The Mentality Of LNers Vs. CTers

21 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 7, 2009, 8:54:42 PM12/7/09
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4c79bcbf2e77ab8e/256dc67027396ccb?#256dc67027396ccb


>>> "Typical mentality of LN's." <<<

Indeed it is. With that mentality being:

Dismiss stupid shit that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

But the average "mentality" of a lot of conspiracy theorists is this
one:

Accept ALL unfounded rumors and hunks of speculation regarding the
murders of JFK, JDT, and LHO....regardless of origin, and regardless
of how silly and stupid-sounding these rumors happen to be.

Great case in point being: The backyard photographs of Lee Harvey
Oswald.

I don't think I'm wrong in saying that even a majority of CTers today
will readily admit that, in their mind, ONE of the backyard photos can
be considered a legitimate, real photo of Lee Oswald that was taken
with LHO's Imperial-Reflex camera in the Neely St. backyard sometime
in early 1963.

But then what do most of those same CTers proceed to do? --- They toss
their common sense out the nearest window and proceed to talk about
how the remaining backyard pics are NOT legit and have been "faked",
"forged", "manufactured", etc.

But in order to believe that one of the pictures is the real McCoy,
while at the same time believing the remainder of the photos are
fraudulent in some manner, a conspiracy theorist has to believe that
the people who were "plotting" to set up and frame Lee Harvey Oswald
for JFK's murder would have felt the need to fake ADDITIONAL PICTURES,
which depict something (LHO in the Neely St. backyard holding guns and
Russian newspapers) that was already depicted in a REAL AND LEGITIMATE
PHOTOGRAPH.

And when confronted with the logical question of "WHY WOULD ANYONE
WANT TO CREATE FAKE PICTURES OF SOMETHING THAT ALREADY EXISTS IN REAL
AND LEGIT FORM?", it seems that most CTers clam up and have no answer.
(Which isn't surprising actually, because there is no logical answer
to explain such silliness.)

Or, just maybe, the following scenario is one that could be purported
by CTers who still want to pretend that some of the backyard pictures
are frauds (even though they will readily admit that the one picture
that was linked to Oswald's camera via its negative IS, indeed, a
legit photograph):

1.) Marina Oswald took one "legitimate" picture of her husband, Lee,
in the Neely backyard on or around March 31, 1963.

2.) The evil conspirators, who were attempting to frame poor schnook
Lee Oswald in the months leading up to JFK's November visit to Texas,
then faked multiple pictures purportedly showing their patsy in the
Neely backyard -- but these conspirators did this WITHOUT EVEN BEING
AWARE THAT A REAL AND GENUINE PHOTO OF THEIR "PATSY" WAS TAKEN BY
MARINA!

3.) And it just so happens, by pure chance and coincidence, that the
FAKE pictures perfectly match the one REAL picture taken by Marina in
the very same backyard setting....right down to every detail, with LHO
holding a bolt-action rifle and wearing a pistol on his hip and
holding two Russian newspapers and wearing black clothing and the sun
shining brightly almost directly overhead, etc., etc.

Maybe that's the answer, huh? The plotters just got very lucky when
their fake pictures just happened to identically match the one real
photo snapped by Marina.

And then those same plotters, on 11/22/63, apparently (per many
conspiracists) got very lucky yet again when their insane plan of
attempting to frame a single patsy named Oswald by firing various guns
at JFK's car from several different directions yielded the following
autopsy results:

"The deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds
inflicted by high velocity projectiles. .... The projectiles were
fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the
deceased." -- FROM PAGE 6 OF JFK'S OFFICIAL AUTOPSY REPORT [WR; Pg.
543]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284a.htm

Conspiracists who favor any type of theory that has multiple gunmen
HITTING John F. Kennedy with rifle bullets from more than one gun must
certainly admit that those multiple gunmen sure as heck got mighty
lucky when JFK's three autopsy surgeons attached their signatures to
the document that contains the above paragraph.

After all, a MULTI-GUN, ONE-PATSY assassination plot like the one that
a vast majority of conspiracy theorists seem to think was pulled off
in Dealey Plaza in November '63 is the type of insane and needlessly
reckless plot that you don't see many people/plotters get away with
every day of the week.

And just think....per some CTers, James Files GOT AWAY WITH MURDERING
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, but then (many years later) he
decided he wanted to GET THE CREDIT for murdering the President,
instead of basking forever in the secure knowledge that he had
actually killed JFK and gotten away scot-free.

Go figure that mindset.

http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

Robert Harris

unread,
Dec 7, 2009, 10:12:33 PM12/7/09
to

David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics. It is
between those who seek the truth and those who do not.

Sadly, those who do not, identify themselves by their closed minds, their
bigotry, and their hatred of those who prove them wrong.

Which "side" are you on David?


Robert Harris

Herbert Blenner

unread,
Dec 7, 2009, 10:19:23 PM12/7/09
to
On Dec 7, 8:54 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...

Nice going, David, you made three claims and scored three errors. CE133-A,
CE133-B and 133-C, the available backyard photographs, show differences in
their backgrounds. The newspapers were printed in English and the shadows
show that the shining sun far from overhead.

Where on Earth you get your information is known only to you. Educated
people know that the equatorial region of the southern hemisphere is the
only place on Earth where the sun could shine nearly directly overhead
during early March.

Further the Militant, the more easily recognized paper seen in the
backyard photographs, was anti Soviet. How you can label this New York
City publication as "Russian" boggles a rational mind.

Finally, the professionals who examined the backyard photographs cited the
differences in the backgrounds as evidence that camera snapped the
pictures from three differing locations.

Your command of the evidence never ceases to entertain us.

Herbert

The Dutchman

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 12:41:57 AM12/8/09
to

Didn't Shutterbun put this whole thing to rest a while back, with his
use of a program that re-creates shadows of the proper angle and
length, dependent on the longitude, latitude, and year/month/day/hour/
minute data?

Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 9:22:20 AM12/8/09
to
On 7 Dec 2009 20:54:42 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4c79bcbf2e77ab8e/256dc67027396ccb?#256dc67027396ccb
>
>
>>>> "Typical mentality of LN's." <<<
>
>Indeed it is. With that mentality being:
>
>Dismiss stupid shit that has no basis in fact whatsoever.

Nonsense. We have just observed many LNs contribute to the thread
about wacky LN theories. Individuals, no matter what their opinion,
come up with silly ideas.

>But the average "mentality" of a lot of conspiracy theorists is this
>one:

For someone so immersed in the assassination swamp land, I am
surprised you have not developed a more sophisticated and realistic
attitude about other buffs, The need to categorize, classify and
label whole swaths of people who really have nothing in common is
bizarre but commonplace nowadays.

The idea of an "average mentality" is a non-starter. It is a silly
idea. A wacky idea.

The saturation on the airwaves, internet and print media of rabid
partisanship plays a role, I suppose.

There is nothing to be gained by such overgeneralization of people. It
was a technique recommended by the CIA to attack people who questioned
the Warren Commission Report. But it has become old hat nowadays when
we observe LNs commenting on the wackiest LN theory.

Lay down your arms. Rhetoric is for the pulpit not serious research.


Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Torontoi

claviger

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 11:12:52 AM12/8/09
to
> >>> "Typical mentality of LN's." <<<
>
> Indeed it is. With that mentality being:
>
> Dismiss stupid shit that has no basis in fact whatsoever.
David,

The mentality of LNs is very simple. We adopt the attitude "I'm from
Missouri. Show me."
Like the little old lady in the commercial, "Where's the beef?!"

CTs can't produce either, so they go shopping at the Theories-R-Us
bookstore, which is why we have umpteen theories surrounding this
case.


Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 11:28:05 AM12/8/09
to
On 8 Dec 2009 11:12:52 -0500, claviger <histori...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Dec 7, 7:54�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>>
>> >>> "Typical mentality of LN's." <<<
>>
>> Indeed it is. With that mentality being:
>>
>> Dismiss stupid shit that has no basis in fact whatsoever.
>David,
>
>The mentality of LNs is very simple. We adopt the attitude "I'm from
>Missouri. Show me."

Here again, we notice an LN poster with a seeming inability to qualify
his statements. Whether this is simply due to lack of care in
preparing the post or simple rhetorical partisanship, we cannot be
sure, but it clearly reveals a mentality less than comfortable with
black and white situations.

As some LNs have amply demonstrated themselves, plenty of LNs have
offered wacky theories, yet some LNs overlook that fact when they
leap to unjustified generalizations. We can be sure John McAdams does
not do so, and grades his students on the strength of their argument
rather than their opinion on the assassination.


>Like the little old lady in the commercial, "Where's the beef?!"

Ask one LN where the shot hit the head, and you'll get one answer; ask
another and you'll get another answer.

>CTs can't produce either, so they go shopping at the Theories-R-Us
>bookstore, which is why we have umpteen theories surrounding this
>case.

There is a list of wacky theories propounded by LNs for your perusal
on the newsgroup.

LNs have no lock on wacky theories by any means, but they contribute
their fair share. Be gentle on them. Use qualifiers.


Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto


>

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 11:34:16 AM12/8/09
to

>>> "David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics. It is between those who seek the truth and those who do not. .... Which "side" are you on David?" <<<


I'm on the side where all of the common sense resides.

And I'm on the side where all of the physical evidence resides too --
the "Lone Assassin Named Oswald" side.

You, Robert Harris, have added in a bunch of gunshots that only exist
in your conspiracy-oriented mind, and nowhere else.

But at the end of the day you're still left having to explain the
PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, which is physical evidence that does NOT support
"conspiracy" in the JFK murder case.

The physical evidence--all of it--conclusively supports the following
conclusion:

Lee Harvey Oswald took his own rifle to work with him on 11/22/63 and
fired three shots from that gun at John F. Kennedy, killing the
President with the third shot.

Period.

Your theory about a shooter in the Dal-Tex Building AND another
shooter in front of JFK's car doesn't make any logical sense at all,
especially your theory that has a series of SILENCED shots coming from
the Dal-Tex.

Here's why your theory is illogical from the get-go (no matter which
way you choose to go with respect to the question of: "Was Lee Harvey
Oswald just a patsy?"):

1.) If Oswald was being framed as a lone patsy for President Kennedy's
assassination, then your theory involving at least two other gunmen
(besides Oswald) falls to pieces right off the bat -- because there's
no way in the world that any sane and rational "plotters" are going to
risk shooting at JFK from at least THREE directions (using at least
THREE different guns, of course) and then expect all of the evidence
to lead back to JUST THE PATSY named Oswald in the Book Depository.
That idea is nuts on its face. (And somebody should go inform Oliver
Stone of this fact asap, too.)

2.) And if Oswald wasn't being "set up" to take the lone fall for
JFK's murder, then there would be absolutely no reason under the moon
for any of the Dealey Plaza shooters to be using SILENCERS on their
weapons. (Silencers, as you rightly point out in your video, can cause
serious problems with the guns they are attached to, often resulting
in the target being missed entirely.)

As a further reminder to Bob Harris and all other conspiracy
theorists, I offer up the following two images, which are images that
(in tandem) tell an important and often-overlooked story with respect
to where the evidence leads in the murder case of John F. Kennedy:

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/074a.+THREE+BULLET+SHELLS+FOUND+IN+TSBD+SNIPER%27S+NEST?gda=KTWiOGkAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQfpQVYgpeh-HD5lx9-F_quOb4nxXGSepDGQKscLxMDR5-SFN4DNGB16sScKia7Zks-hEblyNrtl_F7CWyFgZ_lI5mdpvIvJW3QPcvTrj7Q2aECKgQbmraGdxlZulaYnsh&gsc=t5yRRgsAAABY9A6lPbxVYJFdXpLLyMNG

http://Reclaiming-History.googlegroups.com/web/120g.+NUMBER+OF+SHOTS?gda=NfskXUcAAADQI8aFoPPpMPozfQ5vu_qQ_N_iIw9tV7Ur2Tn7AuZdBrcKqjfENqtvcpakP4Wj9PkVe7Cvjttfwe-VNM4IQOtseV4duv6pDMGhhhZdjQlNAw&gsc=t5yRRgsAAABY9A6lPbxVYJFdXpLLyMNG


Maybe it's time to face facts, Robert Harris -- your theories about
the way John Kennedy died simply do not mesh with the hard facts and
evidence connected to the President's assassination.

How many more years will you keep pretending that your subjective
theories are a legitimate substitute for the real facts and evidence
in the JFK case?


David Von Pein
December 7-8, 2009

http://www.The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com


ShutterBun

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 1:05:33 PM12/8/09
to

Herb's right: they were not "Russian" newspapers. Marxist or
Communist newspapers would be more accurate. But yes, I thought I had
put a pretty decent nail in the "misaligned shadows" theory a while
ago.
I'd be happy to repost:

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/40/oswald133ab.jpg
http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/9454/oswald133bfinaldate.jpg
http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2889/oswald133b34angles.jpg

Slight discrepancies in modeling aside, this should prove once and for
all that any shadow anomalies are stricltly caused by the position of
the objects in 3-D space, and how they react with the terrain/
surrounding object. This is the same type of argument the Moon-
landing Hoax crowd have been claiming about the LEM shadows, and
disproven just as easily.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 1:07:02 PM12/8/09
to

>>> "Didn't Shutterbun put this whole thing to rest a while back, with his use of a program that re-creates shadows of the proper angle and length, dependent on the longitude, latitude, and year/month/day/hour/minute data?" <<<

No debunked theory is ever put "to rest" according to conspiracy
theorists. The CTers will merely wait 48 hours and drag the debunked
theory out of the closet for the 1500th time.

Another good example of this is the "Oswald In Doorway" nonsense.
There are still CTers that are convinced it was LHO in that doorway,
and no amount of refuting it will dissuade their fantasy.

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-professor-finds-that-iconic.html

Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 1:14:57 PM12/8/09
to
On 8 Dec 2009 13:07:02 -0500, David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>


>>>> "Didn't Shutterbun put this whole thing to rest a while back, with his use of a program that re-creates shadows of the proper angle and length, dependent on the longitude, latitude, and year/month/day/hour/minute data?" <<<
>

>No debunked theory is ever put "to rest" according to [some] conspiracy
>theorists. [Some] CTers will merely wait 48 hours and drag the debunked


>theory out of the closet for the 1500th time.
>
>Another good example of this is the "Oswald In Doorway" nonsense.

>There are still [some] CTers that are convinced it was LHO in that doorway,


>and no amount of refuting it will dissuade their fantasy.
>
>http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-professor-finds-that-iconic.html

Ya, and some people still think the earth is flat. So what?

Some poeple deny global warming. So what?

There are lots of kooky ideas out there.

Now tell us about the shipping casket that was opened at Bethesda.

What time did the casket arrive anyway?

Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto

John Blubaugh

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 2:34:37 PM12/8/09
to

This last statement makes no sense. On one hand the LNs have always
said that one of the reasons Oswald must have acted alone is that no
one else has ever stepped up an taken credit for it. There had been no
death bed confession (although there was, they just wouldn't accept
it). This must mean that Oswald was the LN. Then you say here that
this is CT thought. Absurd!! By the way, if you had a little fire and
brimstone here and there in this diatribe, you would sound a whole lot
like Obaba's exminister.

JB

tomnln

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 3:57:31 PM12/8/09
to

I notice You had no comment on the CIA running Anti-Castro/Pro-Castro
Organizations "TOGETHER" from the Same Address.

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/3126%20%20HARLENDALE.htm

3126 Harlendale


"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c398da5-362d-4cbb...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 3:57:54 PM12/8/09
to
On Dec 8, 9:22 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On 7 Dec 2009 20:54:42 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...


This coming from the fellow who started a thread called "The Common
Thread Among LNs..."!
/sandy

bigdog

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 3:58:37 PM12/8/09
to

Wrong, Bob. The battle here is between those who know the truth and
those who are wandering aimlessly in search of it.

jas

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 4:02:35 PM12/8/09
to
On Dec 8, 7:22 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:

>
> Lay down your arms. Rhetoric is for the pulpit not serious research.
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Torontoi

rest of post snipped for space

Ah, there's those two controversial "R" words in one sentence regarding
the JFK assassination debate -- research and rhetoric.

Research what? The JFK assassination was solved 45 years ago, then re-
solved 30 years ago. Last time I looked, "researching" in science is
trying to find out an unknown. The only major recent exception is
Bugliosi's book, but this was written not to research further any new
aspect of the case but rather to reiterate what actually happened, then
research and discuss -- then debunk -- the numerous conspiracy theories
that have cropped up since 1963. It is a book to finally "set the record
straight."

I applaud the people, both CT and LN, who take the time and effort to read
and study both sides of the assassination, with, at times maybe a CT
offering up a fresh way to look at an already debunked angle, as with Bob
Harris' theory of a Z-285 shot from the Dal-Tex. It's obvious he really
believes this shot occurred, and he goes to great lengths to try to prove
it. This effort in itself is noble and I give him an A for effort.

It's also very helpful when people like Dave Reitzes, John McAdams, Dave
Von Pein, tomnln (Rossley), and others take the time to construct and
maintain some very good, in depth and informative web sites concerning the
assassination, as well as rebut the CT arguments in their many
well-written articles.

But, in the final analysis, the assassination has already been researched
with a fine tooth comb, and its conclusions already reached that Oswald
acted alone -- a long time ago. Really, the only "research" left to be
done is the LNs constantly quashing the CT claims of a conspiracy, and
maybe a conspiracy author taking on a grey area such as the Odio incident
in a failed attempt to show a conspiracy in his/her book, as in Kaiser's
"Road to Dallas."

This is why I like to use rhetoric in my posts here, because after all the
research has been done, rhetoric sometimes is needed to simply reaffirm
what really happened in Dealey.


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 4:41:02 PM12/8/09
to
On 12/8/2009 1:07 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>>>> "Didn't Shutterbun put this whole thing to rest a while back, with his use of a program that re-creates shadows of the proper angle and length, dependent on the longitude, latitude, and year/month/day/hour/minute data?"<<<
>
> No debunked theory is ever put "to rest" according to conspiracy
> theorists. The CTers will merely wait 48 hours and drag the debunked
> theory out of the closet for the 1500th time.
>

No debunked theory is ever put "to rest" according to the WC defenders.
The WC defenders will merely wait 48 hours and drag the debunked theory
out of the closet for the 1500th time. And they'll log on every month with
a new alias and post the same crap as before.

> Another good example of this is the "Oswald In Doorway" nonsense.
> There are still CTers that are convinced it was LHO in that doorway,
> and no amount of refuting it will dissuade their fantasy.
>

Another good example of this is the Single Bullet Theory. There are
still WC defenders who believe that fiction, and no amount of refuting it

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 5:01:36 PM12/8/09
to
On 12/8/2009 11:34 AM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>

>>>> "David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics.
It is between those who seek the truth and those who do not. .... Which
"side" are you on David?"<<<

>
>
> I'm on the side where all of the common sense resides.
>

That's a good tactic. When you don't have any facts or evidence on your
side, claim that you're using common sense. Like the common sense that
told everyone that the Earth is flat.

John Blubaugh

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 5:16:57 PM12/8/09
to

The battle here is between those who THINK they know the truth and
those who are constantly asking questions and examining evidence.

JB

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 5:19:15 PM12/8/09
to

The old tricks are the best tricks. McAdams and his ilk still resort to
Red Baiting. Guess they didn't read that the Cold War is over. McCarthyism
is so last Century.

> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Torontoi
>
>
>
>
>


John McAdams

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 5:20:42 PM12/8/09
to
On 8 Dec 2009 17:19:15 -0500, Anthony Marsh
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:


Oh, my, we wouldn't want to say bad things about Communists, would we?


>Guess they didn't read that the Cold War is over.

I noticed.

My side won.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

aeffects

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 5:22:21 PM12/8/09
to

battle? when will you *begin* the battle? begin with the WCR? carry on
shithead!

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 5:30:14 PM12/8/09
to


Well, it was interesting, but it didn't answer all the questions and he
could not answer all my questions.

I happen to believe that the backyard photographs are genuine, but it is
not reassuring to me when people try to prove it and screw up little
details which open the door for the kooks.

Same thing with the autopsy photographs and X-rays. And Zapruder film.


Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 7:23:17 PM12/8/09
to
On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:20:42 GMT, john.m...@marquette.edu (John
McAdams) wrote:

>On 8 Dec 2009 17:19:15 -0500, Anthony Marsh
><anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>On 12/8/2009 9:22 AM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>>> On 7 Dec 2009 20:54:42 -0500, David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>The old tricks are the best tricks. McAdams and his ilk still resort to
>>Red Baiting.
>
>
>Oh, my, we wouldn't want to say bad things about Communists, would we?
>
>
>>Guess they didn't read that the Cold War is over.
>
>I noticed.
>
>My side won.


Yup.

Now you have to get that national debt under control or your country's
credit rating will be downgraded. It would be lovely to hear a
politician admit raising taxes is a necessity.

>
>.John


PF

tomnln

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 8:35:35 PM12/8/09
to

"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8eafbd9f-fcf7-4b6d...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

On Dec 7, 10:12 pm, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> David, around here, the battle is not between nutters and critics. It is
> between those who seek the truth and those who do not.
>
> Sadly, those who do not, identify themselves by their closed minds, their
> bigotry, and their hatred of those who prove them wrong.
>
> Which "side" are you on David?
>
> Robert Harris
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
bigdog wrote;

Wrong, Bob. The battle here is between those who know the truth and
those who are wandering aimlessly in search of it.


I write;

The battle is between the LN's who Repeat the "Charges/Conclusions" of the
WCR.
(Without benefit of evidence/testimony)
AND;

The CT's who Disagree with those "conclusions" WITH "Evidence/Testimony".

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 8:36:02 PM12/8/09
to

It wasn't early March, Herb, it was the last day of March.

Common sense dictates this: One picture was positively linked to Oswald's
camera, which means that ALL the pictures are certainly genuine. (Or would
you like to theorize about plotters creating fake pics even though at
least one genuine existed depicting an identical scene in that Neely
backyard.)


A CTer's lack of logical thinking never ceases to entertain the acj/ aaj
masses.

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 8:38:35 PM12/8/09
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/2652623ef90792c5


>>> "This last statement [in the post linked above] makes no sense. On one

hand the LNs have always said that one of the reasons Oswald must have

acted alone is that no one else has ever stepped up and taken credit for
it." <<<

I don't recall having ever utilized that line of thinking before.

But it would be nice if some CTer (somewhere) could place a little bit of
solid evidence on the table to back up their notions that other bullets
besides Oswald's penetrated the victims.

Don't you agree?


>>> "There had been no deathbed confession (although there was, they just
wouldn't accept it)." <<<

Of course not. Because no "confession" has ever been backed up by any kind
of solid support or evidence. Might as well have had my grandmother
confess before she passed on. Her confession would have been just as valid
as any we've seen to date, including Jimmy Files' laughable story
(although, granted, Files didn't concoct his bald- faced lies while on his
"deathbed").

>>> "By the way, if you had a little fire and brimstone here and there in

this diatribe, you would sound a whole lot like Oba[m]a's exminister." <<<

I've got some ordered from "F&B.com". It should be arriving shortly. (I
got a good holiday deal on the brimstone, too. 2-for-1 sale.)

http://www.DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com


Herbert Blenner

unread,
Dec 8, 2009, 11:49:34 PM12/8/09
to

You are misreading my criticism of DVP. My disagreement with David's claim
that the sun was nearly directly overhead is not an endorsement of those
who say the shadows are wrong. This should be obvious to anyone who
realizes that when the sun is near the zenith objects cast shadows of
negligible length.

At the spring equinox in late March, the maximum inclination angle of the
sun for Dallas would have been 57 degree. This angle is 33 degree from
directly overhead.

The rate of change of this maximum inclination angle was approximately 2.7
degree per week. So for early March this maximum inclination angle would
have been about 52 degree and approximately 60 degree for early April. In
all cases the sun was far from being nearly overhead.

Herbert

bigdog

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 12:08:47 AM12/9/09
to

You can refute that the earth is round too I people will continue to
believe it. Why? Because it is true. Just because you can't handle the
truth doesn't mean the rest of us should reject it.

bigdog

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 12:09:11 AM12/9/09
to

Maybe someday "those who are constantly asking questions and examining
evidence" will be able to come up with some answers, but they never can
seem to get past the "asking questions" phase. But what the hell. It's
only been 46 years. No sense in rushing these things.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 12:16:26 AM12/9/09
to

Deval Patrick. It's called political suicide.

>>
>> .John
>
>
> PF


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 12:17:47 AM12/9/09
to
On 12/8/2009 5:20 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2009 17:19:15 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/8/2009 9:22 AM, Peter Fokes wrote:
>>> On 7 Dec 2009 20:54:42 -0500, David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The old tricks are the best tricks. McAdams and his ilk still resort to
>> Red Baiting.
>
>
> Oh, my, we wouldn't want to say bad things about Communists, would we?
>

You can't, you don't. They're our largest creditor, our largest trading
partner. That's fine with you.

>
>> Guess they didn't read that the Cold War is over.
>
> I noticed.
>
> My side won.
>

Our side won.

claviger

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 3:28:22 PM12/9/09
to
Peter,

> >The mentality of LNs is very simple. We adopt the attitude "I'm from
> >Missouri. Show me."

> Here again, we notice an LN poster with a seeming inability to qualify
> his statements.  Whether this is simply due to lack of care in
> preparing the post or simple rhetorical  partisanship, we cannot be
> sure, but it clearly reveals a mentality less than comfortable with
> black and white situations.  
What part of "Show me" did you not understand?
I'm comfortable with Black, White or Gray. For instance, One Shooter
does not guarantee No Conspiracy, nor does Two Shooters guarantee
Conspiracy. Is that gray enough for you?

> As some LNs have amply demonstrated themselves, plenty of LNs have
> offered wacky theories, yet some LNs overlook that fact when they
> leap to unjustified generalizations.
Can you name some of those plentiful examples? 

> We can be sure John McAdams does not do so, and
> grades his students on the strength of their argument
> rather than their opinion on the assassination.
Doesn't their argument support their opinion? How often are they
different?

> Ask one LN where the shot hit the head, and you'll get one answer; ask
> another and you'll get another answer.
Yes that is a lively debate, EOP vs cowlick. One LN makes a compelling
argument for a shot z270.
And there is some difference of opinion on when and where the first
shot took place. By and large LNs agree the facts point to one
assassin who had the ability to pull off a low tech ambush of the
Presidential motorcade from an elevated position not easily recognized
and safe from return fire, which offered a possible chance to escape.

> There is a list of wacky theories propounded by LNs for your perusal
> on the newsgroup.  
Where is that list located? When you say "wacky" do you mean
illogical, implausible, impossible, irrational, or mentally
incompetent?

> LNs have no lock on wacky theories by any means, but they contribute
> their fair share. Be gentle on them.  Use qualifiers.
Can you point to those wacky theories so we can discuss them?

What is interesting about your commentary is that I get the feeling
most CTers think LNers are in lockstep with each other, so thanks for
noticing that is not the case. What I do see however, is the LN
community doesn't have as large a deviation from the mean as the CT
community. There is much more diversity in CT opinions and they are a
lot more creative in their thinking. I also notice they are more
accommodating in the acceptance of what they deem as evidence. What
amazes me is how often a CT will point to one possible fact and
celebrate this discovery as the key that unlocks the whole mystery. So
often they find it is far less significant than they thought. A case
in point is the paper sack debate.

By contrast LNs are more holistic in considering the available
evidence. Some CTs are completely flummoxed when asked how their pet
fact fits into the whole puzzle. There is no question CTs are more
emotionally invested in the conspiracy solution, with an almost
religious fervor. For them it is more of a crusade than an
investigation. I started off a convinced CT but a noticed a trend. CT
books made bold statements but never delivered on the expectations
they aroused. If facts ever surface proving conspiracy I can shrug and
say, oh well, I was right the first time. There is no question the
Kennedy brothers had enemies and I can understand the motives of those
various enemies, so if conspiracy is ever proved beyond a doubt I can
accept it, but here is the problem. After 46 years there has been no
compelling evidence or credible confessions to confirm conspiracy.
Until that kind of evidence is forthcoming I don't see how the basic
LN theory can be characterized as wacky.

jbarge

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 5:39:57 PM12/9/09
to
> only been 46 years. No sense in rushing these things.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They've just figured out Thomas Jefferson fathered a child with a
slave and that Napoleon died from arsenic poisoning.
The idea that a length of time is relevant to the truth is simply
absurd.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 9:42:14 PM12/9/09
to
On 12/9/2009 3:28 PM, claviger wrote:
> Peter,
>
>>> The mentality of LNs is very simple. We adopt the attitude "I'm from
>>> Missouri. Show me."
>> Here again, we notice an LN poster with a seeming inability to qualify
>> his statements. Whether this is simply due to lack of care in
>> preparing the post or simple rhetorical partisanship, we cannot be
>> sure, but it clearly reveals a mentality less than comfortable with
>> black and white situations.
> What part of "Show me" did you not understand?
> I'm comfortable with Black, White or Gray. For instance, One Shooter
> does not guarantee No Conspiracy, nor does Two Shooters guarantee
> Conspiracy. Is that gray enough for you?
>

Gray? How about transparent? You seriously claim two shooter does not
mean conspiracy? How about 100? Just a coincidence, eh?

>> As some LNs have amply demonstrated themselves, plenty of LNs have
>> offered wacky theories, yet some LNs overlook that fact when they
>> leap to unjustified generalizations.
> Can you name some of those plentiful examples?
>

SBT, Hickey. Oswald paid $6,500 by a red-haired Negro DGI agent to
assassinate Kennedy.

jas

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 9:46:28 PM12/9/09
to

Oh, au contraire, mon fraire!

It's not absurd.

Did "they" perform two separate exhaustive and in-depth investigations
within 20 years after this Jefferson "conception," and after Napoleon
died in order to find these facts out?

No.

Did "they" perform two exhaustive and in-depth investigations within
20 years after the JFK assassination with the conclusion that Oswald
acted alone?

Yes.

My point is made.

Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 11:01:25 PM12/9/09
to
On 8 Dec 2009 15:57:54 -0500, Sandy McCroskey
<gwmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:


Tis a pleasant sport to watch the LN's frolick and play!

Reminds me of bear-baiting, etc.

<quote on>

It was a sport very pleasant, of these beasts, to see the bear with
his pink eyes leering after his enemies approach, the nimbleness and
wayt of the dog to take his advantage, and the force and experience
of the bear again to avoid the assaults. If he were bitten in one
place, how he would pinch in another to get free, that if he were
taken once, then what shift, with biting, with clawing, with roaring,
tossing and tumbling, he would work to wind himself free from them.
And when he was loose, to shake his ears twice or thrice with the
blood and the slather about his physiognomy, was a matter of goodly
relief.

<quote off>


Robert Laneham letter describing spectacle of bear-baiting in 1575.

Of course, no blood is shed here.

Almost, but not a drop!

Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto


bigdog

unread,
Dec 9, 2009, 11:08:41 PM12/9/09
to
> absurd.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You're right. In this case, the truth was determined within 12 hours.
Then there was the case of Zachary Taylor. They dug him up a few years
ago. Guess what they found out. He's still dead.

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 10, 2009, 10:47:02 AM12/10/09
to


My regards—somewhat askance—to you too, Mr. Fokes.
(If, indeed, you are addressing me...)
/sandy


markmark

unread,
Dec 10, 2009, 2:03:00 PM12/10/09
to
On Dec 8, 1:14 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2009 13:07:02 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>

> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>>> "Didn't Shutterbun put this whole thing to rest a while back, with his use of a program that re-creates shadows of the proper angle and length, dependent on the longitude, latitude, and year/month/day/hour/minute data?" <<<
>
> >No debunked theory is ever put "to rest" according to [some] conspiracy
> >theorists. [Some] CTers will merely wait 48 hours and drag the debunked

> >theory out of the closet for the 1500th time.
>
> >Another good example of this is the "Oswald In Doorway" nonsense.
> >There are still [some] CTers that are convinced it was LHO in that doorway,

> >and no amount of refuting it will dissuade their fantasy.
>
> >http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-professor-finds-that-i...
>
> Ya, and some people still think the earth is flat. So what?
>
> Some poeple deny global warming. So what?
>
> There are lots of kooky ideas out there.
>
> Now tell us about the shipping casket that was opened at Bethesda.
>
> What time did the casket arrive anyway?
>
> Regards,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto

Peter

You lump global warming deniers in with Flat Earthers? You have got to be
kidding! I’m a proud member of the global warming deniers for a very
good reason. The whole thing is a hoax. There hasn’t been any global
warming since 1998. And although there has been some warming during the
20th Century, it was warmer in the 1930s than it is today. And it was also
about 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period after the last
ice-age than it is now. How do you explain that in light of the fact that
there was practically no man-made carbon dioxide before the industrial
revolution? And the Earth was just fine back then. Greenland was actually
green.

Time for some common sense. If you swallow Al Gore’s theory, that the
average temperature of the Earth grew by about 1 degree during the 20th
Century, and it’s our fault because of CO2 emissions, then you have a
big problem. By default, you have to believe that the Earth’s average
temperature stayed constant, not varying even one degree for thousands of
years, and then only started to rise during modern times. Otherwise, what
is the significance of a one degree rise? Obviously this is ridiculous. I
know of no one who would admit to believing such a thing. And yet,
that’s exactly what they have to believe. And consider this. CO2 makes
up about 1/3 of one percent of our atmosphere, a very small amount. The
vast majority of that is natural. That means the minuscule amount that we
have put in has been causing the temperature to rise? Be real!

If you want some good reading on the subject, get Dr. Fred Singer’s book
“Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 Years.” Singer is one of the
world’s leading climatologists. He lays out exactly what’s been
happening with global warming and cooling. Hint: it has nothing to do with
mankind.

Mark

John McAdams

unread,
Dec 10, 2009, 2:10:49 PM12/10/09
to
On 10 Dec 2009 14:03:00 -0500, markmark <markc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>On Dec 8, 1:14=A0pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> On 8 Dec 2009 13:07:02 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-professor-finds-that-i...
>>
>> Ya, and some people still think the earth is flat. So what?
>>
>> Some poeple deny global warming. So what?
>>
>> There are lots of kooky ideas out there.
>>
>> Now tell us about the shipping casket that was opened at Bethesda.
>>
>> What time did the casket arrive anyway?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
>Peter
>
>You lump global warming deniers in with Flat Earthers? You have got to be

>kidding! I=92m a proud member of the global warming deniers for a very
>good reason. The whole thing is a hoax. There hasn=92t been any global

>warming since 1998. And although there has been some warming during the
>20th Century, it was warmer in the 1930s than it is today. And it was also
>about 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period after the last
>ice-age than it is now. How do you explain that in light of the fact that
>there was practically no man-made carbon dioxide before the industrial
>revolution? And the Earth was just fine back then. Greenland was actually
>green.
>

>Time for some common sense. If you swallow Al Gore=92s theory, that the

>average temperature of the Earth grew by about 1 degree during the 20th

>Century, and it=92s our fault because of CO2 emissions, then you have a
>big problem. By default, you have to believe that the Earth=92s average

>temperature stayed constant, not varying even one degree for thousands of
>years, and then only started to rise during modern times. Otherwise, what
>is the significance of a one degree rise? Obviously this is ridiculous. I
>know of no one who would admit to believing such a thing. And yet,

>that=92s exactly what they have to believe. And consider this. CO2 makes

>up about 1/3 of one percent of our atmosphere, a very small amount. The
>vast majority of that is natural. That means the minuscule amount that we
>have put in has been causing the temperature to rise? Be real!
>

>If you want some good reading on the subject, get Dr. Fred Singer=92s book
>=93Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 Years.=94 Singer is one of the
>world=92s leading climatologists. He lays out exactly what=92s been

>happening with global warming and cooling. Hint: it has nothing to do with
>mankind.
>

The irony here is that we have a genuine climate conspiracy.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300ubchn.asp?pg=1

. . . but people like Peter are going to deny or minimize it, since
the conspirators are on there side of the ideological spectrum!

Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 10, 2009, 2:54:59 PM12/10/09
to

I haven't followed the climate conspiracy controversy and have no
opinion.

I do know that a frigate plying the waters of the Artic encountered
ice sheets that broke apart with ease for huge distances despite
recent geological surveys that stated the ice was thick and solid.

My concern with climate has nothing to do with ideology, as John
suggest. That is just rhetoric on his part.

I do know for a fact it is -5 celsius here, and I woke up early to
shovel snow off the driveway!


>
>.John


Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto

claviger

unread,
Dec 10, 2009, 10:23:42 PM12/10/09
to
JB,

> This last statement makes no sense. On one hand the LNs have always


> said that one of the reasons Oswald must have acted alone is that no

> one else has ever stepped up an taken credit for it. There had been no
> death bed confession (although there was, they just wouldn't accept
> it).

If you believe that "confession" by E Howard Hunt then you know the CIA
had nothing to do with the assassination. Hunt claims Sturgis was putting
together a team to plan a hit and opines he was acting on direct authority
from Cord Meyer, who blamed JFK for breaking up his marriage. LBJ was
aware of Meyer's vendetta and did nothing to stop it. How and why they
decided on a Corsican hit man is not explained. So there you have it. JFK
was not murdered for political reasons, the motive was primal basic
instinct.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 12:18:04 AM12/11/09
to

The best time to do something about a catastrophy is before it happens
rather than after it.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 12:20:06 AM12/11/09
to

Climate change is not a conspiracy. It is a natural consequence of greed
and unethical business practices. The only conspiracy is by some of those
businesses to deny that they played any part in it.

John McAdams

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 12:21:47 AM12/11/09
to
On 11 Dec 2009 00:20:06 -0500, Anthony Marsh
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

Read the article.

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

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 12:23:13 AM12/11/09
to
On 12/10/2009 2:03 PM, markmark wrote:
> On Dec 8, 1:14 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>> On 8 Dec 2009 13:07:02 -0500, David Von Pein<davevonp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> "Didn't Shutterbun put this whole thing to rest a while back, with his use of a program that re-creates shadows of the proper angle and length, dependent on the longitude, latitude, and year/month/day/hour/minute data?"<<<
>>
>>> No debunked theory is ever put "to rest" according to [some] conspiracy
>>> theorists. [Some] CTers will merely wait 48 hours and drag the debunked
>>> theory out of the closet for the 1500th time.
>>
>>> Another good example of this is the "Oswald In Doorway" nonsense.
>>> There are still [some] CTers that are convinced it was LHO in that doorway,
>>> and no amount of refuting it will dissuade their fantasy.
>>
>>> http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2009/11/dartmouth-professor-finds-that-i...
>>
>> Ya, and some people still think the earth is flat. So what?
>>
>> Some poeple deny global warming. So what?
>>
>> There are lots of kooky ideas out there.
>>
>> Now tell us about the shipping casket that was opened at Bethesda.
>>
>> What time did the casket arrive anyway?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Fokes,
>> Toronto
>
> Peter
>
> You lump global warming deniers in with Flat Earthers? You have got to be
> kidding! I?m a proud member of the global warming deniers for a very
> good reason. The whole thing is a hoax. There hasn?t been any global

> warming since 1998. And although there has been some warming during the

Naughty, naughty. Didn't you get the memo? You are now supposed to admit
that global warming is real, but that it is natural, not caused by people.

> 20th Century, it was warmer in the 1930s than it is today. And it was also
> about 2 degrees warmer during the medieval warming period after the last
> ice-age than it is now. How do you explain that in light of the fact that
> there was practically no man-made carbon dioxide before the industrial
> revolution? And the Earth was just fine back then. Greenland was actually
> green.
>

You are trying to explain it away as a natural cycle. Of course there are
natural cycles, but other factors can exacerbate or moderate extremes of
the cycle. It may be that we are trying to warm up the Earth to mitigate
the effects of the next ice age. If that is what you are trying to do then
you should claim that you are just tying to save the world. As in the
sense that Klatuu meant in the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still.
Humans don't matter, he's just trying to save planet Earth.

> Time for some common sense. If you swallow Al Gore?s theory, that the


> average temperature of the Earth grew by about 1 degree during the 20th

> Century, and it?s our fault because of CO2 emissions, then you have a
> big problem. By default, you have to believe that the Earth?s average

Wrong tactic. You should claim that is a good thing. Don't admit anything.

> temperature stayed constant, not varying even one degree for thousands of
> years, and then only started to rise during modern times. Otherwise, what

The Earth's temperature does not stay constant. It fluctuates.

> is the significance of a one degree rise? Obviously this is ridiculous. I
> know of no one who would admit to believing such a thing. And yet,

> that?s exactly what they have to believe. And consider this. CO2 makes


> up about 1/3 of one percent of our atmosphere, a very small amount. The
> vast majority of that is natural. That means the minuscule amount that we
> have put in has been causing the temperature to rise? Be real!
>

Ever hear of harmonic reasonance? Or tipping point?

> If you want some good reading on the subject, get Dr. Fred Singer?s book
> ?Unstoppable Global Warming, every 1500 Years.? Singer is one of the
> world?s leading climatologists. He lays out exactly what?s been


> happening with global warming and cooling. Hint: it has nothing to do with
> mankind.
>

Naive.

> Mark
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 11:11:34 AM12/11/09
to

Don't forget the Iceman murdered by a shot in the back with an arrow.


claviger

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 12:35:05 PM12/11/09
to
Peter,

> Now you have to get that national debt under control or your country's
> credit rating  will be downgraded.

So will the currency. The exchange rate for the dollar is a reflection
of the collective international credit rating.

> It would be lovely to hear a politician admit raising taxes is a necessity.

Why would that be lovely, when deficit spending is inherently
irresponsible? So you think it fair that politicians over spend and the
taxpayer gets screwed with paying the bill? That is like some guy having a
big party at a restaurant and the next day sending the tab to all the
neighbors on his street.

There are three basic meanings to the latin root word for tax, one is
neutral and the other two are negative. What it comes down to is the
modern definition of the word ‘tax’ basically means ‘burden’, so
politicians who raise taxes increase the burden on our economy, society,
and taxpayers. Why does that sound “lovely”?


Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Dec 11, 2009, 3:21:40 PM12/11/09
to
On Dec 11, 12:21 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 11 Dec 2009 00:20:06 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
>
>
> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 12/10/2009 2:10 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 10 Dec 2009 14:03:00 -0500, markmark<markcorn...@comcast.net>

> >> wrote:
>
> >> The irony here is that we have a genuine climate conspiracy.
>
> >>http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/017/300...

>
> >> . . . but people like Peter are going to deny or minimize it, since
> >> the conspirators are on there side of the ideological spectrum!
>
> >> .John
>
> >Climate change is not a conspiracy. It is a natural consequence of greed
> >and unethical business practices. The only conspiracy is by some of those
> >businesses to deny that they played any part in it.
>
> Read the article.
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

The article says: "The emails do not in and of themselves reveal that
catastrophic climate change scenarios are a hoax or without any
foundation."
Seems though that a lot of people are taking it for granted that they
do reveal such a thing.
/sm

markmark

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 12:29:37 PM12/12/09
to

Read Dr. Singer's book, then get in touch with him and tell him he's
naive.

Peter Fokes

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 12:49:49 PM12/12/09
to
On 12 Dec 2009 12:29:37 -0500, markmark <markc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

How many cycles has Mr. Singer been able to study with a human
population of the current size? Only a fraction of a cycle? How can
he possible arrive at a conclusion about the effects of of human
beings on this long wave cycle when that variable has increased
exponentially in less than the time frame of ONE of his cycles?

Of course, there might be long wave cycles of climate warming but how
can he judge the magnification of the cycle extremes if the data does
not exist (and it does not) for the impact of massive population
growth and industrialization over the course of more than a FRACTION
of one of his cycles?


Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto


markmark

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 2:16:05 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 12:49 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2009 12:29:37 -0500, markmark <markcorn...@comcast.net>
> Toronto- Hide quoted text -
>


What Dr. Singer does in his book is prove that the evidence Gore and his
people use to prove man-made global warming isn't used correctly. For
instance, he documents how the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels follows
an increase in temperature, rather than causes it. That’s right. First
the CO2 level rose, as a part of a natural cycle, then the Earth warmed
up. His book is well worth reading for anyone who wants the truth.

Mark

markmark

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 2:16:20 PM12/12/09
to
On Dec 12, 12:49 pm, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2009 12:29:37 -0500, markmark <markcorn...@comcast.net>
> Toronto- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How many cycles was the warming side able to study? Their computer
models didn't even predict the slight cooling we've seen the last 10
years. How can they predict the weather way down the road?

Mark

markmark

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 6:59:19 PM12/12/09
to
> Mark- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

OOPS! I wrote that bass akwards. My apologies to Dr. Singer. What I
meant to write was, first the temperature rises, as part of a natural
cycle, then the CO2 level rises.

Mark

John Blubaugh

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 7:11:38 PM12/12/09
to

Perhaps we are more concerned with the Republicans deficit spend to
wage wars all over the place and leave no money for infrastructure
repair or social programs here. But I am sure that spending is just
fine with you.

JB

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 7:49:03 PM12/12/09
to


By noticing long term trends. By comparing photographs of glaciers which
have almost disappeared recently to photographs of the same glaciers which
had grown enormously during the Little Ice Age.

So, do you think global warming is a good thing? You realize, I hope, that
humans have been able to adapt to climate change more successfully than
many other species over the past few millions of years.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 7:52:23 PM12/12/09
to
> an increase in temperature, rather than causes it. That?s right. First

> the CO2 level rose, as a part of a natural cycle, then the Earth warmed
> up. His book is well worth reading for anyone who wants the truth.
>
> Mark
>


Ah, excuse me? You just disproved your own point. You just said that C02
levels rose and then the Earth warmed up. That is global warming. You
have to show that the C02 level was caused by something other than human
activities. Can you do that?


John McAdams

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 7:55:11 PM12/12/09
to
On 12 Dec 2009 19:52:23 -0500, Anthony Marsh
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 12/12/2009 2:16 PM, markmark wrote:
>> On Dec 12, 12:49 pm, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>> On 12 Dec 2009 12:29:37 -0500, markmark<markcorn...@comcast.net>
>>
>>

>> What Dr. Singer does in his book is prove that the evidence Gore and his
>> people use to prove man-made global warming isn't used correctly. For
>> instance, he documents how the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels follows
>> an increase in temperature, rather than causes it. That?s right. First
>> the CO2 level rose, as a part of a natural cycle, then the Earth warmed
>> up. His book is well worth reading for anyone who wants the truth.
>>
>
>

>Ah, excuse me? You just disproved your own point. You just said that C02
>levels rose and then the Earth warmed up. That is global warming. You
>have to show that the C02 level was caused by something other than human
>activities. Can you do that?
>
>

You need to sort of cause and effect. The argument is that the CO2
capacity of the worlds oceans is greater when they are cooler. Thus
warming causes them to give up CO2. If so, warming causes CO2 levels.

.John

bigdog

unread,
Dec 12, 2009, 10:40:16 PM12/12/09