TROLL RESEARCHERS ?????

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Gil Jesus

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 6:25:31 AM12/6/09
to
I'm wondering if anyone here has ever heard of any

articles
research papers
books
videos
radio interviews

...or anything of any substance produced by any of the LNers in this
newsgroup ?

When they cite ( which is rarely ), it always seems to refer to the
work of others, but has any of them ever done ANYTHING publicly on the
case ?

just curious

Bud

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 8:29:07 AM12/6/09
to

What an idiot. If we are satisfied that Oswald committed
assassination on his own, what is there to research? What goes on here
is that one of you retards make a retarded claim, and sometimes one of
us will show how you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding what you
present.

Recently a photography expert examined the BY photos, and said he
could find no indications they were fake. Did this cause the retards
to rethink their positions regarding those photos? All the conspiracy
kooks dismiss this experts findings out of hand. Oswald said the
photos were faked, that is good enough for the faithful.

I was recently thinking that it would be interesting if the FBI took
another look at the evidence (maybe for the 50th anniversary), using
modern techniques, to see if anything could be revealed. Like possibly
a small hair left on the tape used to construct the paper bag. But
then I realized that if a hair was found, and it was DNA matched to
Oswald, you retards would just claim it was planted. It isn`t the case
that is the problem, it is the retards, and no amount of books,
articles or videos is going to solve that problem.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 8:43:14 AM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 8:29�am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> � What an idiot. If we are satisfied that Oswald committed

> assassination on his own, what is there to research?

RETARD:

Do you EVER answer a question ?

Are you suggesting that the likes of Posner, Myers, Bugliosi, Holland,
Ayton and the rest weren't satisfied that Oswald committed the
assassination before they did their research ?

Or are you just making excuses for your laziness ?


> � I realized that if a hair was found, and it was DNA matched to


> Oswald, you retards would just claim it was planted.

Here's a clue for you:

If the lineups were slanted, the evidence was planted.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/156258076c5780fa

GET OVER IT.

Walt

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 9:18:34 AM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 7:29 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 6:25 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I'm wondering if anyone here has ever heard of any
>
> > articles
> > research papers
> > books
> > videos
> > radio interviews
>
> > ...or anything of any substance produced by any of the LNers in this
> > newsgroup ?
>
> > When they cite ( which is rarely ), it always seems to refer to the
> > work of others, but has any of them ever done ANYTHING publicly on the
> > case ?
>
> > just curious
>
>   What an idiot. If we are satisfied that Oswald committed
> assassination on his own, what is there to research? What goes on here
> is that one of you retards make a retarded claim, and sometimes one of
> us will show how you are misrepresenting or misunderstanding what you
> present.
>
>    Recently a photography expert examined the BY photos, and said he
> could find no indications they were fake. Did this cause the retards
> to rethink their positions regarding those photos? All the conspiracy
> kooks dismiss this experts findings out of hand.  Oswald said the
> photos were faked, that is good enough for the faithful.


The Dud wrote:.... " Recently a photography expert examined the BY


photos, and said he could find no indications they were fake. Did this
cause the retards to rethink their positions regarding those photos?
All the conspiracy kooks dismiss this experts findings out of hand.
Oswald said the photos were faked, that is good enough for the
faithful."

This statement reveals what a shallow thinking moron you are,
Dud...... You're correct that the "kooks" can't reason....and you're
one of them.... But more than that you're either ignorant or a
liar... The record shows that Fritz showed Oswald ..ONE...UNO...
EIN...UN ...Back Yard photo (singular)..... NOT "photos". It is a
fact that the Geneva White photo 133c surfaced many years after the
assassination.....and investigation has proved that the DPD had the
photo BEFORE the assassination and used it to experiment with the
photo.

>
>   I was recently thinking that it would be interesting if the FBI took
> another look at the evidence (maybe for the 50th anniversary), using
> modern techniques, to see if anything could be revealed. Like possibly
> a small hair left on the tape used to construct the paper bag. But
> then I realized that if a hair was found, and it was DNA matched to
> Oswald, you retards would just claim it was planted. It isn`t the case
> that is the problem, it is the retards, and no amount of books,

> articles or videos is going to solve that problem.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

mucher1

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 9:20:05 AM12/6/09
to

Steeling the work of others and putting it on YouTube is not
"referring".

What do you consider your most outstanding "research" achievement,
Gil, in terms of actually furthering our knowledge of the case?

Bud

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 9:51:43 AM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 8:43 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:29 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What an idiot. If we are satisfied that Oswald committed
> > assassination on his own, what is there to research?
>
> RETARD:
>
> Do you EVER answer a question ?

Do you ever understand my answers? If I am satisfied with the
explanation of why the sun is hot, why would i research it? I would
expect only people who were unsatisfied with the explanation to look
deeper into it. If they raised issues, some of the people who were
satisfied might try to resolve those issues, but it isn`t incumbent on
them to do so.

> Are you suggesting that the likes of Posner, Myers, Bugliosi, Holland,
> Ayton and the rest weren't satisfied that Oswald committed the
> assassination before they did their research ?

They wrote books explaining aspects of the case. They saw a need,
and tried to fill it. Money plays a part in this, in most of these
case the researcher hopes for monetary gain. Possibly part of their
motivation is trying to sway the population to their viewpoints. I
don`t write articles, produce videos and the like because I lack the
skill, I see no monetary advantage and I don`t care how many people
are wrong about the assassination. I might care more if I thought
enlightenment might bring understanding, but by now, most people seem
comfortable with their own beliefs about what occurred. I don`t see
books and videos having much effect. Bugliosi made a good try at
explaining the case to the people, but he seemed to be greeted with a
yawn. I`m sure he convinced some with his arguments, and it was an
important book to have written, but he was going against an entrenched
mindset. But the book will always be available for those truly
interested in what happened.

> Or are you just making excuses for your laziness ?

There is no obligation for anyone to counter the ramblings of
retards.

> > I realized that if a hair was found, and it was DNA matched to
> > Oswald, you retards would just claim it was planted.
>
> Here's a clue for you:

Keep it. You need them more than I do.

> If the lineups were slanted, the evidence was planted.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/156258076c5780fa
>
> GET OVER IT.

You don`t like how the line-ups were conducted. What could matter
less? Why do you think the LN need to mobilize and counter your stupid
ideas? It was pointed out to you that you are totally ignorant of the
law at the time regarding line-ups. Have you done anything to cure
your ignorance and fill this crucial void in your presentation? I`ll
give you a hint, you need to research 1960-era case law in Texas
regarding line-ups and apply it to this case for your objections to be
meaningful.

Bud

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 9:55:57 AM12/6/09
to

Ah, retard, I didn`t say anything about the number of photos Fritz
showed Oswald. I used the plural "photos" to denote what the
photographic expert examined. I can`t be held accountable for what
your retarded mind does with the words I use.

Bud

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 9:58:43 AM12/6/09
to

I`d say it was on the Education Forum, when what he claimed was a
wanted poster turned out to be a spring clip.

Walt

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 10:55:09 AM12/6/09
to

Ah...Liar... What does this sentence say?..... Quote:..." Oswald said


the photos were faked, that is good enough for the

faithful." ..unquote

Does the word "photos" denote more than one??... Stupid liar!


I used the plural "photos" to denote what the
> photographic expert examined. I can`t be held accountable for what
> your retarded mind does with the words I use.
>
>
>
> >  It is a
> > fact that the Geneva White photo 133c surfaced many years after the
> > assassination.....and investigation has proved that the DPD had the
> > photo BEFORE the assassination and used it to experiment with the
> > photo.
>
> > >   I was recently thinking that it would be interesting if the FBI took
> > > another look at the evidence (maybe for the 50th anniversary), using
> > > modern techniques, to see if anything could be revealed. Like possibly
> > > a small hair left on the tape used to construct the paper bag. But
> > > then I realized that if a hair was found, and it was DNA matched to
> > > Oswald, you retards would just claim it was planted. It isn`t the case
> > > that is the problem, it is the retards, and no amount of books,
> > > articles or videos is going to solve that problem.- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Bud

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 12:22:11 PM12/6/09
to

Fair enough, you are right, I should have used the singular there.
I don`t envision how Oswald would deny the validity of one photo, but
accept the validity of the other photos showing basically the same
thing, but then again, I`m not retarded.

aeffects

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 12:51:53 PM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 6:51 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 8:43 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 8:29 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > What an idiot. If we are satisfied that Oswald committed
> > > assassination on his own, what is there to research?
>
> > RETARD:
>
> > Do you EVER answer a question ?
>
>   Do you ever understand my answers? If I am satisfied with the
> explanation of why the sun is hot, why would i research it?

stunning revelation.... finally, dudster admits (in only his way) to
trolling here. LMFAO! He's satisfied with the Warren Comission Report
yet he pursues CT's for years concerning subject matter he has no
problem with?

Some here call that, a sickness. Dudster it's time for a new hobby --
or -- a stipend raise! ROTFLMFAO....


I would
> expect only people who were unsatisfied with the explanation to look
> deeper into it. If they raised issues, some of the people who were
> satisfied might try to resolve those issues, but it isn`t incumbent on
> them to do so.

again, why are you here, hon? Do you REALLY have keeper of the FAITH
(as Ben would say) issues? If so, that's contrary to your above

> > Are you suggesting that the likes of Posner, Myers, Bugliosi, Holland,
> > Ayton and the rest weren't satisfied that Oswald committed the
> > assassination before they did their research ?
>
>   They wrote books explaining aspects of the case. They saw a need,
> and tried to fill it. Money plays a part in this, in most of these
> case the researcher hopes for monetary gain. Possibly part of their
> motivation is trying to sway the population to their viewpoints.

then you should be falling on your knees blessing CT's for making
moronic nutter-troll authors rich with their advances against
royalties... Of course the publishers took it in their shorts, case in
point: Reclaiming History, the largest debacle in publishing
history....

I
> don`t write articles, produce videos and the like because I lack the
> skill, I see no monetary advantage and I don`t care how many people
> are wrong about the assassination.

of course you don't. Why? Fear perhaps? Participating here, is that
your outlet for patriotic fervor??? Or a simple part-time job..... :)

I might care more if I thought
> enlightenment might bring understanding, but by now, most people seem
> comfortable with their own beliefs about what occurred.

I think you're being less than candid, perhaps an increase in the
stipend might bend you in that dorection? LMFAO!

I don`t see
> books and videos having much effect. Bugliosi made a good try at
> explaining the case to the people, but he seemed to be greeted with a
> yawn. I`m sure he convinced some with his arguments, and it was an
> important book to have written, but he was going against an entrenched
> mindset. But the book will always be available for those truly
> interested in what happened.
>
> > Or are you just making excuses for your laziness ?
>
>   There is no obligation for anyone to counter the ramblings of
> retards.

again, then why post here, hon? A committment you can't back out of?

> > > I realized that if a hair was found, and it was DNA matched to
> > > Oswald, you retards would just claim it was planted.
>
> > Here's a clue for you:
>
>   Keep it. You need them more than I do.

cease posting for 35 day's.... let's see if your hooked (as they say)
LMAO!

> > If the lineups were slanted, the evidence was planted.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/156258076c5780fa
>
> > GET OVER IT.
>
>   You don`t like how the line-ups were conducted. What could matter
> less? Why do you think the LN need to mobilize and counter your stupid
> ideas? It was pointed out to you that you are totally ignorant of the
> law at the time regarding line-ups. Have you done anything to cure
> your ignorance and fill this crucial void in your presentation? I`ll
> give you a hint, you need to research 1960-era case law in Texas
> regarding line-ups and apply it to this case for your objections to be
> meaningful.

Texas jurisprudence isn't on trial here, hon..... conspiracy-
presidential murder is.... and THAT has a direct shot toward future
history books.... which explains a lot concerning the current lone nut
dilemma...

aeffects

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 12:54:20 PM12/6/09
to

amazing, yet you can't explain yourself clearly? That has to be a
horrible slight for an academic....

aeffects

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 1:02:10 PM12/6/09
to

and history proves it self yet again in that: those that project and
DENY are the LAST to know <sigh>
Lone Nuts are sooooo predictiable....

mucher1

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 1:16:49 PM12/6/09
to

You "know" something that the rest of us don't?! Unrelated to tranny
chasing?!

aeffects

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 3:56:42 PM12/6/09
to

a fudge-packing lone nutter-troll bringing up tranny chasing? Mom
letting you out Saturday nights these days, shithead?

David Von Pein

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 4:01:33 PM12/6/09
to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2d58d1c9c57a0da2


"Recently a photography expert examined the BY photos*, and said


he could find no indications they were fake. Did this cause the
retards to rethink their positions regarding those photos? All the

conspiracy kooks dismiss this expert's findings out of hand. Oswald


said the photos were faked, that is good enough for the faithful.

"I was recently thinking that it would be interesting if the FBI
took another look at the evidence (maybe for the 50th anniversary),
using modern techniques, to see if anything could be revealed. Like
possibly a small hair left on the tape used to construct the paper
bag. But then I realized that if a hair was found, and it was DNA
matched to Oswald, you retards would just claim it was planted.

"It isn't the case that is the problem, it is the retards, and
no amount of books, articles or videos is going to solve that

problem." -- Bud; December 6, 2009

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

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

The above quote by Bud is the latest addition to my "Quoting Common
Sense" blog. Thank you.

http://www.Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

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

Bud

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 4:40:44 PM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 12:51 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 6:51 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 6, 8:43 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 6, 8:29 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > What an idiot. If we are satisfied that Oswald committed
> > > > assassination on his own, what is there to research?
>
> > > RETARD:
>
> > > Do you EVER answer a question ?
>
> > Do you ever understand my answers? If I am satisfied with the
> > explanation of why the sun is hot, why would i research it?
>
> stunning revelation.... finally, dudster admits (in only his way) to
> trolling here.

You view the activities in this newsgroup differently than I do, you
see dynamic investigation, I see it as a dead horse being beaten.
Every once in a while one of you kooks will exclaim "Look, it moved",
usually followed by "Prove to me it didn`t". This doesn`t really
require a response from me, but sometimes I`ll give one if the mood
strikes me. In any case, it should be clear to even the most retarded
horse flogger here that that horse isn`t going to get up and win the
race for you retards.

> LMFAO! He's satisfied with the Warren Comission Report
> yet he pursues CT's for years concerning subject matter he has no
> problem with?

Pursue? It was Gil`s cry for attention that started this post, he
is the one who is craving pursuit. It is getting harder and harder to
get elicit responses from the LN because you really aren`t saying much
worthy of a response. All the kooks demand an audience, look at
Harris. He demands responses than ignores them when they are given.
Gil does this also. For me, I figure I`ll respond when I want, address
what I want to, and if the kooks don`t like it, so much the better.

> Some here call that, a sickness. Dudster

I`ve never claimed that coming here to tease retards was healthy
behavior. It is a past time I get some enjoyment out of apparently.
It`s funny that you kooks really have yourselves convinced that you
are actually engaged in a productive exercise here, though. Bringing
home the reality that you are just retards engaged in a jerk circle
has it`s own rewards.

> it's time for a new hobby --
> or -- a stipend raise! ROTFLMFAO....

I`m open for either.

> I would
>
> > expect only people who were unsatisfied with the explanation to look
> > deeper into it. If they raised issues, some of the people who were
> > satisfied might try to resolve those issues, but it isn`t incumbent on
> > them to do so.
>
> again, why are you here, hon? Do you REALLY have keeper of the FAITH
> (as Ben would say) issues? If so, that's contrary to your above

No, it isn`t contrary to the above. You kooks live in your own
little worlds, and you see this newsgroup as some kind of vehicle to
unravel the mysteries of the assassination. As such, you think we LN
should act in proscribed ways according to your visions of what this
places is. Of course, being retards, you`ve totally misjudged the
situation, and the people on the other side of this issue. So Gil
Jesus is baffled that the LNers here are not engaged in the activities
that conspiracy kooks are (at least not to the same degree) because he
sees it as two sides of the same coin. It isn`t, there is a rational
side and an irrational side. You can`t expect the rational side to
have the same fervor as the kooks looking for justifications of their
retarded beliefs. They see justifications everywhere they look, no
rational person is going to waste their time countering every claim a
retard makes. It would be like debunking the unibomber`s massive
manuscripts, I couldn`t be bothered. But, if I had access to a medium
where I could safely ridicule the unibomber`s ideas in a way that
would annoy him, that would be to me like heroin is to you.

> > > Are you suggesting that the likes of Posner, Myers, Bugliosi, Holland,
> > > Ayton and the rest weren't satisfied that Oswald committed the
> > > assassination before they did their research ?
>
> > They wrote books explaining aspects of the case. They saw a need,
> > and tried to fill it. Money plays a part in this, in most of these
> > case the researcher hopes for monetary gain. Possibly part of their
> > motivation is trying to sway the population to their viewpoints.
>
> then you should be falling on your knees blessing CT's for making
> moronic nutter-troll authors rich with their advances against
> royalties...

One thing only follows the other because you pigeonhole information
in such a way that is comfortable to you instead of a way that is
accurate or realistic. Conspiracy debunker books exist only because
conspiracy retards exist, Any sensible person should be able to come
to the obviously correct conclusion about this case without these
books. I didn`t need these books to figure out that Oswald killed
Kennedy.

In any case, none of these guys are getting rich off me, I`ve spent
less than 5 bucks total on assassination-related books, pro or con
(mostly from thrift shops and flea markets). I got Mark Lane`s
Plausible Denial for a quarter (hardback), and I thought I was robbed
until I found a cool Kennedy/Lincoln comparison thingy used as a
bookmark inside.

>Of course the publishers took it in their shorts, case in
> point: Reclaiming History, the largest debacle in publishing
> history....

Soon to be an HBO movie.

But, it was an important book nonetheless, it gathered up all the
relevant information and made it accessible to the general public.
That the general public wasn`t interested might speak to the overall
disinterest in this case amongst the general public. Conspiracy books
fare better because although the true die-hard conspiracy retard is a
very small percentage of the general population, they seem to buy
every conspiracy book that comes out (desperate as they are to find
justifications for their retarded beliefs).

> I
>
> > don`t write articles, produce videos and the like because I lack the
> > skill, I see no monetary advantage and I don`t care how many people
> > are wrong about the assassination.
>
> of course you don't. Why? Fear perhaps? Participating here, is that
> your outlet for patriotic fervor??? Or a simple part-time job..... :)
>
> I might care more if I thought
>
> > enlightenment might bring understanding, but by now, most people seem
> > comfortable with their own beliefs about what occurred.
>
> I think you're being less than candid, perhaps an increase in the
> stipend might bend you in that dorection? LMFAO!

You don`t understand me at all, I`ve no interest in gaining
converts. When Vince Palmjobbawhattaeverthefuckhisnameis said he was
swayed by Bug`s book that Oswald shot Kennedy, my thought was "stay a
retard Vince". He studied the case for years and years, and couldn`t
figure out Oswald shot Kennedy until Bugs wrote a book telling him it
was so (I understand that some LNers like Mark and Chuck were
originally conspiracy believers, but looking into the case led them to
realize that fact that Oswald was guilty. Evolving towards a lone nut
position as the true facts become clear to you is a natural
progression. Not so the way Vince came about)? I want all the stupid
people to stay on your side of this issue, stoner, the world makes
more sense to me that way. The general public gets a pass, because
they have no idea of the evidence indicating Oswald`s guilt in this
case, I don`t care much that they think something fishy happened
(well, maybe I am a little annoyed and disappointed with them). But
the only way someone can study this case and not determine that Oswald
killed Kennedy is if they are retarded. And you, gil, Walt, Ben,
robcap, curt, ect are exhibit "A" in support of my contention.

> I don`t see
>
> > books and videos having much effect. Bugliosi made a good try at
> > explaining the case to the people, but he seemed to be greeted with a
> > yawn. I`m sure he convinced some with his arguments, and it was an
> > important book to have written, but he was going against an entrenched
> > mindset. But the book will always be available for those truly
> > interested in what happened.
>
> > > Or are you just making excuses for your laziness ?
>
> > There is no obligation for anyone to counter the ramblings of
> > retards.
>
> again, then why post here, hon? A committment you can't back out of?

You misunderstand my motivations, but that is to be expected, you
are retarded, and there isn`t much you don`t misunderstand.

> > > > I realized that if a hair was found, and it was DNA matched to
> > > > Oswald, you retards would just claim it was planted.
>
> > > Here's a clue for you:
>
> > Keep it. You need them more than I do.
>
> cease posting for 35 day's....

Don`t tell me what to do, retard. I`ll post when I feel like it.

>let's see if your hooked (as they say)

That will be the day I jump through a hoop to prove something to a
retard.

> LMAO!
>
> > > If the lineups were slanted, the evidence was planted.
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/156258076c5780fa
>
> > > GET OVER IT.
>
> > You don`t like how the line-ups were conducted. What could matter
> > less? Why do you think the LN need to mobilize and counter your stupid
> > ideas? It was pointed out to you that you are totally ignorant of the
> > law at the time regarding line-ups. Have you done anything to cure
> > your ignorance and fill this crucial void in your presentation? I`ll
> > give you a hint, you need to research 1960-era case law in Texas
> > regarding line-ups and apply it to this case for your objections to be
> > meaningful.
>
> Texas jurisprudence isn't on trial here, hon.....

It is when you question the legalities of the proceedings,
sugarbritches.

> conspiracy-
> presidential murder is.... and THAT has a direct shot toward future
> history books.... which explains a lot concerning the current lone nut
> dilemma...

It seems the drugs that carried you this far have run out, time to
reload.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 4:50:13 PM12/6/09
to

So I'm seeing three trolls not answering the question, or instead
implying that they've done nothing of any substance to contribute in
ANY way towards supporting the official version.

KUTGW

Bud

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 4:53:24 PM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 3:56 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 10:16 am, mucher1 <much...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 6 Dec., 19:02, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 6, 9:22 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 6, 10:55 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 6, 8:55 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 6, 9:18 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>

Stoner, you call us trolls, have you ever made a post with content
related to the assassination? I`ve been here years, I haven`t seen one
yet.

Maybe it`s time for another drug-induced tearful farewell speech.
Steal a line from Nixon next time, "You won`t have David Healy to kick
around any more".

Bud

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 5:18:01 PM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 4:50 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 6:25 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm wondering if anyone here has ever heard of any
>
> > articles
> > research papers
> > books
> > videos
> > radio interviews
>
> > ...or anything of any substance produced by any of the LNers in this
> > newsgroup ?
>
> > When they cite ( which is rarely ), it always seems to refer to the
> > work of others, but has any of them ever done ANYTHING publicly on the
> > case ?
>
> > just curious
>
> So I'm seeing three trolls not answering the question,

Yet you reply to yourself.

> or instead
> implying that they've done nothing of any substance to contribute in
> ANY way towards supporting the official version.

I`m not lifting a finger to support the contention that fire is hot,
either.

> KUTGW

The work has been done for four and a half decades, retard, get up
to speed.

aeffects

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 5:34:54 PM12/6/09
to


shithead, you're pissed.... how quaint...... LMFAO! Nutter-trolls are
SOOOOOOOO predictable

aeffects

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 5:35:36 PM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 1:01 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising shithead......

Walt

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 5:37:49 PM12/6/09
to

I agree.... you're not even bright enough to be considered
retarded.... Aren't you embarrassed that a "retard" had to correct
you?

Gil Jesus

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 5:56:19 PM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 9:18�am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:

> �It is a fact that the Geneva White photo 133c surfaced many years after the


> assassination.....and investigation has proved that the DPD had the
> photo BEFORE the assassination and used it to experiment with the
> photo.

Which brings up an excellent point, Walt.

The fact that White possessed a photograph of Oswald indicates either:

a.) White stole the picture ( which would have been evidence) from the
DPD, or

b.) the DPD was faking photos and he got a "copy" of one

I'd like to hear from the nuts how Roscoe White happened to come into
the possession of that photograph.

Bud

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 6:05:54 PM12/6/09
to

How hard is that, I average a half dozen mistakes per post. Shooting
from the hip will do that, but I`d rather let a retard claim some
small victory than be bothered to proofread before sending.

aeffects

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 6:06:19 PM12/6/09
to

settle down Dudster, no one is asking you to reinvent the wheel...
simply T-H-I-N-K!
LMFAO!

Bud

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 6:19:23 PM12/6/09
to

Why do you always expect LNers to do your research for you?

Bud

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 6:20:28 PM12/6/09
to

I T-H-I-N-K fire is hot.

Gil Jesus

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 6:45:13 PM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 6:19�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> � Why do you always expect LNers to do your research for you?-


When have you EVER done ANY research ?

Weren't you the retard who thought New Zealand was a part of
Australia ?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/875dada84dad54b7

Nah...you ain't gonna do any research.

ROFLMAO

Sam McClung

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 6:53:46 PM12/6/09
to
Gil narrowed it down to:

>either:
>
> a.) White stole the picture ( which would have been evidence) from the
> DPD, or
>
> b.) the DPD was faking photos and he got a "copy" of one

how about:

4. as he indicated, white was tricked into thinking he was working for the
cia, and he was provided a spykit™ which included a tube computer inside a
fishing tackle box, and some of the software on it was adobe hammer and
chisel, version 1.00, and with that he manipulated photos of his fellow
"cia" worker, oswald, and used dpd's color laser printer to print out the
black and white backyard photos

or

g. the photo was planted among white's effects, kinda like the fake diary,
etc. by someone who wanted to become rich, not that someone close to roscoe
supposedly indicated to other family members to shut up so they could all
get rich

Bud

unread,
Dec 6, 2009, 7:53:31 PM12/6/09
to
On Dec 6, 6:45 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Dec 6, 6:19 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Why do you always expect LNers to do your research for you?-
>
> When have you EVER done ANY research ?

I bet I could find the answer to your question easy enough, probably
right in the archives of this newsgroup.

> Weren't you the retard who thought New Zealand was a part of
> Australia ?

No, retard, as I`ve pointed out o you more than once, I thought that
the Christchurch newspaper was Australian. Read what you linked to.

I won`t do your research for you. Did you even attempt to find the
answer to the question you though LNers owed you an answer to?

> ROFLMAO

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages