CIA, and maybe CI used Oswald in an attempt to discredit the FPCC.

Please do not look into Phillips creating fake FPCC chapters.

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

Brock is exactly right.

It took much longer, but the internet has almost killed the JFK
conspiracy. All of the energy, research, etc. since the dawn of the
internet age has heavily favored the Oswald Alone narrative, and although
CTs like to comfort each other with the vague and bland statement based on
polls that the vast majority of Americans believe JFK was killed by a
conspiracy, the curious to the subject is quickly able to read both sides
of the argument with a Google search. I believe the average "conspiracist"
finds the JFK CT point-of-view wanting when they see the immediate online
responses of the Oswald Alone side.

I've observed at other discussion boards that many neophyte CTs are hung
up on a single issue (My uncle who served in the Army say Oswald couldn't
have hit a target that far away!), and when they see there's no
meat-on-the-bone after it's almost immediately rebutted, they're open to
Oswald Alone as the culprit.

Those who prowl these boards that are infected with the disease of
conspiracism are an entirely different animal. Ben Holmes, Tony Marsh,
David Healy, etc. do not represent the average American who has watched
JFK or read Crossfire. When the hardcore JFK CTs who came of age when JFK
was President fade away, this conspiracy will finally die.

There will always be conspiracy theories involving the major events that
shape our lives, but time is the great healer of the conspiracy theory,
and along with the internet, time is taking its toll on the believers that
thousands plotted, killed, or covered-up JFK's murder.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's one way to get away with your propaganda. Just tell your
challengers to go post eomewhere else.

[donald willis]

That's why I like being here--I like challenges....

[bigdog]

I have participated in this newsgroup for about 11 years now and about 4
or 5 more in another group in the early 1990s following the release of
Oliver Stone's movie. During that time I have always held to the LN
position but based on things I have learned in these two discussion
groups, I have changed my opinion on certain aspects of the case. For
example, whereas I was in doubt about the SBT, that doubt has completely
vanished to the point I now accept it as fact. I have also accepted as
fact that the first shot was the missed shot whereas I leaned more toward
a second shot miss when I first began participating on this board. I am
much more informed about the forensic evidence than I was at the start of
this journey. The more I learn about it, the more convinced I have become
that Oswald was the assassin and that he had no accomplices. I have no
doubt about the former and very little doubt about the latter although
logically I have to concede it is THEORETICALLY possible he could have had
one or more accomplices for which no evidence has ever surfaced. The
possibility that any such evidence ever will surface seems extremely
remote.

I wonder how much FB is drawing away from newsgroups such as this. Social
media seems to be a young person's venue. I'm sure there are some old
farts who have taken to it but I would guess they are very much a
minority. I question whether the younger generations have much interest in
this topic. People of my age and older are the ones who actually remember
JFK and the assassination and each year there are fewer and fewer of us. I
know of several former contributors who have passed away and suspect a few
more have as well. This newsgroup could use some young blood but I don't
think we are going to see that happen.

[Bud]

Reminds me of this exchange from Blackadder...

Percy: I intend to discover, this very afternoon, the secret of alchemy
— the hidden art of turning base things into gold.

Edmund: I see, and the fact that this secret has eluded the most
intelligent people since the dawn of time doesn’t dampen your
spirits at all.

Percy: Oh no; I like a challenge!

[chucksch...@gmail.com]

There are a bunch of Facebook groups devoted to the JFK conspiracy. David
Von Pein runs one and so does Jim Hess.

What's nice about Usenet is that you can search for old posts on the
subject you're discussing, and you can't do that on the Facebook groups.

[claviger]

Why I like this Newsgroup. The International audience with participation
and the fact a College Professor is the moderator. The Archived Debate is
a Treasure Trove of Research. The David Von Pein blog with extended
discourse and photos is superb. An indispensable Study Guide on basic
Academic Argumentation about this case.

[David Von Pein]

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 10:57:23 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:
> What's nice about Usenet is that you can search for old posts on the
> subject you're discussing, and you can't do that on the Facebook groups.

Actually, you can. There's a "Search This Group" search box on the left
side of every Facebook Group. It seems to work pretty well too.

Here's a Search example from my JFK FB Group, using "John McAdams" as the
search term, with results popping up from even the first year I started
that group (2014)....

https://www.facebook.com/groups/243480929145732/search/?query=John%20McAdams&epa=SEARCH_BOX

[bigdog]

Ignorance is bliss and is the foundation for most beliefs in a conspiracy.
People tend to accept at face value conspiracy claims such as Oswald
wasn't a good enough marksman, the rifle wasn't a good enough weapon, the
SBT is impossible, yada, yada, yada. When the look more closely at these
claims and see the other side of the argument, they become less persuaded
by the conspiracy claims.

At one time a poll indicated that 90% of the American people believed
there was a conspiracy. I believe that was in the wake of Oliver Stone's
movie and that was where many people got most of their "knowledge" about
the assassination. More recent polls show belief in conspiracy has fallen
to about 60% and seems to be continuing to decline. The farther away from
the event we get, the less emotional people are about it and a more
rational look at the facts doesn't foster belief in conspiracies. It might
not happen in my lifetime but I would bet that at some point, belief in a
conspiracy to kill JFK will be the minority viewpoint. 100 years from now,
historians will accept that Oswald was the assassin and that there is no
credible evidence he had accomplices.

[bigdog]

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 10:57:23 PM UTC-4, chucksch...@gmail.com wrote:

Maybe someday I will actually get up to speed on social media. I created
accounts for both Facebook and Twitter because I came across websites that
required you to log in with one or the other. Of course every time I try
to log in with either of those, I have to go through the "forgot your
password?" procedure. I have never posted a tweet and rarely read anybody
else's. I'm still not even sure what Facebook is all about or why it is so
popular. I was not even aware it had discussion groups until I read that
in this thread. I still think e-mail is leading edge technology as is my
flip phone.

[BT George]

Yeah. There are a few hearty souls on both sides. I think of DVP on the LN
side who daily goes to pro-CT venues. If I had more time and personal
bandwidth I would engage more often in places like the Education Forum,
but I prefer to limit my engagement to more manageable chunks of time and
engaging 10+ persons with a different POV gets difficult in terms of
trying to respond to everything thrown at you.

[BT George]

On Saturday, May 18, 2019 at 3:14:53 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

Well there are quite few participants on FB Groups of all ages. (There is
a whole new generation of CT's there. Numerically most are uninformed,
but there are plenty of the dedicated types we used to see here a lot, and
still usually spouting the same debunked or crazy nonsense we've
encountered for years.

Fair Play for JFK is a good venue, with plenty of older hands and some
younger. It strives for balance and has a mod team made up of LN's,
Undecideds, and CT's. However, despite membership numbers that show more
CT's the comments participation is largely dominated by LN's or
Undecideds.

Unfortunately, searching for old comments in FB is dreadfully difficult,
and so it is not nearly as good a venue for study and research as the
Usenet and other Internet platform archives.

[BT George]

Yes you can search, but in my experience, it can be very hard to zero in
on the older comments you want to find.

[donald willis]

Funny post re Those Whom Technology Left Behind. Oh, yes, I'm one of them
too....

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, historians, not the public.

[Anthony Marsh]

Seems you already did. Trump is a very base thing, but look at his hair.
His father didn't have hair that golden. Very strange.

> Edmund: I see, and the fact that this secret has eluded the most
> intelligent people since the dawn of time doesn’t dampen your
> spirits at all.
>

Well you can do it if you spend billions of dollars per gram.

[sdshschm...@gmail.com]

Given that the case was solved November 22nd, 1963 at about 6:00pm, I
would agree that the subject may be played out.

[Bud]

His father wasn`t *your* President.

[Anthony Marsh]

Trump isn't MY President either.evaded my point.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 5/21/2019 11:31 PM, sdshschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Given that the case was solved November 22nd, 1963 at about 6:00pm, I
> would agree that the subject may be played out.
>

Yes, so you agree with the Dallas authorities who said it was an
International Communist Conspiracy. Do you think it was the Cubans or
the Russians?

[donald willis]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 8:31:24 PM UTC-7, sdshschm...@gmail.com wrote:
> Given that the case was solved November 22nd, 1963 at about 6:00pm, I
> would agree that the subject may be played out.

Yes, that was about the time that bus driver McWatters made out an
affidavit to the effect that he took Oswald from near Dealey all the way
to Oak Cliff. So actually the Oak Cliff part of the case was half-solved
at that time: Oswald was not the perp....

dcw

[Bud]

Give up your U.S. citizenship?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, he has.

[Anthony Marsh]

Too many witnesses to ignore, plus the bullets and the paraffin test.
Do you thing Oswald shot his revolver at someone else?

[CAMPBE...@yahoo.com]

Totally agree with your Oswald was the lone gunman conclusions bigdog! I
would also like to add,I've been reading through/posting/searching for
different topics in this group since the early 2000s. I've learned alot
and still do learn and appreciate the posts and discussions by
John,Adam,David and many more. I'm 38 and have studied the assassination
for many years, have been to Dealey Plaza and the Sixth Floor Museum here
in Dallas many times, met the late curator Gary Mack and some of the
reporter's that covered the events of that sad weekend. I really
appreciate all the information that people share in this group.

[Bud]

Doubtful. He needs to stay an American in order to be your President for
another four years.

[bigdog]

Although polls indicate that there is not much difference in opinions
about conspiracy among the various age groups, it is my belief that the
people of generations that came after mine (I'm 67) are less likely to
look at the assassination emotionally and if they actually take the time
to look at the evidence and arguments from both sides, they will be far
less likely to believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. That is why I
think belief in conspiracy has been dwindling the past several decades
since Oliver Stone's movie and will continue to trend in that direction.

[Anthony Marsh]

>>>>>>> ??? the hidden art of turning base things into gold.

>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems you already did. Trump is a very base thing, but look at his hair.
>>>>>> His father didn't have hair that golden. Very strange.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> His father wasn`t *your* President.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Trump isn't MY President either.
>>>
>>> Give up your U.S. citizenship?
>>>
>>
>> No, he has.
>
> Doubtful. He needs to stay an American in order to be your President for
> another four years.
>

Silly. you've already given him carte blanch to violate any law he wants
to, so don't talk to me about obeying the law.

>
>>>> evaded my point.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Edmund: I see, and the fact that this secret has eluded the most

>>>>>>> intelligent people since the dawn of time doesn???t dampen your

[Bud]

I wasn`t around for the early days of the JFK conspiracy hobby but I was
for the beginning of the 9-11 Truther movement, and it seems to me that
early on it is a game where everything looked at yields "something fishy",
every photo, interviews, video becomes a source for a "something fishy"
claim. These are gathered and traded among the hobbyists, and it takes on
a life of it`s own, surely this large collection of fishy things must mean
something fishy happened. Since the people involved are heavily invested
in the idea that something fishy happened it is easy for them to convince
themselves and the other hobbyists of the validity of the fishy things
found. But it isn`t so easy to convince people outside their bubble (I
know JFK hobbyist will point to polls showing a belief in conspiracy, but
the conspiracists have not produced a single conspiracy theory for the
public to accept or reject). Another problem is all these fishy things are
impossible to put together into a cohesive narrative. So when all the
"fishy" things are collected, what then? The hobby must die on the vine,
there was really never any place for it to go.

[Anthony Marsh]

Well for some of us Baby Boomers it was personal. Our hero being killed.
The Vietnam War. The cover-up. The end of innocence.

[Bud]

You didn`t mind it when Obama was your President. Now that Trump is your
President you think the law should be obeyed.

Trey Gowdy repeatedly warned Democrats that there wouldn`t always be a
Democrat president, and that they were setting a dangerous precedent
allowing him to skirt the law, but they didn`t listen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oanWJ1Gapxc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzZT9gW5gp8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3WhyD2ZIyY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdjY33RHrtQ

[claviger]

LNs are motivated by Logic, while CTs are driven by Emotion.

[BOZ]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/06/12/nycs_shakespeare_in_the_park_stages_mock_trump_assassination_during_julius_caesar.html

[Anthony Marsh]

Obama did not violate any laws. Trump did.
Obama is honest, Trump is not.

> Trey Gowdy repeatedly warned Democrats that there wouldn`t always be a
> Democrat president, and that they were setting a dangerous precedent
> allowing him to skirt the law, but they didn`t listen.
>

Great source you got there. Why not quote Howie Mandell?

[Anthony Marsh]

We have SCIENCE on our side.

>

[Steve M. Galbraith]

You do have to tip your hat off to them: they are good at finding "fishy"
things, real and imaginary (especially the latter). But if you have an
event that is as studied as much as the assassination - is there another
that's been studied more than this? or even closely as much? - you're
going to come across strange things. And *real* strange things. It's
unavoidable.

The author John Updike made this observation in 1967 (even at that early
date he recognized the problem). In studying the assassination, Updike
wrote:

"We wonder whether a genuine mystery is being concealed here or whether
any similar scrutiny of a minute section of time and space would yield
similar strangenesses—gaps, inconsistencies, warps, and bubbles in
the surface of circumstance."

He's talking here just about the shooting itself, that some thirty odd
second segment of time and not all of this related "strange" material that
has emerged since 1967. Add all of that and things get really warped.

If you insist on placing these "strangenesses" into the assassination,
stating they are significant or relevant to it, you're going to get a,
well, "strange" result. The strange factors don't seem to fit; at least
fit the Oswald as lone assassin claim.

So the explanation for what happened must be adjusted to fit the strange
factors. Once done, the "strangenesses" or fishy things disappear; but so
does the simple crime explanation. As in: "umbrella man" is no longer
oddly waving the umbrella; he's sending signals - and not to Oswald
either. It's not a fishy act; it's part of the conspiracy. There, it works
out.

But as you point out, they - these "strangenesses" - really don't fit.
They're just the normal oddities in life. In order to get them to fit you
have to so alter the event that it becomes illogical and the cohesiveness
of the narrative simply implodes. Contradictions abound - this strangeness
is acceptable but that over there isn't and this fishy thing is good but
it is at odds with this other fishy things and why exactly is this strange
anyway? And the explanation becomes a mishmash of strange matters that are
contradictory and illogical and incoherent. There's no explanation as to
what happened; it's just a series of odd events.

As in: LBJ wanted to be president so he killed JFK; the racist DPD wanted
to end JFK's civil rights crusade so they joined in: but oops, LBJ passed
civil rights. The fishy stuff is explained but the narrative falls apart
on its internal contradictions.

So all we have is this repetitive "What about this?" and "What about
that?" And endless series of these "strangenesses". More will be coming
with the next batch of files. And more after that. Eventually, it all ends
because there are no more strange things to find.

[Bud]

Obama broke the oath he took when taking office...

"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of
President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability,
preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The duties of the President, under Article II of the Constitution is to
execute and enforce the laws passed by Congress. He refused to do so, thus
breaking his oath. Oathbreakers are not honest.

> > Trey Gowdy repeatedly warned Democrats that there wouldn`t always be a
> > Democrat president, and that they were setting a dangerous precedent
> > allowing him to skirt the law, but they didn`t listen.
> >
>
> Great source you got there.

Yes, a Senator and a lawyer.

[Bud]

It went there to tell you that you`re wrong.

> >

[BOZ]

Operation Fast and Furious was a government-funded program of the Obama
White House.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706598.html

[19efppp]

Now, THAT is delusional! We haven't had an not-thoroughly-disgusting
president since Jimmy Carter. Obama is a disgusting pile of filth, not
quite as bad as Trump, but it's like choosing between a dog shit sandwich
and a horse shit salad. The horse shit might not invade Iran, but it's
still going to make you sick.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, May 29, 2019 at 2:05:55 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>
> We have SCIENCE on our side.
>

Where do you get that WE shit, paleface?

[claviger]

Like the so-called "acoustic evidence" that has been completely debunked.
The HSCA did some good work until they swallowed that pseudo-science hook,
line, and sinker. Everything else they did confirmed the WCR.