Kook

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Walt

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 12:28:24 PM1/19/07
to

One of the labels that Warren Commission apologists like to slap on
anybody who doesn't buy the Warren Commission's fairy tale is
....."Kook".

They've been using it for decades.....and it originally was effective,
because few wanted to buck the power of the federal government ( The
power behind the Warren report) nor did they want to be labeled a
"Kook". The label has lost it's effectivness. I don't buy the big
lie of the Warren Report, and I don't give a damn what label the liars
slap on me..... It doesn't change the facts.
Many facts about the murder of President kenedy have emerged over the
decades. Those Facts make it quite clear that the Warren Report is
nothing but an elaborate tapestry woven around half truths, distorted
facts, and out right lies. The irony is: The table has been turned
up-side down. It now clear that only a KOOK would believe the Warren
Report and embrace it as the truth.

Walt

Message has been deleted

HistorianDetective

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 12:46:45 PM1/19/07
to

chuck schuyler wrote:


Chuck,

>
> Great post, kook.

LOL. Short. Simple. And to the point!

Is Walt correct in that people have utilized the term "KOOK" for
decades to describe JFK Assassination Conpiracy Buffs?

And here I thought Bud originally used the term "KOOK" here. If not
Bud, then WHO originated "KOOK" in relation to CBs.

JM

Bud

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 1:02:41 PM1/19/07
to

Walt wrote:
> One of the labels that Warren Commission apologists like to slap on
> anybody who doesn't buy the Warren Commission's fairy tale is
> ....."Kook".

You kooks earned it by spouting silliness.

> They've been using it for decades....

Because it applies.

>.and it originally was effective,

Still is, because it is accurate.

> because few wanted to buck the power of the federal government

This is the thinking that is supposed to disuade us from calling you
people kooks. This tirade has no basis in reality, the general public
has no fear believing anything it wants to.

>( The
> power behind the Warren report) nor did they want to be labeled a
> "Kook".

Yet kooks claim a majority agrees with them. Apparently this fear
can be overcome, most likely because it doesn`t exist.

> The label has lost it's effectivness.

Next you will claim it is no longer effective to call dogs "dogs".

> I don't buy the big
> lie of the Warren Report,

Prefering to replace it with thousands of little lies, and
unsupportable tales of intrigue.

> and I don't give a damn what label the liars
> slap on me.....

Kook works. Crackpot is too many letters.

> It doesn't change the facts.

The fact is that you are a kook.

> Many facts about the murder of President kenedy have emerged over the
> decades.

Including a correct spelling of his name.

> Those Facts

Facts gets capitalization. kenedy does not. Go figure.

> make it quite clear that the Warren Report is
> nothing but an elaborate tapestry woven around half truths, distorted
> facts, and out right lies.

Actually, the WC came to the only reasonable conclusion available.
Certainly nothing the kooks produce is a serious contender.

> The irony is: The table has been turned
> up-side down. It now clear that only a KOOK would believe the Warren
> Report and embrace it as the truth.

Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz
did it alone. It`s not a difficult choice to make. Out of all the
hundreds of actions supposedly committed by the conspirators, can the
kooks establish one particular action by a particular person that was
conspiracy-driven? If Marina was coached, who did it, when exactly? If
the witnesses to the Tippit murder were intimidated, what officer did
it at what time? Document this crap instead of just claiming it must
have happened.

> Walt

tomnln

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 1:53:47 PM1/19/07
to
BOTTOM POST;

"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:1169229761.1...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...

=======================================================================


> Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz
> did it alone. It`s not a difficult choice to make. Out of all the
> hundreds of actions supposedly committed by the conspirators, can the
> kooks establish one particular action by a particular person that was
> conspiracy-driven? If Marina was coached, who did it, when exactly? If
> the witnesses to the Tippit murder were intimidated, what officer did
> it at what time? Document this crap instead of just claiming it must
> have happened.
>

The authorities who "Threatened" Marina with Deportation. Would you care
to address it?
==================================================================


cdddraftsman

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 5:28:22 PM1/19/07
to
Good one ' Kook ' Rossley ! .....................tl

Walt

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 6:00:07 PM1/19/07
to

Why the hell don't you spend a little more time studying the case and a
little less time making an ass outta yerself by asking questions which
expose yer ignorance. Marina was taken to a ranch in new Mexico by CIA
agent Pricilla McMillan Johnson where they spent several months in the
spring of 1964. Johnson coached and indoctrinated Marina before she
appeared before the Warren Commission.


Walt

Bud

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 6:02:24 PM1/19/07
to

I doubt I could in any way you could comprehend it. In the hope that
other more sensible people than yourself are reading this (which
creates sort of a paradox, if they are truly sensible, what the fuck
are they doing reading this?), I will attempt an explaination that will
slam against your consciousness like a bug on a truck grill. Law
enforcement personel often use threats to get unwilling people to
cooperate, whether it`s threatening a harsh sentence to a suspect, or
threatening ramifications to reluctant witnesses. They want
information, and they don`t mind scaring people to get it. Now, I
don`t suppose you would like to address the point I actually did make,
that you kooks can`t document exactlly who it was who coached Marina to
give incriminating evidence against her husband, and exactlly when it
was done.

.

> ==================================================================

Ben Holmes

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 6:43:31 PM1/19/07
to
In article <1169247607....@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...


LNT'ers always end up tripping themselves up, and showing what they *don't* know
about this case...

aeffects

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 7:31:53 PM1/19/07
to

chuck schuyler wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> Great post, kook.

Chuckie-poo when did they let your sorry ass out? I was beginning to
think Lower_y became the prominent ego. We can't have that now, hell
you'd need to get your posting volume up to snuff -- this Nutter-Neuter
posting output of yours is rather, how do you say it, pathetic?

If we're CT kooks, what does that make your sorry ass? GOD, you have no
shame......

Carry on girl!

Bud

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 7:56:52 PM1/19/07
to

Note I said "document", not just claim.

tomnln

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 8:42:11 PM1/19/07
to
Thanks KOOK-SUCKER.

"cdddraftsman" <cdddra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1169245702.3...@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

tomnln

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 8:48:27 PM1/19/07
to
Marina was NOT a "suspect".

I guess in your family being Deported & leaving your children behind is
Acceptable.

No wonder you're an Atheist.

As for illegal activities by the authorities see>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm


"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message

news:1169247744.6...@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 9:08:53 PM1/19/07
to
>>> "Is Walt correct in that people have utilized the term "KOOK" for decades to describe JFK Assassination Conpiracy Buffs?" <<<

No, he's not correct. (At least I never, ever heard the term "kook"
being used by LNers before I noticed Bud using it regularly here at
this forum.)

As per the norm, it appears that Walt is weaving an untrue tale.
Nothing new there. After all, he's a man who can move entire WINDOWS in
Depositories. So moving a few words around is kid (kook) stuff for
Walt-Kook.


>>> "And here I thought Bud originally used the term "KOOK" here." <<<

Correct. That's my belief as well.

I once even expressly ASKED Bud if I may "borrow" his
seemingly-patented term "kook" for use in my own future posts. I felt
the need to ask ONLY Bud for this "permission" a couple of years ago.

aeffects

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 9:57:15 PM1/19/07
to

aeffects

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 9:58:11 PM1/19/07
to

God what a bunch of Lone neuter bullshit...... LMFAO!

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 10:09:17 PM1/19/07
to

aeffects

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 10:16:59 PM1/19/07
to

chuck schuyler wrote:

> aeffects wrote:
>
> > Chuckie-poo when did they let your sorry ass out? I was beginning to
> > think Lower_y became the prominent ego. We can't have that now, hell
> > you'd need to get your posting volume up to snuff -- this Nutter-Neuter
> > posting output of yours is rather, how do you say it, pathetic?
> >
> > If we're CT kooks, what does that make your sorry ass? GOD, you have no
> > shame......
>
> For one thing, it makes my sorry ass smarter than your sorry ass.
> >
> > Carry on girl!
>
> I see you've slithered away from popping grapes into Jarhead Ben's
> mouth and picking the bugs out of his fur. You better sneak back and
> pant quietly at his feet before he cracks his leash and snaps your
> geeky pencil-neck.
>
> When you have an original thought, ring a bell.

you're bell is rung everytime a CTer posts here.... actually, you're
the epitome of Lone Neuterism...keep up the excellent work .... Nopw,
how about those 35 questions -- can't deal with them?


> Kook.

Message has been deleted

paulus

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 10:35:33 PM1/19/07
to

Bud wrote:


I have been searching the 'Official' Records, and according to the
Warren Commission the term originally used by them was 'Cooks' and NOT
'Kooks' - at the time they were in private session and reference was
made to the 'evidence' which was being brewed by the FBI; CIA; Dallas
Police Department et al.and the Warren Commission were paraphrasing an
adage "Too many COOKS spoil the broth" which is exactly what happened
when the various 'Agencies' just couldn't cook up enough
evidence,(although GOD how they tried!) to put the finger on LHO as the
LONE assassin.
I hope I have clarified this point for you 'Seekers of the Truth, the
whole truth and nothing but - a cock-up'.
Unfortunately, as in the case of the wrong number of shots, the wrong
pistol LHO was supposed to wield; the inability to find a tape recorder
or a 'stenographer; the inability of the doctors to carry out a post
mortem; the inability to do a proper job on the 'LIFE' forgery; the
inability of the Dallas police to protect a 'witness'; the inability of
the President's body guard, after having known of many threats to his
welfare, to insist in a glass roof to the car; I COULD go on - but,
until and unless the US government insists on releasing anything and
everything related to the JFK Assassination, justice will never be done
or seen to be done.

In English terms we would refer to the FBI/CIA (at the time) as being
so inept ( to put it crudely!)
'They couldn't organize a 'piss-up' at a brewery'
Kind regards,
paulus

aeffects

unread,
Jan 19, 2007, 10:39:23 PM1/19/07
to
> Everytime you post I hear a bell...a loud, clear "DING-A-LING
> DING-DONG".
>
> Still pimpin' questions for Holmes, huh?
>
> Pop a few more grapes in his mouth and whisper in your master's ear a
> reminder that he has me killfied...he doesn't read anything I post. He
> has me censored at an uncensored discussion board. Rather cowardly, eh?
>
> Besides, Healey, you know darn well that anythng I post he'll simply
> claim I'm dodging or incorrect. He (and you) are diehard CT'ers that
> believe thousands and thousands of people framed innocent lamb Oswald
> for your ever-morphing reasons.

spelled 'ly' NOT 'ley' little guy.... and BTW, your dodging and weaving
every chance you get, knock off the bullshit -- get down to the facts,
those 35 questions scare you THAT much? pssst, there's another 35 after
the first batch -- keep your chin up, it only hurts for a little while!

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages