CTers - Let's Bond
robc...@netscape.com
month. It is a great idea and should be a great place to honestly
discuss the JFK assassination. IMO it is the most important event of
the 20th century for Americans, and that is saying alot as this one
century saw many great and horrible things.
When one goes to aaj they see real dialogue about the assassinaton.
It is a very broad topic as there are many components to it and the
history leading up to the event is also loaded with clues. With that
being said, the supposed LNers on this board contiune to ruin this
discussion with their attacks and lack of connection to the event
itself. They think they are mocking those of us who do not accept the
official theory, but in reality they are making a mockery of a very
tragic event that has affected this country ever since in many
different ways. They call us CTers bigots, racists, homophobes and
many other nasty words when in fact they are the ones guilty of
supporting a big lie that does embrace those exact things.
>From now on I propose to all CTers on this board to ignore comments by
them if they do not discuss the assassination at all. CJ put up a
great post today and right away he is attacked rather than what he
said about the assassination. This is either their job or more than
likely in most cases, fun for them to mock CTers as they are people
who probably care about no one besides themselves so they see easy
targets in people who are passionate about something beyond
themselves. It will be tough at first becasue they will up the
attacks to make us mad and respond, but if we can holdout and continue
to ignore them they will be deprived of the attention they so crave.
It is sad that this event means nothing to them, but they probably
have the same disdain for the men who died at Pearl Harbor, the
beaches of Normandy, the jungles of VN and the deserts of Iraq. They
have fun attacking and ridiculing people who want to discuss a major
event in our history instead of debating their case. It is probably
because most of them don't know very much about the case and are here
rather to mock anyone who has an interest in what happened that day in
Dallas.
We can do this or see the same pattern continue for a long time to
come. I notice most of the most blatant attackers in the LN camp have
been on this board for a long time and there are more of them that can
say that then CTers, it is because they succeed in driving away many
CTers in a short time. I must say I never thought I would prefer
spending most of my time on John's board, but that time is fast
approaching. It is not as fun as there is a nice time lag over there
while your message is being reviewed and decided on, so that is why
this board is the better of the two in theory, but in fact it is not.
Take a look at what is on it right now. At least half of the post
have nothing to do with the assassination in most regards, and of the
other half the majority of replies are hate filled ones and again do
not discuss the case.
If you are like me and think this is an important event and want to
continue to discuss it like adults please unite. I welcome any LNers
(DVP comes to mind) that likes to debate with CTers the facts,
theories and speculations to unite as well.
Thanks!
Gil Jesus
Long ago, the nasty King John of McAdams vowed to destroy this
newsgroup. To achieve the end to his evil means, he has sent his
disciples (the trolls) to do just that.
Their purpose is to deflect attention away from a discussion of the
evidence, to confound and frustrate those interested in the debate by
methods of disruption and insult.
While his stooges are here trying to chase people out of this
newsgroup, he rules his kingdom at a.a.j. with an iron fist. Only
those opponents who he can defeat can post there. But those who
represent a threat to his rule cannot.
He controls all information.
And while he will not suffer insults to his loyal subjects, he will
allow them to attack those he perceives as enemies. Alas, the mighty
king shall disarm his enemies before his loyal subjects run them
through.
There are those of us who killfilter these mental midgets and there
are those of us who enjoy a battle of wits with those who are REAL:LY
unarmed.
It's all a matter of choice, really.
I warned you, Rob, that things were really bad here. I'm impressed
with your courage and determination to endure. Don't be discouraged.
Do yourself a favor and get yourself a good newsreader with a
killfilter.
It will really save you a lot of aggravation.
robc...@netscape.com
> HERE HERE..
>
Thanks Gil!! You are right of course. My question is the same one we
have in regards to all the secrecy, what does John have to fear? It
was just one guy right?
bigdog
> I am really saddened by this board and I've only been on it for a
> month. It is a great idea and should be a great place to honestly
> discuss the JFK assassination. IMO it is the most important event of
> the 20th century for Americans, and that is saying alot as this one
> century saw many great and horrible things.
More important the WWII, the Great Depression, the Holocaust? I don't
think so, Tim.
>
> When one goes to aaj they see real dialogue about the assassinaton.
> It is a very broad topic as there are many components to it and the
> history leading up to the event is also loaded with clues. With that
> being said, the supposed LNers on this board contiune to ruin this
> discussion with their attacks and lack of connection to the event
> itself. They think they are mocking those of us who do not accept the
> official theory, but in reality they are making a mockery of a very
> tragic event that has affected this country ever since in many
> different ways. They call us CTers bigots, racists, homophobes and
> many other nasty words when in fact they are the ones guilty of
> supporting a big lie that does embrace those exact things.
No we call the bigots, racists, and homophobes bigots, racists, and
homophobes.
>
> >From now on I propose to all CTers on this board to ignore comments by
>
> them if they do not discuss the assassination at all. CJ put up a
> great post today and right away he is attacked rather than what he
> said about the assassination. This is either their job or more than
No, just a hobby.
> likely in most cases, fun for them to mock CTers as they are people
> who probably care about no one besides themselves so they see easy
> targets in people who are passionate about something beyond
> themselves. It will be tough at first becasue they will up the
> attacks to make us mad and respond, but if we can holdout and continue
> to ignore them they will be deprived of the attention they so crave.
>
> It is sad that this event means nothing to them, but they probably
> have the same disdain for the men who died at Pearl Harbor, the
> beaches of Normandy, the jungles of VN and the deserts of Iraq. They
> have fun attacking and ridiculing people who want to discuss a major
> event in our history instead of debating their case. It is probably
> because most of them don't know very much about the case and are here
> rather to mock anyone who has an interest in what happened that day in
> Dallas.
>
> We can do this or see the same pattern continue for a long time to
> come. I notice most of the most blatant attackers in the LN camp have
> been on this board for a long time and there are more of them that can
> say that then CTers, it is because they succeed in driving away many
> CTers in a short time. I must say I never thought I would prefer
> spending most of my time on John's board, but that time is fast
> approaching. It is not as fun as there is a nice time lag over there
> while your message is being reviewed and decided on, so that is why
> this board is the better of the two in theory, but in fact it is not.
Knock me over with a feather. Chico and I agree on something. I used
to post in aaj but I believe in a free exchange of ideas, no matter
how ludicrous, and I didn't like the idea of somebody censoring the
exchanges and having to wait a half a day for a post to show up and
another half day for the response. I don't care what someone has to
say, they should be allowed to say it, even if they are bigots,
rascists and homophobes.
justm...@gmail.com
> HERE HERE..
>
> Long ago, the nasty King John of McAdams vowed to destroy this
> newsgroup. To achieve the end to his evil means, he has sent his
> disciples (the trolls) to do just that.
I do not post on Johns site ( I have twice I believe and that was it)
nor am I one of his disciples.
Once again it's your ass talking because I would hope your mouth knows
better.
>
> Their purpose is to deflect attention away from a discussion of the
> evidence, to confound and frustrate those interested in the debate by
> methods of disruption and insult.
Our purpose is to expose frauds like you who mislead unaware people
with disinformation.
Why not tell Robcrap the real reason you no longer post on Johns site?
You were laughed off of it just like you are here. It's why Tatoo
doesn't post there either. McAdams doesn't allow idiotic theories and
fantasy on his forum. You can't advertise your stolen videos the way
you do here. This group is open to all, if you don't have the backbone
to with stand the insults you get for being stupid then there's an
easy solution.
Get the hell out!
>
> While his stooges are here trying to chase people out of this
> newsgroup, he rules his kingdom at a.a.j. with an iron fist. Only
> those opponents who he can defeat can post there. But those who
> represent a threat to his rule cannot.
More like those that talk bs are shut out. You must have atleast 20
different theories Gil, and you have nothing to support any of them.
Yet you continue to blab away, getting nowhere. JFK coughing up a
bullet, JC shooting JFK or maybe it was Nellie. Each time you bring up
another one of your ridiculous ideas, it deserves to be insulted. Try
this crap on another forum, you'd be laughed off by even the CTs that
post there. Why aren't you posting with all your quote: good friends
on Lancer? You know what would happen if you tried the bull there that
you post here.
>
> He controls all information.
And you can't stand that fact that you're restricted from posting
stupidity.
>
> And while he will not suffer insults to his loyal subjects, he will
> allow them to attack those he perceives as enemies. Alas, the mighty
> king shall disarm his enemies before his loyal subjects run them
> through.
That is a lie, the very first post I ever posted there I rec'd an
email from McAdams telling me my post was unacceptable which was made
to a CT. McAdams is fair in his decisions whether they are from a LN
or a CT. Apparently you don't see the fact that you are the mental
midget (a term you have stolen from YoHarvey) on McAdams site and
nothing you post is relevent. Same as it is here. The only difference
is we don't have anyone here that can censor your stupidity.
>
> There are those of us who killfilter these mental midgets and there
> are those of us who enjoy a battle of wits with those who are REAL:LY
> unarmed.
Another lie, for someone who has everyone killfiltered, you still
can't stop yourself from blabbing the bible and mouthing off. Each
time you do, you prove what a liar and bigot you are.
>
> It's all a matter of choice, really.
It sure is...now if you would just practice what you preach.
>
> I warned you, Rob, that things were really bad here. I'm impressed
> with your courage and determination to endure. Don't be discouraged.
Rob? It's not going to change, killfilter or ignore whomever you wish.
We will continue to post and continue to point out the ridiculous
statements made by certain people on this newsgroup. Bottom line is
the LN's control this newsgroup. If you can't deal with that then
move on to another forum. I'll suggest a good one for you JFK Murder
Solved, run by Wim Dankbaar. If ever there were absurd theories posted
that would be the place. You and your croonies would fit right in.
Jimmy Files might even agree with JFK coughing up a bullet...LOL
>
> Do yourself a favor and get yourself a good newsreader with a
> killfilter.
Or do us all a bigger favor and go elsewhere and take the bible toting
bigot with you.
>
> It will really save you a lot of aggravation.
It will save us all a lot of aggravation...but the comedy act here is
delightful. It's like having the 3 stooges, and Dumb and Dumber all
rolled into one. Thanks for your plea Rob...now are you ready to take
on YoHarvey in a live debate or are you going to run with your tail
between your legs like Holmes, Healy and Jesus have done??? We're
still waiting for your answer.
Gil Jesus
> Thanks Gil!! You are right of course. My question is the same one we
> have in regards to all the secrecy, what does John have to fear? It
> was just one guy right?
Suppression is not needed where there is truth.
bigdog
>
> Long ago, the nasty King John of McAdams vowed to destroy this
> newsgroup. To achieve the end to his evil means, he has sent his
> disciples (the trolls) to do just that.
I must not have got that memo. I have nothing against McAdams and his
approach to aaj. He wants to filter out comments he finds
inappropriate. That's his right. He set up that forum, he can make the
rules. The rest of us can choose to follow his rules or go elsewhere.
That's why I'm on this board.
>
> Their purpose is to deflect attention away from a discussion of the
> evidence, to confound and frustrate those interested in the debate by
> methods of disruption and insult.
>
No, our purpose is to inject some semblance of sanity into the
discussion. When Big Lies go unchallenged, they get accepted as fact.
There are too many examples of that already regarding this subject.
> While his stooges are here trying to chase people out of this
> newsgroup, he rules his kingdom at a.a.j. with an iron fist. Only
> those opponents who he can defeat can post there. But those who
> represent a threat to his rule cannot.
>
> He controls all information.
>
> And while he will not suffer insults to his loyal subjects, he will
> allow them to attack those he perceives as enemies.
Wrong again. I had many of my replies rejected because it was deemed
offensive to whatever CT I was responding to.
bigdog
It's fascinating watching Chico carry on a dialogue with himself.
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The racist homophobic liar Gil Jesus is AGAIN talking to his alter ego
Robcap. This idiot must truly believe people are ignorant. Besides
being ignorant of the events of 11/22, he now opines the opinion the
assassination was the EVENT of the century. Again, Jesus shows his
historical ignorance. He is however BEGGING all other CT's in joining
himself in his continued attempts to lie and deceive not only this
newsgroup but the American public.
Jesus/Robcap as any true student of this assassination is fully aware
has NEVER, EVER provided ANY evidence to the contrary to the official
verdict of 11/22. Jesus/Robcap is under the misguided idea that
conjecture, innuendo, speculation and his OWN distorted view of 11/22
is how it really happened. Jesus/Robcap has continually demonstrated
his lack of any formal education has prevented him from understanding
the scientific method of how evidence is determined and disseminated.
He confuses motive with evidence and apparently believes motive is
enough; actual evidence be damned. And now, he is BEGGING other CT's
to come to his "dark side". People? I give more credit to the CT's
that Jesus/Robca does. I believe, while the CT side is misguided,
that most of their intentions are honorable.....Jesus/Robcap however
is a misfit of a different variety. He's a leech on society and does
this country a tremendous disservice. I, for one will continue to
show Jesus/Robcap for what he truly is: a pure piece of shit.
aeffects
the .john wankers, as well as .john's admin? They're nervous....real,
REAL, R-E-A-L nervous....
aeffects
> On Nov 3, 7:36 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > HERE HERE..
>
> > Long ago, the nasty King John of McAdams vowed to destroy this
> > newsgroup. To achieve the end to his evil means, he has sent his
> > disciples (the trolls) to do just that.
>
> I must not have got that memo. I have nothing against McAdams and his
> approach to aaj. He wants to filter out comments he finds
> inappropriate. That's his right. He set up that forum, he can make the
> rules. The rest of us can choose to follow his rules or go elsewhere.
> That's why I'm on this board.
>
why would you have gotten that memo -- as a freshman you don't rate,
fool! One slip and your under that Lone Nut bus. You're on this board
because you need a few points to get that pathetic Marquette GPA up,
hon.... You're just another in the long line of Nutter throwaway's we
deal with,
year in-year out....
Carry on toot's.
YoHarvey
Healy? No wonder your resume is phony. You're barely literate.
roflmao....the "roflmao" is just for you toots!!!
aeffects
you got a real bad self-image, eh hon? How about a bit of spiritual
counseling? I bet a .john knows a few defrocked priests that can help
you out... Now, on your knees, you need to be baptized, sonny....
LMFAO!
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Healy? Your wife baptized me in the backseat of YOUR car. She has
alot more talent than you do toots!!!
David Von Pein
Aw, poor thing.
I guess perhaps Rob expected to be patted on the back 24/7 for his
ridiculous opinions and theories, such as this foundational gem of CT
idiocy:
"LHO shot no one."
Since when is total ignorance and outright stupidity supposed to be
embraced or rewarded? (And the "LHO shot no one" remark IS just flat-
out stupidity and nothing more than that.)
Rob should be grateful to me for educating him to a goodly degree when
it comes to various sub-topics associated with 11/22/63.
I've spent many hours composing various responses to his inane
reasoning and unsupportable theories. And I've utilized a variety of
citations and photographs to prove my points.
But what do I get in return? Here's just one example of what Rob has
given me in return (and this comment from Rob involves the evidence
surrounding the Tippit murder, no less, which is a murder that has so
many "OSWALD DID IT" connections it would make any prosecutor giddy at
the mere prospect of presenting such a case in front of a jury):
"You got nothing." -- Rob C.
Nice, huh?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a4c6818d6cdc7c89
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9cd0044be6b3e205
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
btw Healy, since you're proud enough to lilst accomplishments on your
little resume, why not enlighten us all about which awards you claim
to have won and which Silicon Valley businesses you consult. Or, like
everything else in your life, is this too a big fat lie? Why do you
continue to avoid this question???
aeffects
atrocious, old, lame and childish -- your useless in a flame war, toots
aeffects
I'm all over the Valley, hon. Need a guided tour, got some money
toots, I 'm not cheap!
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Your or You're? Once again, old Healy shows his lack of education.
And he expects Silicon Valley to believe the science fiction in his
resume roflmao!!! Healy? I'm guessing 3rd grade was the best 3 years
of your life.....Healy moment roflmao.
cdddraftsman
> I am really saddened (Snipped) :
That was the good news !
Here's the Bad ! :
You couldn't get the CT community to bond
w/ a thousand tons of 'silly ass crazy glue' ! That's a
fact !
Why ?
#1 reason :
No
unified theory
in
44 years
of
miserable failure
by
constructing
jfk conspiracy hoaxes !
tl
"Rashomon to the Extreme"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/rashomon.htm
bigdog
I think we can come up with a solution. We just agree that everyone
living in America in 1963 took part in planning and covering up the
assassination of JFK, except of course Lee Harvery Oswald. That way we
leave no one out, except for the kooks who think there was a foreign
government involved. Everyone else is happy because their favorite
suspect(s) are finally recognized as the real villains. Now doesn't
everybody just want to sit in a circle on the floor, join hands, and
sing Kum Ba Ya?
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
ROFLMAO Bigdog!!!
Sam Brown
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1194132967.7...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> HERE HERE..
Its hear, hear, fuckwit bigot.
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "I am really saddened by this board..." <<<
>
> Aw, poor thing.
>
> I guess perhaps Rob expected to be patted on the back 24/7 for his
> ridiculous opinions and theories, such as this foundational gem of CT
> idiocy:
>
> "LHO shot no one."
No, I expected people to be able to make the case why he did shoot
someone beyond what I have read for 20 years, because that stuff
hasn't proved a damn thing.
>
> Since when is total ignorance and outright stupidity supposed to be
> embraced or rewarded? (And the "LHO shot no one" remark IS just flat-
> out stupidity and nothing more than that.)
So based on your logic Dave you go around and berate people all day
who don't agree with you right? Somehow I believe that. In a free
society (which we aren't) you should have open debate without
resorting to vicious name calling. Especially when we are dealing
with some college kids on here trying to earn a good grade by
embracing one side of the story. I feel bad for your family, I guess
you berate them when they don't agree with you.
>
> Rob should be grateful to me for educating him to a goodly degree when
> it comes to various sub-topics associated with 11/22/63.
I got news for you Dave, I have heard all the pathetic things you have
posted on hear a million times before, nothing new. Same old loser
reasons for why one man did it. The same man who had to be killed to
be kept quiet. Wonder why, what could a lone gunman tell us? Hmmm.
>
> I've spent many hours composing various responses to his inane
> reasoning and unsupportable theories. And I've utilized a variety of
> citations and photographs to prove my points.
>
> But what do I get in return? Here's just one example of what Rob has
> given me in return (and this comment from Rob involves the evidence
> surrounding the Tippit murder, no less, which is a murder that has so
> many "OSWALD DID IT" connections it would make any prosecutor giddy at
> the mere prospect of presenting such a case in front of a jury):
>
> "You got nothing." -- Rob C.
>
> Nice, huh?
Hey it is the truth plain and simple. You also told a fib in regards
to this event Dave, you said one witness and one witness only
(Clemmons) saw two men and that is not true. Six witnesses saw two
men, but guess what the Warren Commission did, they only let one of
the six testify, why?
justm...@gmail.com
You keep crying about wanting a debate Robcrap, why are you running
from YoHarveys challange to debate him live in a chat room then?
Either put up or shut up....your whining is annoying. Only 20 yrs
behind ya in reading about this case huh? That explains your idiotic
thinking. I guess you're just another coward like the rest of them
that won't get into a live debate. You need to hide behind a keyboard
or your at a loss for words. Pathetic!
David Von Pein
Bullshit.
Name the other five.
You can't. Because ZERO witnesses saw more than ONE MAN (Oswald) kill
Officer Tippit. (Clemons didn't see the actual shooting, btw.)
>>> "I feel bad for your family..." <<<
I don't have one. I'm a machine, programmed by the United States
Government. I thought you knew that by now.
aeffects
> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194132967.7...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> > HERE HERE..
>
> Its hear, hear, fuckwit bigot.
ah, you be da *butch*....
aeffects
> On Nov 3, 8:00 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "I am really saddened by this board..." <<<
>
> > Aw, poor thing.
>
> > I guess perhaps Rob expected to be patted on the back 24/7 for his
> > ridiculous opinions and theories, such as this foundational gem of CT
> > idiocy:
>
> > "LHO shot no one."
>
> No, I expected people to be able to make the case why he did shoot
> someone beyond what I have read for 20 years, because that stuff
> hasn't proved a damn thing.
>
>
>
> > Since when is total ignorance and outright stupidity supposed to be
> > embraced or rewarded? (And the "LHO shot no one" remark IS just flat-
> > out stupidity and nothing more than that.)
>
> So based on your logic Dave you go around and berate people all day
> who don't agree with you right? Somehow I believe that.
Dave doesn't get out much these day's -- so he has plenty of time to
vent his anger....hear-tell Bobby Vernon got him all turned around a
few years back....
aeffects
hon, I told you, you can't afford me.... However if you insist, a $25K
retainer is required as a retainer, to be wired into a corporate
account. When you can prove 'financial' wherewithal -- I'll send you
the necessary account info, till then.... fuckoff little guy. Oh, I'll
stop calling you douchebag when your funds clear....
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
Looks like you're beginning to see DVP for what the rest of us concluded long
ago.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194151668.986035.309...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> robcap...@netscape.com says...
OK, I'll bite. Who are those six witnesses that DVP doesn't want us to
know about?
curtjester1
> I am really saddened by this board and I've only been on it for a
> month. It is a great idea and should be a great place to honestly
> discuss the JFK assassination. IMO it is the most important event of
> the 20th century for Americans, and that is saying alot as this one
> century saw many great and horrible things.
>
> When one goes to aaj they see real dialogue about the assassinaton.
> It is a very broad topic as there are many components to it and the
> history leading up to the event is also loaded with clues. With that
> being said, the supposed LNers on this board contiune to ruin this
> discussion with their attacks and lack of connection to the event
> itself. They think they are mocking those of us who do not accept the
> official theory, but in reality they are making a mockery of a very
> tragic event that has affected this country ever since in many
> different ways. They call us CTers bigots, racists, homophobes and
> many other nasty words when in fact they are the ones guilty of
> supporting a big lie that does embrace those exact things.
>
> >From now on I propose to all CTers on this board to ignore comments by
>
> them if they do not discuss the assassination at all. CJ put up a
> great post today and right away he is attacked rather than what he
> said about the assassination. This is either their job or more than
> likely in most cases, fun for them to mock CTers as they are people
> who probably care about no one besides themselves so they see easy
> targets in people who are passionate about something beyond
> themselves. It will be tough at first becasue they will up the
> attacks to make us mad and respond, but if we can holdout and continue
> to ignore them they will be deprived of the attention they so crave.
>
> It is sad that this event means nothing to them, but they probably
> have the same disdain for the men who died at Pearl Harbor, the
> beaches of Normandy, the jungles of VN and the deserts of Iraq. They
> have fun attacking and ridiculing people who want to discuss a major
> event in our history instead of debating their case. It is probably
> because most of them don't know very much about the case and are here
> rather to mock anyone who has an interest in what happened that day in
> Dallas.
>
> We can do this or see the same pattern continue for a long time to
> come. I notice most of the most blatant attackers in the LN camp have
> been on this board for a long time and there are more of them that can
> say that then CTers, it is because they succeed in driving away many
> CTers in a short time. I must say I never thought I would prefer
> spending most of my time on John's board, but that time is fast
> approaching. It is not as fun as there is a nice time lag over there
> while your message is being reviewed and decided on, so that is why
> this board is the better of the two in theory, but in fact it is not.
> Take a look at what is on it right now. At least half of the post
> have nothing to do with the assassination in most regards, and of the
> other half the majority of replies are hate filled ones and again do
> not discuss the case.
>
> If you are like me and think this is an important event and want to
> continue to discuss it like adults please unite. I welcome any LNers
> (DVP comes to mind) that likes to debate with CTers the facts,
> theories and speculations to unite as well.
>
> Thanks!
It's no use being polite to people that have an agenda of a teen punk,
or refuse to listen thoughtfully to evidence. A lot of well-meaning
CT's have come and gone, and usually it's the troll mentality that
gets their goat. I just come for the learning and occasional good
debate that's left. Ignoring the trolls is usually the best bet, and
you are a breath of fresh air around here.
CJ
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well meaning CT's? WTF does that mean? Well meaning as attempting to
destroy this country? Well meaning by tearing at the reputations of
men who have devoted their lives to this country? CT's are blind.
They ignore physical evidence. They ignore common sense. They are so
wrapped up in their attempts to destroy, that the only destruction is
their very own lives. 44 years and yet all they can do is discuss
the same old crap.
Exactly how is this "well meaning"??? Let's see if the Courtjester
can finally give an articulate, intelligent response OR, just the same
old BS.
aeffects
oh-my GAWD the moron has lost it, must be Vince Bugliosi's grandson.
Hon that's what happens when fool mess around with murder
> They ignore physical evidence. They ignore common sense. They are so
> wrapped up in their attempts to destroy, that the only destruction is
> their very own lives.
son, you sound angry... very angry, angry enough to forget about
reality. Self-centered, selfish, egotistical whiners can't get beyond
their anger -- draping themselves in the flag of honor (a flag none of
them served) won't cut it. Worse off they think they're patriots --
only in your mind......
aeffects
amen.....
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Huge Healey moment = ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO. Look who is suddently the
"mouthpiece" for the CT community on this newsgroup. The singular
most ignorant of them all. This is the current status of the CT's
ROFLMAO. How desperate have they become roflmao. Pardon me, this is
sincerely THE singular most amusing moment I've had on this forum.
The CT's actually have the ONE misfit who should NEVER be a spokeman
speaking for them ROFLMAO, ROFLMAO.
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194221333....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
You wife & I have BETTER Laughs while rolling on the floor than you do.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -
You'd never know it by what we see daily on this forum, but I have met
some thoughtful, well meaning CTs. I think they are misguided,
obviously, but they are rational, well informed people who don't seem
inclined to buy into nutty theories and accept things which the
evidence obviously dictates. I've noticed Martin Shackelford has dones
some posting in the last few days and I would certainly put him in
that category. I remember him from the rather lively forum we had on
the old Prodigy network around the time of the release of the JFK
movie. Anthony Marsh is another and I think he too was a late comer to
that board. I have had some sharp disagreements with him on this
board, but at least he is well researched and not prone to buying into
the goofy stuff. He seems to have as many kooks disagreeing with him
as LNs.
tomnln
> Well meaning CT's? WTF does that mean? Well meaning as attempting to
> destroy this country? Well meaning by tearing at the reputations of
> men who have devoted their lives to this country? CT's are blind.
> They ignore physical evidence. They ignore common sense. They are so
> wrapped up in their attempts to destroy, that the only destruction is
> their very own lives. 44 years and yet all they can do is discuss
> the same old crap.
> Exactly how is this "well meaning"??? Let's see if the Courtjester
> can finally give an articulate, intelligent response OR, just the same
> old BS.
evidence/tstimony is Exactly what Yo(Momma)Harvey Dodges>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"Birds of a Feather".
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194225052....@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Rossley? Does it not bother you than you're even ignored by the
CT's????? Enjoy my wife Rossley, she has pity on the old and the
senile. You're perfect for her. :-)
robc...@netscape.com
wrote:
> You keep crying about wanting a debate Robcrap, why are you running
> from YoHarveys challange to debate him live in a chat room then?
> Either put up or shut up....your whining is annoying. Only 20 yrs
> behind ya in reading about this case huh? That explains your idiotic
> thinking. I guess you're just another coward like the rest of them
> that won't get into a live debate. You need to hide behind a keyboard
> or your at a loss for words. Pathetic!
Chat room? Chat room? Boy I could say something nasty but I'm not
like you. Why go to a chat room when we have this board? This is
where we discuss the JFK assassination not a chat room. Get real.
Doesn't want everyone to see his pathetic answers I guess.
YoHarvey
Healey moment roflmao. Jesus/Robcap? You are the coward we all
suspected. You prove it with each posting. Aren't you embarrassed?
Isn't your family embarrassed? You run, you cower, you hide and you
lie! Quite the resume. Right up there with Healy. As I stated on
another thread, you CT's are so predictable. All the same personality
traits. Did I mention dumber than dirt????
bigdog
>
> "Birds of a Feather".
>
with him as LNers. The real kooks can't tolerate a rational CT.
Rossley has gone over the edge. Altzheimer's has taken it's toll. He's
one setback away from becoming a potted plant.
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > as LNs.- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
A chat room doesn't provide it's own history... the troll can then run around
and announce that he "won" the argument - with no-one able to prove otherwise.
Yet he can't answer the 45 questions right here - where his answers would be
preserved for years to come.
tomnln
Even a "POTTED PLANT" makes you RUIN from your own evidence/testimony.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194230522.9...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
> Rossley? Does it not bother you than you're even ignored by the
> CT's????? Enjoy my wife Rossley, she has pity on the old and the
> senile. You're perfect for her. :-)
I'm NOT here to get elected.
I'm here to Expose Criminals like you.
Criminal Liars like you NEED Team Support.
So far, your support comes from a Homo (lowery)
a DYKE (sam)
a Cunt (justme)
Doesn't look like the World Series/Super Bowl Champs have anything to worry
about.
ps;
I never said I "enjoyed your wife".
She's just another chin to rest my balls on when you're working the Rest
Starts on the I-95.
You should take more time off from the I-95 to study your own
evidence/testimony.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
pss;
Glad to see that I'm getting under your Scales.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1194162513.0...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 3, 9:21 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1194132967.7...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > HERE HERE..
>>
>> Its hear, hear, fuckwit bigot.
>
> ah, you be da *butch*....
Love it, you really are a dumb stump defects, if I were you I'd STFU. Just
some friendly advice. LOL.
Sam Brown
And yet IMDB has no listing for you. My brother is an animator in both 2D
and 3D and he's listed, funny that.........Tell everyone defects, just what
have you done in animation apart from SFA? ROTFLMAO.
>
Sam Brown
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1194225052....@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Have to agree here bigdog, Martin, James Olmstead (sp) are just two Cters'
who spring to mind. I don't agree with their conclusions but I respect the
way they conduct themselves. Unfortunately too many of their fellow
'believers' have the manners and intelligence of headless chickens.
>
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "You also told a fib in regards to this {Tippit} event Dave, you said one witness and one witness only (Clemmons) saw two men and that is not true. Six witnesses saw two men..." <<<
>
> Bullshit.
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Davy boy losing his cool huh. Six witnesses were
recognized by the HSCA has having seen two men (one left via car), so
to paraphrase LHO "you figure it out". I'll help with the first one -
Frank Wright.
> I don't have one. I'm a machine, programmed by the United States
> Government. I thought you knew that by now.
I knew, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.
robc...@netscape.com
> It's no use being polite to people that have an agenda of a teen punk,
> or refuse to listen thoughtfully to evidence. A lot of well-meaning
> CT's have come and gone, and usually it's the troll mentality that
> gets their goat. I just come for the learning and occasional good
> debate that's left. Ignoring the trolls is usually the best bet, and
> you are a breath of fresh air around here.
Thanks CJ! I enjoy your posts too. I thought I'd pass this link
along about our buddy .John. I don't know if you guys have read it or
not but it refutes some of his bogus factoids on his propagandist
website.
robc...@netscape.com
> Looks like you're beginning to see DVP for what the rest of us concluded long
> ago.
Yep, I try to give people the benefit of doubt but I guess you guys
are right.
It is funny .John is so bent on ruining this site when just one man
did this and we are all kooks anyway. :-)
aeffects
> "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
IMBD? Internation Brotherhood of Butches and Dykes? Animator? Listed
as what, for who? LMFAO! You fraud you! .....But Sammy, you have
neither brother nor family members, by your own admission you're a
barren uni-sexed internet USNET troll, for which I've added: and a
figment of you own imagination....
In the interm, please provide one indication of your brother's work,
somehow we here have a tough time believing one word you post. What
would be utterly amazing is if you provided one word concerning the
JFK assassination... we know, we know, we know, your focus is on
lesbianism.... the butch part -- somehow toot's that's a none
starter.....
Well, actually you need a life
>
aeffects
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
and how would you know if they uttering falsehoods ot tuths, USNET
trolls such as yourself are only interested in matters below their
waist.
aeffects
> "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1194162513.0...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 3, 9:21 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1194132967.7...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > HERE HERE..
>
> >> Its hear, hear, fuckwit bigot.
>
> > ah, you be da *butch*....
>
> Love it, you really are a dumb stump defects, if I were you I'd STFU. Just
> some friendly advice. LOL.
Is that a threat Sam Brown? You after my family, too? You stalking me,
hon?
Sam Brown
Wrong(again). Simon Brown. Animator. Aladdin return of jafar, Happy Feet,
want me to go on failure? Started at Disney, now working on another George
Miller film I believe. Perhaps you could regale us with your achievements?
>
>>
>
>
Sam Brown
Keep it up Defects, the hole you're digging isn't quite deep enough yet.
>
Sam Brown
> On Nov 4, 8:58 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1194162513.0...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Nov 3, 9:21 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>> >> "Gil Jesus" <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:1194132967.7...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > HERE HERE..
>>
>> >> Its hear, hear, fuckwit bigot.
>>
>> > ah, you be da *butch*....
>>
>> Love it, you really are a dumb stump defects, if I were you I'd STFU.
>> Just
>> some friendly advice. LOL.
>
>
> Is that a threat Sam Brown? You after my family, too? You stalking me,
> hon?
No, not a threat, and I'm hoping your family already know what a bigotted
scumbag you are, otherwise it may come as a nasty shock. Even the
genetically diadvantaged deserve the truth.
Sam Brown
"Sam Brown" <samjb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:...> news:1194240347.2...@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Nov 4, 9:03 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Nov 3, 6:02 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Nov 3, 9:00 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > On Nov 3, 8:59 pm, aeffects <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > > On Nov 3, 5:39 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > > > On Nov 3, 8:22 pm, bigdog <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > > > > On Nov 3, 7:36 pm, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > > > > > HERE HERE..
>>>
>>> >> > > > > himself.
>>>
>>> >> > > > > > a
>>> >> > > > > > killfilter.
>>>
>>> >> > > > > > text -
>>>
>>> >> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> >> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>
>>> >> > > - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>>
>>> >> > - Show quoted text -
>>>
Yoohoooo! Defects? You've become strangely silent. Any reason for that?
ROTFLMFAO!
>
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
curtjester1
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> destroy this country? Well meaning by tearing at the reputations of
> men who have devoted their lives to this country? CT's are blind.
CT's by and large that frequent this forum are spurred by intellectual
debate over evidence, and like to theorize on the overall meaning and
influence of the conspiracy. The men who you fawn over have been
responsible for some of the most heinous crimes ever, including
showing favortism to situations that influence their power base and
pocketbooks, and murder is just an act of "neutralizing". LBJ has
been noted by many of his contemporaries in his political domain as
being quite responsible for a minimum of nine murders. JFK was trying
to deflate the corrupt banking system in trying to bypass the Federal
Reserve. He went against organized crime, by deporting people that
were worth 2 billion dollars. He went against the oil depletion
allowance that gave oil people free money over the rest of corporate
society. H.L. Hunt reached most of his wealth of 4 billion in two
years where it took Rockefeller 50 years. All the politican were
getting fat off the Vietnam War, and JFK knew the war for what it
was. He was the only politician that actually made somewhat a stand
against the Establishment. You're too blind to see what power and
money can do to eliminate a President and control the thinking of your
life.
> They ignore physical evidence. They ignore common sense. They are so
> wrapped up in their attempts to destroy, that the only destruction is
> their very own lives. 44 years and yet all they can do is discuss
> the same old crap.
The same ol crap is this fantastic profile you mantra about Oswald.
Oswald the poor, mentally disturbed fella, who happened to go country
to country with money in his pocket and his way greased all the time,
and yet you have this profile that is beyond belief. He ran gambling
for Marcello. He hung with right wingers who were very high profile,
yet you swallow the Commie stuff that was the only way out for Hoover
and the Conspirators. As ArtGuerilla and AnnArchy used to say Dupe
dupe dupe, Dope Dope Dope, Deep, deep, deep.
CJ
> Exactly how is this "well meaning"??? Let's see if the Courtjester
> can finally give an articulate, intelligent response OR, just the same
> old BS.- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
my goodness, does he know what little sis is up to in her sparetime?
Her special interests in the assassination of a sitting USPresident?
Does he have a cubicle in San Rafael? Hell, I know half the people
there.... Talk to me Sammy from down-undah!
curtjester1
Thanks for the link there. It has all the topics on that one, and I
was looking for stuff on the reenactments the other day, that was on
topic here.
http://www.geocities.com/mtgriffith1/faulty.htm
John tends to just lay low when the heat gets on, and basically his
whole mantra is just to look at any little evidence of 'why something
can't be so', and his usual thing is to bring up Oswald, or The Buffs
right away. And I am sure he has buffaloed the regents of his
university when he gets to use this stuff to teach it as a highly paid
university course. And of course he is known to hijack posts from
here, and to 'lose' posts that people spend a lot of time on when they
post to his site.
CJ
aeffects
these Lone Nut frogs never heard of ArtGuerilla and AnnArchy..... or
Bill Cleere for that matter.....
muc...@gmail.com
> On 4 Nov., 20:09, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <1194151668.986035.309...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
> > >On Nov 3, 8:00 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >> >>> "I am really saddened by this board..." <<<
>
> > >> Aw, poor thing.
>
> > >> I guess perhaps Rob expected to be patted on the back 24/7 for his
> > >> ridiculous opinions and theories, such as this foundational gem of CT
> > >> idiocy:
>
> > >> "LHO shot no one."
>
> > >No, I expected people to be able to make the case why he did shoot
> > >someone beyond what I have read for 20 years, because that stuff
> > >hasn't proved a damn thing.
>
> > >> Since when is total ignorance and outright stupidity supposed to be
> > >> embraced or rewarded? (And the "LHO shot no one" remark IS just flat-
> > >> out stupidity and nothing more than that.)
>
> > >So based on your logic Dave you go around and berate people all day
> > >who don't agree with you right? Somehow I believe that. In a free
> > >society (which we aren't) you should have open debate without
> > >resorting to vicious name calling. Especially when we are dealing
> > >with some college kids on here trying to earn a good grade by
> > >embracing one side of the story. I feel bad for your family, I guess
> > >you berate them when they don't agree with you.
>
> > >> Rob should be grateful to me for educating him to a goodly degree when
> > >> it comes to various sub-topics associated with 11/22/63.
>
> > >I got news for you Dave, I have heard all the pathetic things you have
> > >posted on hear a million times before, nothing new. Same old loser
> > >reasons for why one man did it. The same man who had to be killed to
> > >be kept quiet. Wonder why, what could a lone gunman tell us? Hmmm.
>
> > >> I've spent many hours composing various responses to his inane
> > >> reasoning and unsupportable theories. And I've utilized a variety of
> > >> citations and photographs to prove my points.
>
> > >> But what do I get in return? Here's just one example of what Rob has
> > >> given me in return (and this comment from Rob involves the evidence
> > >> surrounding the Tippit murder, no less, which is a murder that has so
> > >> many "OSWALD DID IT" connections it would make any prosecutor giddy at
> > >> the mere prospect of presenting such a case in front of a jury):
>
> > >> "You got nothing." -- Rob C.
>
> > >> Nice, huh?
>
> > >Hey it is the truth plain and simple. You also told a fib in regards
> > >to this event Dave, you said one witness and one witness only
> > >(Clemmons) saw two men and that is not true. Six witnesses saw two
> > >the six testify, why?
>
> > Looks like you're beginning to see DVP for what the rest of us concluded long
> > ago.
>
> know about?
Ben? Since you didn't respond to my question above, I inserted in the
Gerry Ford thread a sitirical remark that included quotes from your
exchange (also above) with Robcap. Clearer now?
bigdog
> On 4 Nov., 20:35, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Ben? Since you didn't respond to my question above, I inserted in the
> Gerry Ford thread a sitirical remark that included quotes from your
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ben Holmes respond to a question? On this forum? That has never
happened. Never will. He is the Artful Dodger of acj.
bigdog
> CT's by and large that frequent this forum are spurred by intellectual
> debate over evidence,
Intellectual debate??? Is that what you call talking in circles for 44
years. You keep going over the same ground but never get anywhere.
You've got the accelerator to the floor but the car is in neutral.
Haven't you noticed the scenery isn't changing. You are exactly where
you were 10 years ago. And 20. And 30. And 40. Even the Israelites
found their way to the Promised Land after 40 years. You folks are
doomed to continue wandering through the desert.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Asking *ME* to support Robcap's statement?
Why not ask him?
I'm quite sure that there *weren't* 6 eyewitnesses to two shooters... but I'm
equally as positive that it's a lie to state that there was only one.
So tell us Mark - why are you defending DVP's assertion that there was only one?
>I inserted in the
>Gerry Ford thread a sitirical remark that included quotes from your
>exchange (also above) with Robcap. Clearer now?
What I noted was that when asked to quote any statement of Robcap's in that post
- you couldn't do it.
David Von Pein
Actually, as far as I know, there were ZERO that meet the above
criteria....because Clemons didn't see the actual KILLING. She saw
what amounted to the aftermath. And she probably saw Ted Callaway with
Tippit's gun.
Unless the kooks want to believe that all FOUR other witnesses
(Markham, Tatum, Scoggins, Benavides) were 100% loony and couldn't
tell ONE shooter from TWO, then Mrs. Clemons did not and could not
have seen TWO SHOOTERS on Tenth Street.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194299104.252638.189...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
So *both* Robcap and DVP are lying, according to you!
How would you define "shooter", btw?
> So tell us Mark - why are you defending DVP's assertion that there was only one?
Is that what I'm doing?
> >I inserted in the
> >Gerry Ford thread a sitirical remark that included quotes from your
> >exchange (also above) with Robcap. Clearer now?
>
> What I noted was that when asked to quote any statement of Robcap's in that post
> - you couldn't do it.
I quoted both of you. Quit pretending.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
I've not seen Robcap's citations... but I *KNOW* that DVP is lying. That you
are unwilling to admit this makes *YOU* a liar as well.
>How would you define "shooter", btw?
How would you define "Western" and "Remington-Peters"?
And why are you unwilling to admit that DVP lied when he stated that only *ONE*
eyewitness exists that states that there was only one assailant?
>> So tell us Mark - why are you defending DVP's assertion that there was
>> only one?
>
>Is that what I'm doing?
Oh, don't be coy, Mark... of course you are.
When you imply that I have to defend Robcap's assertion, then naturally YOU HAVE
TO DEFEND DVP'S ASSERTION.
The fact that you refuse to reject it, as I've so easily done with Robcap's -
illustrates just who is more honest around here, doesn't it?
>> >I inserted in the
>> >Gerry Ford thread a sitirical remark that included quotes from your
>> >exchange (also above) with Robcap. Clearer now?
>>
>> What I noted was that when asked to quote any statement of Robcap's in
>> that post - you couldn't do it.
>
>I quoted both of you. Quit pretending.
No Mark, you didn't. Robcap's words appear *NO-WHERE* in that post - he was
never *in* that post. So why lie about it?
Sam Brown
Silly little man, I come from a close family. Something you would know
absolutely nothing about obviously. Now what exactly are your achievements
in animation and broadcasting? I noticed you are desperately avoiding the
subject.
>
robc...@netscape.com
> CT's by and large that frequent this forum are spurred by intellectual
> debate over evidence, and like to theorize on the overall meaning and
> influence of the conspiracy. The men who you fawn over have been
> responsible for some of the most heinous crimes ever, including
> showing favortism to situations that influence their power base and
> pocketbooks, and murder is just an act of "neutralizing". LBJ has
> been noted by many of his contemporaries in his political domain as
> being quite responsible for a minimum of nine murders. JFK was trying
> to deflate the corrupt banking system in trying to bypass the Federal
> Reserve. He went against organized crime, by deporting people that
> were worth 2 billion dollars. He went against the oil depletion
> allowance that gave oil people free money over the rest of corporate
> society. H.L. Hunt reached most of his wealth of 4 billion in two
> years where it took Rockefeller 50 years. All the politican were
> getting fat off the Vietnam War, and JFK knew the war for what it
> was. He was the only politician that actually made somewhat a stand
> against the Establishment. You're too blind to see what power and
> money can do to eliminate a President and control the thinking of your
> life.
In ex-CIA contract killer Hemming's words, "He was the last president
who thought he had power of the CIA". Not one president has
challenged them since. The law JFK passed bringing the printing of
money back to the U.S. Treasury department is still in effect as far
as a law goes, but no president has the guts to enforce it. In a
short presidency JFK made alot of enemies and some of these were due
to something JFK couldn't help - being born Catholic. In case anyone
doesn't think this is important check out the backgrounds of all the
major figures in this case any you'll find most of the were masons
(LBJ, Hoover, Nixon, Ford, etc...) and this secret society is very
anti-Catholic. Here is what JFK said about secret socities in 4/61
when speaking to newspaper publishers:
President Kennedy on Freemasonry
"The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and
we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret
societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long
ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of
pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify
it."
> > They ignore physical evidence. They ignore common sense. They are so
> > wrapped up in their attempts to destroy, that the only destruction is
> > their very own lives. 44 years and yet all they can do is discuss
> > the same old crap.
>
> The same ol crap is this fantastic profile you mantra about Oswald.
> Oswald the poor, mentally disturbed fella, who happened to go country
> to country with money in his pocket and his way greased all the time,
> and yet you have this profile that is beyond belief. He ran gambling
> for Marcello. He hung with right wingers who were very high profile,
> yet you swallow the Commie stuff that was the only way out for Hoover
> and the Conspirators. As ArtGuerilla and AnnArchy used to say Dupe
> dupe dupe, Dope Dope Dope, Deep, deep, deep.
One thing LNers never discuss when they act like they know the psyche
of LHO so well is why would a man with two children do this? All
other assassins were single and/or had no children. How can someone
be stable enough to have two children, but whacky enough to kill a
president? Not impossible but not very probable. So we have the
first assassin with a rifle and the first assassin with kids all
rolled up into one.
robc...@netscape.com
> John tends to just lay low when the heat gets on, and basically his
> whole mantra is just to look at any little evidence of 'why something
> can't be so', and his usual thing is to bring up Oswald, or The Buffs
> right away. And I am sure he has buffaloed the regents of his
> university when he gets to use this stuff to teach it as a highly paid
> university course. And of course he is known to hijack posts from
> here, and to 'lose' posts that people spend a lot of time on when they
> post to his site.
>
> CJ
You're welcome. The people who should be up in arms is the parents
who pay good money to have their kids brainwashed by people like
McAdams and Rahn. I'm not saying only conspiracy theories should be
taught, but rather a well balanced look at both sides. After all that
is supposed to the point of college - teach the young ones how to
reason and make sound decisions after hearing all the facts, evidence
or sides.
Again, I ask what does he have to fear if the truth is on his side?
Why all the censoring?
Bud
What A Pussy Ben is - Part One: If there existed 6 witnesses that
said they saw two people shoot Tippit, Ben would be aware of that
information. But, instead of labeling Rob`s claim what it is, he
offers the weak "I`ll wait to see if he can provided citations to that
claim" (my chracterization of Ben`s position, not a direct quote of
the not-so-tall pussy).
>but I *KNOW* that DVP is lying. That you
> are unwilling to admit this makes *YOU* a liar as well.
>
>
>
> >How would you define "shooter", btw?
>
>
> How would you define "Western" and "Remington-Peters"?
What A Pussy Ben Is - Part Two: Ben ducked a direct question,
knowing the answer undermined his position in regard to his objection
to DVP`s claim. Seeing he is defeated at his own game (word play),
knowing seeing a shooter requires witnessing a person shooting, Ben
ignores the question, in much the manner a pussy would do.
> And why are you unwilling to admit that DVP lied when he stated that only *ONE*
> eyewitness exists that states that there was only one assailant?
What A Pussy Ben Is - Part Three: Ben rewords his objection to DVP,
replacing "shooter" with "assailant". He has no respect for the
lurker`s intelligence.
> >> So tell us Mark - why are you defending DVP's assertion that there was
> >> only one?
> >
> >Is that what I'm doing?
>
>
> Oh, don't be coy, Mark... of course you are.
I thought he was pointing out your hypocricy for not attacking
Rob`s obvious falsehood.
> When you imply that I have to defend Robcap's assertion, then naturally YOU HAVE
> TO DEFEND DVP'S ASSERTION.
Can Ben produce more than one witness that says they saw two
people shoot Tippit?
> The fact that you refuse to reject it, as I've so easily done with Robcap's -
You didn`t reject Robcap`s information. You are waiting for cites
you know don`t exist.
> illustrates just who is more honest around here, doesn't it?
Yah, it does.
robc...@netscape.com
> Intellectual debate??? Is that what you call talking in circles for 44
> years. You keep going over the same ground but never get anywhere.
> You've got the accelerator to the floor but the car is in neutral.
> Haven't you noticed the scenery isn't changing. You are exactly where
> you were 10 years ago. And 20. And 30. And 40. Even the Israelites
> found their way to the Promised Land after 40 years. You folks are
> doomed to continue wandering through the desert.
I think your assumption that nothing has been accomplished in 44 years
is a false one. I know alot of things have been proven to be untrue,
namely most of the official theory we were all taught in school by
people who were told to teach the official theory or none at all -
kind of like the evolution vs. religion debate. How many years did it
take to get the evolution side into schools? I can't say I ascribe to
it, but again kids should be given all options and then let them
decide for themselves.
The reason no one theory can be proved is because the case was never
investigated properly, either by the WC, Church Committee or the HSCA
so basically it is all conjecture because nothing can be disproved on
the CT theories. The official theory is something entirely different
as the government put forth "facts" that were not based on a real
investigation, but they are considered "facts" nonetheless by all of
the official branches of government, business, media and academia.
These "facts" are easy to disprove since there is no real proof, even
the term circumstantial is too generous for most of the evidence. All
the evidence pinning the two murders on LHO is very weak in some cases
and nonexistant in most cases. There is no real motive that would
lead the police in any direction besides away from Oswald acting alone
or in another direction completely. Without a viable motive police
generally do not have the time to investigate the crime so they have
to focus on those that either do have one or seem to have one. This
is why more people get away with murder than the police would like you
to know about. If there is no apparent motive they don't look at
someone and they focus on making what they do have fit someone that
seems to have a motive. Not a perfect scenario, but it is all we
have. Now, some of you will say this is what the Warren Commission
did so how is this different? Well it is different for two reasons.
Firstly, this was the president and both the country and he deserved
better. Secondly, even the worst police investigations usually don't
make their case in less than 8 hours. They may pin someone as a
suspect, but usually it is after some time has gone by unless it is
very obvious (inheriting of money or marital problems are two that
come to mind). There is evidence that the Dallas FBI was getting tips
and they had already decided by late afternoon (11/22) they had their
"man" and filed it away with no investigation. Samething with the DPD
and D.A.'s office. No lead that moved things away from LHO was looked
into. How could any real investigation know within 8 hours or less
who the killer was (unless that person is seen doing it or caught
while in the act of doing it)? Impossible. And don't try the baloney
that he was seen doing either or both murders because there wasn't one
witness that could swear with a gun to their head they really saw LHO
do the shooting(s). This is what LN supporters never want to talk
about. You are kidding yourself. You believe that there was a full
investigation and your government was honest. There was no
investigation beyond what Hoover decided with the CIA and some further
input from LBJ's top aides. That was it. So if there a bunch of CT
theories, and some of them are kooky (but none as kooky as the LHO
version), it is the governments fault to begin with due to no
investigation leaving the door open for this conjecture.
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "I'm quite sure that there *weren't* 6 eyewitnesses to two shooters... but I'm equally as positive that it's a lie to state that there was only one." <<<
>
> Actually, as far as I know, there were ZERO that meet the above
> criteria....because Clemons didn't see the actual KILLING. She saw
> what amounted to the aftermath. And she probably saw Ted Callaway with
> Tippit's gun.
This is bull, she was sitting on her front porch within close
proximity to the car. IF she didn't see no one saw it. Let's talk
about your primary witness, Markham, she is the only person to say she
spoke with JDT as everyone else said he died almost instantaneoulsy
after being shot. What a kook as she said they talked for 15-20
minutes.
>
> Unless the kooks want to believe that all FOUR other witnesses
> (Markham, Tatum, Scoggins, Benavides) were 100% loony and couldn't
> tell ONE shooter from TWO, then Mrs. Clemons did not and could not
> have seen TWO SHOOTERS on Tenth Street.
How do you know they didn't say they saw two men? I never said they
said both shot JDT, but according to Richard E. Sprague there were 6
people who saw two men at the scene. We have already discussed the
fact that the WC omitted what it didn't want to hear so they could
have said they saw two men and it got reduced to one. Also, the silly
way the killer threw the shells in the air so everyone would see them
is ridiculous for a killer to do also unless they are planting
evidence. What about the jacket they found by the killer? The FBI
couldn't tie it to LHO as the laundry tags were from a place LHO never
went to and the color didn't match the two jackets Marina said he
had. Where did this jacket come from?
robc...@netscape.com
RobCap didn't say anything, but rather investigators like Richard E.
Sprague (HSCA) who spent years on the case said there were six people
who saw two men. That doesn't mean they saw two shooter, but two men
leave the scence. One was in a gray or silver car and one on foot.
The one on foot made a mockery of planting evidence to tie LHO by
throwing the casings in the air as he ran so nobody would miss it. He
also ditched his jacket and the FBI or DPD could never tie this jacket
to LHO. Furthermore, the .38 revolver casings found at the scene
(automatic casings were found near the body and Detective Poe
initialed two of them) do not match the bullets that were dug out of
JDT so it could not be the murder weapon. The police dispatcher said
it was a shooting with an automatic gun so this is what the police on
the scene determined. Why the rush to haul off the body? JDT was not
left for the full crime scene invetigation and this is not the usual
practice so it gives credence to some researchers claim that JDT's
body (who many on the DPD said looked alot like the president) was
used to fake the autopsy photos with. Don't shoot the messenger, this
is just what I have read. You can see a weird pattern by the official
people here that leaves alot of things open for conjecture.
David Von Pein
>>> "Can Ben produce more than one witness that says they saw two people shoot Tippit?" <<<
In reality, Ben can't produce even ONE such witness, because Acquilla
Clemons can't be placed in that category either. Clemons (or maybe
it's spelled "Clemmons", I've never been quite certain of the
spelling) didn't see TWO GUNS in the hands of TWO MEN at the Tippit
murder scene. She claimed to see two men, yes, but only one had a gun
in his hands.
BTW, I think a quote from the man who probably knows more about the
Tippit murder than anyone else alive--Dale Myers--is in order here.
Per Mr. Myers' book "With Malice" (the only book ever written
specifically about the murder of J.D. Tippit), we find this
interesting paragraph.....
"In assessing Acquilla Clemmons' story, it is worth noting that
she was the ONLY witness who claimed that two men were involved in the
shooting. Many eyewitnesses, who were considerably closer to the
scene, concur that only one man was involved in Tippit's death." --
Dale K. Myers; Page 72 of "WITH MALICE: LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND THE
MURDER OF OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT" (c.1998)
Mr. Myers, on page 73 of "With Malice", deals in some depth with the
eyewitness account of C. Frank Wright (who lived at 501 East Tenth
Street, near the Tippit murder scene).
Myers has a fairly-lengthy direct quote from Wright, which was taken
from an interview Wright had with George and Patricia Nash (with that
interview being printed in the October 12, 1964, edition of a
publication called "The New Leader"). In that interview, Wright never
once mentions seeing TWO men being involved in the killing of Officer
Tippit.
Check out "With Malice" for many, many more details regarding the
Tippit slaying. Everything is covered in depth by Dale Myers in that
book. It should be required reading for every kook in the world who
currently belongs in the "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody On November 22,
1963" club.
More "Tippit Talk".....
www.amazon.com/review/RX09PCPWL9RCH
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cbcca847390ffca8
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3959008382f45641
www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0966270975/ref=sib_dp_pt/002-8330534-3632809#reader-link
Phil Ossofee
dogshit that ever came down the pike. LBJ, Hoover,General Edwin Walker
amongst others.
The JFK Assassination shows how the country really runs, and that if you
are powerful enough and have friends in high places you can do whatever
the hell you want it seems like. Then when you die all your high placed
buddies pull Bill O'Reilly, Vince Bugliosi, Joe McCarthy tactics in
defending yer good name ha ha in perpetuity.
David Von Pein
Kook/Fruitcake.
curtjester1
First they had to do enough real investigating to understand the WC
wasn't the Promised Land...in fact in was A Detour.
At least proving a conspiracy....is at least one step on proving that
there could have been only one person involved. So that makes you
more behind in 44 years than any CTer could ever be thought of.
CJ
curtjester1
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Nevermind that they could spend some time within the site looking up
old people and post here, they think Google is some kind of geese
formation!
CJ
curtjester1
muc...@gmail.com
> > much...@gmail.com says...
Thanks, Bud. You said it all.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Ditto with Buddy the troll - he *KNOWS* that DVP is lying about there only being
one eyewitness. Mark undoubtably knows as well.
>> >but I *KNOW* that DVP is lying. That you
>> > are unwilling to admit this makes *YOU* a liar as well.
>>
>> > >How would you define "shooter", btw?
>>
>> > How would you define "Western" and "Remington-Peters"?
>>
>> What A Pussy Ben Is - Part Two: Ben ducked a direct question,
>> knowing the answer undermined his position in regard to his objection
>> to DVP`s claim. Seeing he is defeated at his own game (word play),
>> knowing seeing a shooter requires witnessing a person shooting, Ben
>> ignores the question, in much the manner a pussy would do.
Gave the answer... in fact, went *beyond* the question for the perceptive
person.
Buddy the troll simply didn't like the answer. And Mark too much of a coward to
deal with it.
>> > And why are you unwilling to admit that DVP lied when he stated that
>> > only *ONE* eyewitness exists that states that there was only one
>> > assailant?
>>
>> What A Pussy Ben Is - Part Three: Ben rewords his objection to DVP,
>> replacing "shooter" with "assailant". He has no respect for the
>> lurker`s intelligence.
My "objection" is still the same. Two shooters, two assailant's, two suspects,
two... well, any intelligent person got the drift.
Buddy the troll, DVP, and Mark - simply lie when they assert that there was only
one eyewitness to more than one shooter.
>> > >> So tell us Mark - why are you defending DVP's assertion that there was
>> > >> only one?
>>
>> > >Is that what I'm doing?
>>
>> > Oh, don't be coy, Mark... of course you are.
>>
>> I thought he was pointing out your hypocricy for not attacking
>> Rob`s obvious falsehood.
Coward that he is, Buddy the troll knows quite well that I have no problems
"correcting" fellow CT'ers when it's a topic of interest to me - I've done so in
the past.
But the hypocrisy shown by Buddy and Mark are stark - for they've *EXPRESSED* an
interest in this topic - yet refuse to chide DVP for lying.
>>> When you imply that I have to defend Robcap's assertion, then naturally YOU
>>HAVE
>> > TO DEFEND DVP'S ASSERTION.
>>
>> Can Ben produce more than one witness that says they saw two
>> people shoot Tippit?
Nope. Don't fight strawmen, that's my motto.
Can I produce more than one eyewitness to *TWO SUSPECTS*... absolutely.
DVP lied, and Buddy and Mark are too dishonest to admit it.
>>> The fact that you refuse to reject it, as I've so easily done with Robcap's -
>>
>> You didn`t reject Robcap`s information. You are waiting for cites
>> you know don`t exist.
Yep... I don't pretend to know *everything* about the assassination - and if Rob
believes he has a citation that supports what he says, I'm willing to wait and
look at it.
But it's a *KNOWN FACT* that there was more than only one eyewitness to multiple
suspects... and DVP knows this. He lied.
>> > illustrates just who is more honest around here, doesn't it?
>>
>> Yah, it does.
>
>Thanks, Bud. You said it all.
Yep... he demonstrated yet again, that just like you, he's willing to lie to
protect his faith.
>> > >> >I inserted in the
>> > >> >Gerry Ford thread a sitirical remark that included quotes from your
>> > >> >exchange (also above) with Robcap. Clearer now?
>>
>> > >> What I noted was that when asked to quote any statement of Robcap's in
>> > >> that post - you couldn't do it.
>>
>> > >I quoted both of you. Quit pretending.
>>
>> > No Mark, you didn't. Robcap's words appear *NO-WHERE* in that post
>> > - he was never *in* that post. So why lie about it?
Never responded, I see. Mark - you're a liar. How embarrassing!!
aeffects
> In article <1194372610.432618.79...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
I think his lying has progressed to the pathological state. he's not
the only Lone Nutter to suffering the infliction. Indeed, sad!
muc...@gmail.com
In that other thread, I pasted in part of Ben's exchange with Robcap
the day before to remind him of that. I wrote "Robcap:" above Robcap's
words and "Ben:" above Ben's words, thinking that would be enough to
jog Ben's memory. Boy, was I wrong! Perhaps I should have put
QUOTATION marks around those QUOTES to emphasize that they were
QUOTES...
Case closed.
Bud
That isn`t what DVP said, is it Dishonest Pussy?
> Mark undoubtably knows as well.
>
>
>
>
> >> >but I *KNOW* that DVP is lying. That you
> >> > are unwilling to admit this makes *YOU* a liar as well.
> >>
> >> > >How would you define "shooter", btw?
> >>
> >> > How would you define "Western" and "Remington-Peters"?
> >>
> >> What A Pussy Ben Is - Part Two: Ben ducked a direct question,
> >> knowing the answer undermined his position in regard to his objection
> >> to DVP`s claim. Seeing he is defeated at his own game (word play),
> >> knowing seeing a shooter requires witnessing a person shooting, Ben
> >> ignores the question, in much the manner a pussy would do.
>
>
> Gave the answer...
Why lie, Dishonest Pussy, your response remains above. Mark asked
you to define "shooter", you ignored his request, and asked him a
question instead. You know what that makes you.
>in fact, went *beyond* the question for the perceptive
> person.
I think Mark wanted an answer to the question he asked, Dishonest
Pussy, nothing beyond that.
> Buddy the troll simply didn't like the answer.
I was fine with it, it demonstrates your character to the lurkers,
DP.
> And Mark too much of a coward to
> deal with it.
>
>
>
> >> > And why are you unwilling to admit that DVP lied when he stated that
> >> > only *ONE* eyewitness exists that states that there was only one
> >> > assailant?
> >>
> >> What A Pussy Ben Is - Part Three: Ben rewords his objection to DVP,
> >> replacing "shooter" with "assailant". He has no respect for the
> >> lurker`s intelligence.
>
>
> My "objection" is still the same. Two shooters, two assailant's, two suspects,
> two... well, any intelligent person got the drift.
Of course an honest person with credibility would have answered
Marks request for a definition of "shooter" by just saying you choose
the wrong word to express the concept you were trying to convey.Why
wasn`t that an option for you?
> Buddy the troll, DVP, and Mark - simply lie when they assert that there was only
> one eyewitness to more than one shooter.
Quote me taking this position, Dishonest Pussy.
> >> > >> So tell us Mark - why are you defending DVP's assertion that there was
> >> > >> only one?
> >>
> >> > >Is that what I'm doing?
> >>
> >> > Oh, don't be coy, Mark... of course you are.
> >>
> >> I thought he was pointing out your hypocricy for not attacking
> >> Rob`s obvious falsehood.
>
>
> Coward that he is, Buddy the troll knows quite well that I have no problems
> "correcting" fellow CT'ers when it's a topic of interest to me - I've done so in
> the past.
Do you hope to distract the lurkers with this blatant attempt to
shift the focus elsewhere? I was pointing out what you did in *this*
case, where you`ve acted in a hypocritical manner.
> But the hypocrisy shown by Buddy and Mark are stark - for they've *EXPRESSED* an
> interest in this topic - yet refuse to chide DVP for lying.
<snicker> Leave it to Ben to try and turn the tables. Problem is,
I can quote Ben`s hypocricy...
ROBCAP: "Hey it is the truth plain and simple.You also told told a
fib in regards to this event Dave, you said one witness and one
witness only (Clemmons) saw two men and that is not true. Six
witnesses saw two men, but guess what the Warren Commission did, they
only let one of the six testify why?"
BEN: "Looks like you are beginning to see DVP for what the rest of
us concluded long ago."
Later, Ben says ""I`m quite sure there *weren`t* 6 eyewitnesses to
two shooters."
So, Ben responded to Robcap`s post, to give him kudos for being
astute, knowing that what Robcap had just posted previous to his
response contained a bunch of outright lies. I think this caught
Mark`s attention, as something odd for a person who professes to be
honest to do. In reality, Mark knows as well as I do how honest Ben
is, so it was just a matter of calling him to task. It isn`t hypocricy
on Mark`s part, or mine, because we did not offer support or make
comments under DVP`s remarks on this subject.
> >>> When you imply that I have to defend Robcap's assertion, then naturally YOU
> >>HAVE
> >> > TO DEFEND DVP'S ASSERTION.
> >>
> >> Can Ben produce more than one witness that says they saw two
> >> people shoot Tippit?
>
>
> Nope. Don't fight strawmen, that's my motto.
>
> Can I produce more than one eyewitness to *TWO SUSPECTS*... absolutely.
"suspects" according to who? The witnesses?
> DVP lied, and Buddy and Mark are too dishonest to admit it.
Did DVP use the word "suspect" you are now dishonestly interjecting
into the discussion? Isn`t "suspect" a word you are using because you
can stretch what the witnesses said to encompass this vague word?
> >>> The fact that you refuse to reject it, as I've so easily done with Robcap's -
> >>
> >> You didn`t reject Robcap`s information. You are waiting for cites
> >> you know don`t exist.
>
>
> Yep... I don't pretend to know *everything* about the assassination - and if Rob
> believes he has a citation that supports what he says, I'm willing to wait and
> look at it.
You know all the kook squalking points by now. If there were 6
witnesses to two shooters in the Tippit murder, that would be brought
up in every Tippit post. How can you stand being such a deceitful,
dishonest pussy?
> But it's a *KNOWN FACT* that there was more than only one eyewitness to multiple
> suspects... and DVP knows this. He lied.
Lets see you quote DVP making the claim you just put in his mouth.
And then lets see you produce testimony from multiple witnesses
contradicting what he *actually* said.
> >> > illustrates just who is more honest around here, doesn't it?
> >>
> >> Yah, it does.
> >
> >Thanks, Bud. You said it all.
>
>
> Yep... he demonstrated yet again, that just like you, he's willing to lie to
> protect his faith.
I`m doing what I always do, attack you. Mark is getting good at
picking up on your instances of dishonesty, I only really wanted to
show support for his efforts (not that finding instances of your
dishonesty is that difficult). I suspect you will have to watch what
you say if Mark is going to hold you to your words. And you must hope
the lurkers are retarded enough to buy your ham-handed attempts to
turn the discussion back on him.
> >> > >> >I inserted in the
> >> > >> >Gerry Ford thread a sitirical remark that included quotes from your
> >> > >> >exchange (also above) with Robcap. Clearer now?
> >>
> >> > >> What I noted was that when asked to quote any statement of Robcap's in
> >> > >> that post - you couldn't do it.
> >>
> >> > >I quoted both of you. Quit pretending.
> >>
> >> > No Mark, you didn't. Robcap's words appear *NO-WHERE* in that post
> >> > - he was never *in* that post. So why lie about it?
>
> Never responded, I see. Mark - you're a liar.
Why do you think Mark can`t include quotes from one post into
another post? Is there some kind of kook rule against this?
> How embarrassing!!
You don`t seem to be.
chuck schuyler
Wow, a post from Phil at 329am and he almost sounds sober...
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
You *STILL* can't quote anything that Robcap wrote in that post. It's not
there, he was never *IN* that post. You lied, you got caught at it.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194388600.848345.58...@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
We seem to be talking about different posts. Here's a link to the one
that I'm talking about:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3b05c2f783e61252
I'm quoting the response part below.
[BEGIN OF RESPONSE]
That's a tough one. Perhaps it's your complete list of Tippit murder
witnesses that saw two men?
Robcap:
Hey it is the truth plain and simple. You also told a fib in regards
to this event Dave, you said one witness and one witness only
(Clemmons) saw two men and that is not true. Six witnesses saw two
men, but guess what the Warren Commission did, they only let one of
the six testify, why?
Ben:
Looks like you're beginning to see DVP for what the rest of us
concluded long ago.
[END OF RESPONSE]
Can you see the "Robcap" quote above?
Can you see the "Ben" quote above?
They were posted as a gentle reminder of the exchange you had with
Robcap the day before. Viewed in context with the first paragraph
above, that shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
More questions?
muc...@gmail.com
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
Yep... that's the post.
You *STILL* can't quote anything that Robcap wrote in that post - lurkers can
look at the headers and see that Robcap was *NEVER* in that post...
You can keep right on lying if you want, Mark - but I'll just keep pointing the
truth out.
>I'm quoting the response part below.
>
>[BEGIN OF RESPONSE]
>
>That's a tough one. Perhaps it's your complete list of Tippit murder
>witnesses that saw two men?
>
>Robcap:
>
>Hey it is the truth plain and simple. You also told a fib in regards
>to this event Dave, you said one witness and one witness only
>(Clemmons) saw two men and that is not true. Six witnesses saw two
>men, but guess what the Warren Commission did, they only let one of
>the six testify, why?
>
>Ben:
>
>Looks like you're beginning to see DVP for what the rest of us
>concluded long ago.
>
>[END OF RESPONSE]
>
>Can you see the "Robcap" quote above?
Written by you, not Robcap.
As anyone can tell by the header information in that post.
>Can you see the "Ben" quote above?
Again, written by you, as everyone can tell...
>They were posted as a gentle reminder of the exchange you had with
>Robcap the day before. Viewed in context with the first paragraph
>above, that shouldn't be too hard to figure out.
>
>More questions?
Certainly... when are you going to demonstrate that Robcap was ever in that
post?
You lied... tis that simple.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
>
>On 7 Nov., 01:36, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > In article <1194372610.432618.79...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>> > much...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> > >On 6 Nov., 02:24, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>> > >> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> > >> > In article <1194307709.127013.231...@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>> > >> > much...@gmail.com says...
>>
>te:
>> > >> > >> In article <1194299104.252638.189...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> > >> > >> much...@gmail.com says...
>>
>> > >> > >> >On 4 Nov., 20:35, much...@gmail.com wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > >> >> > In article <1194151668.986035.309...@o80g2000hse.googlegro=
>ups.com>,
>> > >> > >> >> > robcap...@netscape.com says...
>>
>> > >> > >> >> > >On Nov 3, 8:00 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> w=
>rote:
>> > >> > >> >> > >> >>> "I am really saddened by this board..." <<<
>>
>> > >> > >> >> > >> Aw, poor thing.
>>
>/7 for his
>> > >>> >> >> > >> ridiculous opinions and theories, such as this foundatio=
>nal gem of
>> > >>CT
>> > >> > >> >> > >> idiocy:
>>
>> > >> > >> >> > >> "LHO shot no one."
>>
>did shoot
>> > >> > >> >> > >someone beyond what I have read for 20 years, because tha=
>t stuff
>> > >> > >> >> > >hasn't proved a damn thing.
>>
>posed to be
>> > >>> >> >> > >> embraced or rewarded? (And the "LHO shot no one" remark =
>IS just
>> > >>flat-
>> > >> > >> >> > >> out stupidity and nothing more than that.)
>>
>e all day
>> > >>> >> >> > >who don't agree with you right? Somehow I believe that. =
>In a free
>> > >> > >> >> > >society (which we aren't) you should have open debate wit=
>hout
>> > >> > >> >> > >resorting to vicious name calling. Especially when we ar=
>e dealing
>> > >> > >> >> > >with some college kids on here trying to earn a good grad=
>e by
>> > >>> >> >> > >embracing one side of the story. I feel bad for your fami=
>ly, I guess
>> > >> > >> >> > >you berate them when they don't agree with you.
>>
>y degree
>> > >>when
>> > >> > >> >> > >> it comes to various sub-topics associated with 11/22/63.
>>
>ngs you
>> > >>have
>> > >>> >> >> > >posted on hear a million times before, nothing new. Same =
>old loser
>> > >>> >> >> > >reasons for why one man did it. The same man who had to b=
>e killed to
>> > >>> >> >> > >be kept quiet. Wonder why, what could a lone gunman tell =
>us? Hmmm.
>>
>> > >> > >> >> > >> I've spent many hours composing various responses to hi=
>s inane
>> > >>> >> >> > >> reasoning and unsupportable theories. And I've utilized =
>a variety
>> > >>of
>> > >> > >> >> > >> citations and photographs to prove my points.
>>
>what Rob
>> > >>has
>> > >>> >> >> > >> given me in return (and this comment from Rob involves t=
>he evidence
>> > >>> >> >> > >> surrounding the Tippit murder, no less, which is a murde=
>r that has
>> > >>so
>> > >>> >>>> > >> many "OSWALD DID IT" connections it would make any prosec=
>utor giddy
>> > >>at
>> > >> > >> >> > >> the mere prospect of presenting such a case in front of=
> a jury):
>>
>> > >> > >> >> > >> "You got nothing." -- Rob C.
>>
>> > >> > >> >> > >> Nice, huh?
>>
> in regards
>> > >> > >> >> > >to this event Dave, you said one witness and one witness =
>only
>> > >>> >> >> > >(Clemmons) saw two men and that is not true. Six witnesse=
>s saw two
>> > >>> >> >> > >men, but guess what the Warren Commission did, they only l=
>et one of
>> > >> > >> >> > >the six testify, why?
>>
>s concluded
>> > >> > >>long
>> > >> > >> >> > ago.
>>
>> > >>> >> >> OK, I'll bite. Who are those six witnesses that DVP doesn't w=
>ant us to
>> > >> > >> >> know about?
>>
>> > >> > >> >Ben? Since you didn't respond to my question above,
>>
>> > >> > >> Asking *ME* to support Robcap's statement?
>>
>> > >> > >> Why not ask him?
>>
>rs... but
>> > >>> >> I'm equally as positive that it's a lie to state that there was =
>only one.
>>
>> > >> > >So *both* Robcap and DVP are lying, according to you!
>>
>> > >> > I've not seen Robcap's citations...
>>
>> > >> What A Pussy Ben is - Part One: If there existed 6 witnesses that
>> > >> said they saw two people shoot Tippit, Ben would be aware of that
>> > >> information. But, instead of labeling Rob`s claim what it is, he
>at
>> > >> claim" (my chracterization of Ben`s position, not a direct quote of
>> > >> the not-so-tall pussy).
>>
>at
>> > >> > only *ONE* eyewitness exists that states that there was only one
>> > >> > assailant?
>>
>P,
>> > >> replacing "shooter" with "assailant". He has no respect for the
>> > >> lurker`s intelligence.
>>
>uspects,
>> > two... well, any intelligent person got the drift.
>>
>> Of course an honest person with credibility would have answered
>> Marks request for a definition of "shooter" by just saying you choose
>> the wrong word to express the concept you were trying to convey.Why
>> wasn`t that an option for you?
>>
> was only
>> > one eyewitness to more than one shooter.
>>
>> Quote me taking this position, Dishonest Pussy.
>>
>ere was
>> > >> > >> only one?
>>
>> > >> > >Is that what I'm doing?
>>
>> > >> > Oh, don't be coy, Mark... of course you are.
>>
>> > >> I thought he was pointing out your hypocricy for not attacking
>> > >> Rob`s obvious falsehood.
>>
>lems
>> > "correcting" fellow CT'ers when it's a topic of interest to me - I've d=
>one so in
>> > the past.
>>
>> Do you hope to distract the lurkers with this blatant attempt to
>> shift the focus elsewhere? I was pointing out what you did in *this*
>> case, where you`ve acted in a hypocritical manner.
>>
>ESSED* an
>> > interest in this topic - yet refuse to chide DVP for lying.
>>
>> <snicker> Leave it to Ben to try and turn the tables. Problem is,
>> I can quote Ben`s hypocricy...
>>
>> ROBCAP: "Hey it is the truth plain and simple.You also told told a
>> fib in regards to this event Dave, you said one witness and one
>> witness only (Clemmons) saw two men and that is not true. Six
>> witnesses saw two men, but guess what the Warren Commission did, they
>> only let one of the six testify why?"
>>
>> BEN: "Looks like you are beginning to see DVP for what the rest of
>> us concluded long ago."
>>
>> Later, Ben says ""I`m quite sure there *weren`t* 6 eyewitnesses to
>> two shooters."
>>
>> So, Ben responded to Robcap`s post, to give him kudos for being
>> astute, knowing that what Robcap had just posted previous to his
>> response contained a bunch of outright lies. I think this caught
>> Mark`s attention, as something odd for a person who professes to be
>> honest to do. In reality, Mark knows as well as I do how honest Ben
>> is, so it was just a matter of calling him to task. It isn`t hypocricy
>> on Mark`s part, or mine, because we did not offer support or make
>> comments under DVP`s remarks on this subject.
>>
>ally YOU
>> > >>HAVE
>> > >> > TO DEFEND DVP'S ASSERTION.
>>
>> > >> Can Ben produce more than one witness that says they saw two
>> > >> people shoot Tippit?
>>
>> > Nope. Don't fight strawmen, that's my motto.
>>
>> > Can I produce more than one eyewitness to *TWO SUSPECTS*... absolutely.
>>
>> "suspects" according to who? The witnesses?
>>
>> > DVP lied, and Buddy and Mark are too dishonest to admit it.
>>
>> Did DVP use the word "suspect" you are now dishonestly interjecting
>> into the discussion? Isn`t "suspect" a word you are using because you
>> can stretch what the witnesses said to encompass this vague word?
>>
>Robcap's -
>>
>> > >> You didn`t reject Robcap`s information. You are waiting for cites
>> > >> you know don`t exist.
>>
>nd if Rob
>> > believes he has a citation that supports what he says, I'm willing to w=
>ait and
>> > look at it.
>>
>> You know all the kook squalking points by now. If there were 6
>> witnesses to two shooters in the Tippit murder, that would be brought
>> up in every Tippit post. How can you stand being such a deceitful,
>> dishonest pussy?
>>
> multiple
>> > suspects... and DVP knows this. He lied.
>>
>> Lets see you quote DVP making the claim you just put in his mouth.
>> And then lets see you produce testimony from multiple witnesses
>> contradicting what he *actually* said.
>>
>> > >> > illustrates just who is more honest around here, doesn't it?
>>
>> > >> Yah, it does.
>>
>> > >Thanks, Bud. You said it all.
>>
>ie to
>> > protect his faith.
>>
>> I`m doing what I always do, attack you. Mark is getting good at
>> picking up on your instances of dishonesty, I only really wanted to
>> show support for his efforts (not that finding instances of your
>> dishonesty is that difficult). I suspect you will have to watch what
>> you say if Mark is going to hold you to your words. And you must hope
>> the lurkers are retarded enough to buy your ham-handed attempts to
>> turn the discussion back on him.
>>
>> > >> > >> >I inserted in the
> your
>> > >> > >> >exchange (also above) with Robcap. Clearer now?
>>
>ap's in
>> > >> > >> that post - you couldn't do it.
>>
>> > >> > >I quoted both of you. Quit pretending.
>>
>> > >> > No Mark, you didn't. Robcap's words appear *NO-WHERE* in that post
>> > >> > - he was never *in* that post. So why lie about it?
>>
>> > Never responded, I see. Mark - you're a liar.
>>
>> Why do you think Mark can`t include quotes from one post into
>> another post? Is there some kind of kook rule against this?
>>
>> > How embarrassing!!
>>
>> You don`t seem to be.
>
Mark... as long as you're willing, along with Buddy the troll - to keep lying
about DVP's assertion - you'll have to step up to the plate.
Buddy hasn't said anything in this post worth my time. And you're too gutless
to do so.
muc...@gmail.com
> In article <1194423404.431699.73...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> much...@gmail.com says...
Huh?