Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mr. Reitzes, why won't you respond?
49 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Sep 27, 2012, 11:12:25 PM9/27/12
to
As I'm sure many of the newsgroup's member know, David Reitzes wrote an
article some time ago entitled, "Impeaching Clinton" in which he claimed
that the Clinton witnesses mistook Estus Morgan for Lee Harvey Oswald.
In previous iterations of this article, David tried to convince his
readers that members of the C.O.R.E. conspired with the KKK to support the
evil Jim Garrison. When that "theory" was laughed out of the newsgroups,
he switched to this theory of misidentification.
What David did not mention however, was that Estus Morgan was 56 years old
in 1963. The notion that he looked enough like Oswald to fool those
witnesses is beyond ridiculous, and the obvious reason why David omitted
the man's age.
So, it's not surprising that David evades my questions. In fact, I was
sure he would. The real test however, is whether Dr. McAdams has the
integrity to remove this outrageously misleading piece of crap from his
website.
I think we all know the answer to that one, dont we :-)
Robert Harris
article some time ago entitled, "Impeaching Clinton" in which he claimed
that the Clinton witnesses mistook Estus Morgan for Lee Harvey Oswald.
In previous iterations of this article, David tried to convince his
readers that members of the C.O.R.E. conspired with the KKK to support the
evil Jim Garrison. When that "theory" was laughed out of the newsgroups,
he switched to this theory of misidentification.
What David did not mention however, was that Estus Morgan was 56 years old
in 1963. The notion that he looked enough like Oswald to fool those
witnesses is beyond ridiculous, and the obvious reason why David omitted
the man's age.
So, it's not surprising that David evades my questions. In fact, I was
sure he would. The real test however, is whether Dr. McAdams has the
integrity to remove this outrageously misleading piece of crap from his
website.
I think we all know the answer to that one, dont we :-)
Robert Harris
black...@aol.com
Sep 28, 2012, 4:38:07 PM9/28/12
to
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:12:25 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
> What David did not mention however, was that Estus Morgan was 56 years old
>
> in 1963. The notion that he looked enough like Oswald to fool those
>
> witnesses is beyond ridiculous, and the obvious reason why David omitted
>
> the man's age.
> Robert Harris
> What David did not mention however, was that Estus Morgan was 56 years old
>
> in 1963. The notion that he looked enough like Oswald to fool those
>
> witnesses is beyond ridiculous, and the obvious reason why David omitted
>
> the man's age.
???
I just read the article, which contains this:
"[Foster's]...friendship with Estus Morgan (who died in 1966) was
confirmed by Morgan's second wife, Nellie Louise Morgan. Morgan would have
been 56 in 1963."
Saintly Oswald
Sep 28, 2012, 9:17:39 PM9/28/12
to
On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:12:25 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
John McAdams
Sep 28, 2012, 9:40:23 PM9/28/12
to
On 28 Sep 2012 16:38:07 -0400, "black...@aol.com"
Looks like Harris has egg on his face.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
Sep 30, 2012, 4:10:39 PM9/30/12
to
It took John and David almost a week to add those words, and even then the
sentence was ambiguous, sounding much like it was Morgan's wife who was
56.
But regardless, the bottom line here is that David's "theory" that the
Clinton witnesses mistook Estus Morgan for Oswald is preposterous. Besides
the fact that Morgan could have been Oswald's great grandfather, he
certainly didn't have a military ID card with a cancellation stamp on it.
Only one man had that.
Robert Harris
John McAdams
Sep 30, 2012, 4:12:39 PM9/30/12
to
On 30 Sep 2012 16:10:39 -0400, Robert Harris <bobha...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>black...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:12:25 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>> What David did not mention however, was that Estus Morgan was 56 years old
>>>
>>> in 1963. The notion that he looked enough like Oswald to fool those
>>>
>>> witnesses is beyond ridiculous, and the obvious reason why David omitted
>>>
>>> the man's age.
>>
>>> Robert Harris
>>
>> ???
>>
>> I just read the article, which contains this:
>>
>> "[Foster's]...friendship with Estus Morgan (who died in 1966) was
>> confirmed by Morgan's second wife, Nellie Louise Morgan. Morgan would have
>> been 56 in 1963."
>>
>>
>
>LOL!! Well, it contains that *now*.
>
>It took John and David almost a week to add those words, and even then the
>sentence was ambiguous, sounding much like it was Morgan's wife who was
>56.
>
You *are* the typical buff, Bob, shouting about evidence fakery when
you silly theory is shot to hell.
Never heard of archive.org, have you?
That essay has not been changed for a decade or more.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
wrote:
>black...@aol.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:12:25 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>>
>>> What David did not mention however, was that Estus Morgan was 56 years old
>>>
>>> in 1963. The notion that he looked enough like Oswald to fool those
>>>
>>> witnesses is beyond ridiculous, and the obvious reason why David omitted
>>>
>>> the man's age.
>>
>>> Robert Harris
>>
>> ???
>>
>> I just read the article, which contains this:
>>
>> "[Foster's]...friendship with Estus Morgan (who died in 1966) was
>> confirmed by Morgan's second wife, Nellie Louise Morgan. Morgan would have
>> been 56 in 1963."
>>
>>
>
>LOL!! Well, it contains that *now*.
>
>It took John and David almost a week to add those words, and even then the
>sentence was ambiguous, sounding much like it was Morgan's wife who was
>56.
>
you silly theory is shot to hell.
Never heard of archive.org, have you?
That essay has not been changed for a decade or more.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
Sep 30, 2012, 6:46:04 PM9/30/12
to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxWGKQFv0gE
Jason Burke
Oct 1, 2012, 1:47:47 PM10/1/12
to
don't like, truth.
John McAdams
Oct 1, 2012, 9:07:23 PM10/1/12
to
If so, why didn't you bother to check it?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bud
Oct 2, 2012, 2:56:21 PM10/2/12
to
On Oct 1, 9:07 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:12:39 -0500, John McAdams
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Sep 2012 15:12:39 -0500, John McAdams
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 30 Sep 2012 16:10:39 -0400, Robert Harris <bobharri...@yahoo.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>blackbu...@aol.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:12:25 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >>>> What David did not mention however, was that Estus Morgan was 56 years old
>
> >>>> in 1963. The notion that he looked enough like Oswald to fool those
>
> >>>> witnesses is beyond ridiculous, and the obvious reason why David omitted
>
> >>>> the man's age.
>
> >>>> Robert Harris
>
> >>> ???
>
> >>> I just read the article, which contains this:
>
> >>> "[Foster's]...friendship with Estus Morgan (who died in 1966) was
> >>> confirmed by Morgan's second wife, Nellie Louise Morgan. Morgan would have
> >>> been 56 in 1963."
>
> >>LOL!! Well, it contains that *now*.
>
> >>It took John and David almost a week to add those words, and even then the
> >>sentence was ambiguous, sounding much like it was Morgan's wife who was
> >>56.
>
> >You *are* the typical buff, Bob, shouting about evidence fakery when
> >you silly theory is shot to hell.
>
> >Never heard of archive.org, have you?
>
> >That essay has not been changed for a decade or more.
>
> Had you heard of archive.org, Bob?
>
> If so, why didn't you bother to check it?
Harris thinks it up to other people to prove him wrong, saves
> >>blackbu...@aol.com wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012 11:12:25 PM UTC-4, Robert Harris wrote:
>
> >>>> What David did not mention however, was that Estus Morgan was 56 years old
>
> >>>> in 1963. The notion that he looked enough like Oswald to fool those
>
> >>>> witnesses is beyond ridiculous, and the obvious reason why David omitted
>
> >>>> the man's age.
>
> >>>> Robert Harris
>
> >>> ???
>
> >>> I just read the article, which contains this:
>
> >>> "[Foster's]...friendship with Estus Morgan (who died in 1966) was
> >>> confirmed by Morgan's second wife, Nellie Louise Morgan. Morgan would have
> >>> been 56 in 1963."
>
> >>LOL!! Well, it contains that *now*.
>
> >>It took John and David almost a week to add those words, and even then the
> >>sentence was ambiguous, sounding much like it was Morgan's wife who was
> >>56.
>
> >You *are* the typical buff, Bob, shouting about evidence fakery when
> >you silly theory is shot to hell.
>
> >Never heard of archive.org, have you?
>
> >That essay has not been changed for a decade or more.
>
> Had you heard of archive.org, Bob?
>
> If so, why didn't you bother to check it?
himself the trouble of showing he is right.
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Reagor King
Oct 2, 2012, 5:36:18 PM10/2/12
to
In article <9r9h6895oe2bj2hku...@4ax.com>,
My understanding when reading the article was not that Dave claimed that
the witnesses confused Estes Morgan with Lee Harvey Oswald. Instead his
argument seemed clearly to be that certain elements only of Morgan's
appearance in the voting registration line were used to concoct the story
of it being Oswald in the line, namely, Morgan being the only, or one of
the very few, white people in the line. Dave's argument seemed to be that
this was altered to make Oswald the only, or one of the few, white people
in the line, and that the story otherwise had nothing to do with the
physical appearance of either man or the age of either man.
the witnesses confused Estes Morgan with Lee Harvey Oswald. Instead his
argument seemed clearly to be that certain elements only of Morgan's
appearance in the voting registration line were used to concoct the story
of it being Oswald in the line, namely, Morgan being the only, or one of
the very few, white people in the line. Dave's argument seemed to be that
this was altered to make Oswald the only, or one of the few, white people
in the line, and that the story otherwise had nothing to do with the
physical appearance of either man or the age of either man.
0 new messages