Discussion:
Mark Lane and the KGB
(too old to reply)
John McAdams
2018-02-05 04:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/

<quote on>

Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.

Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.

Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.

Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.

A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”

The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.

A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”

<end quote>

Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Bill Clarke
2018-02-06 00:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a ?trusted
relationship? with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane?s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock?s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission?s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau?s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women ?hand printed instructions ? in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.?
The KGB?s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union?s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name ?Kram.? ?The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.?
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So not only was he a dishonest person but was a pervert to boot. I'm not
surprised.
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-07 03:29:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a ?trusted
relationship? with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane?s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock?s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission?s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau?s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women ?hand printed instructions ? in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.?
The KGB?s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union?s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name ?Kram.? ?The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.?
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So not only was he a dishonest person but was a pervert to boot. I'm not
surprised.
So you'll fall for any disinformation as long as it comes from the CIA.
Bill Clarke
2018-02-08 01:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a ?trusted
relationship? with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane?s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock?s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission?s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau?s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women ?hand printed instructions ? in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.?
The KGB?s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union?s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name ?Kram.? ?The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.?
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So not only was he a dishonest person but was a pervert to boot. I'm not
surprised.
So you'll fall for any disinformation as long as it comes from the CIA.
Actually Marsh I got my information that Lane was dishonest from several
sources, none being the CIA. I'll include a few here for you. I don't
give a damn if he was a pervert or not but I must say that I don't trust
people prone to make false statements.

Mark Lane -- Smearing America's Soldiers - Mcadams.posc.mu.edu?
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smearing.htm

His book Conversations With Americans portrayed American soldiers as
brutal war criminals with the same selective use of evidence and the same
reliance on unreliable witnesses that mark his JFK conspiracy books.
Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Neil Sheehan reported on the Vietnam War
for the New York Times.

Conversation with Neil Sheehan, cover page
globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversations/Sheehan/

Harry Kreisler interviews Neil Sheehan on covering the Vietnam War;
November 1988. ... Sheehan. Remembering the Vietnam War; Conversation with
Neil Sheehan, 11/14/88 by ... Mr. Sheehan has just written a new book,
published by Random House, called A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and
America in Vietnam.
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-10 01:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a ?trusted
relationship? with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane?s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock?s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission?s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau?s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women ?hand printed instructions ? in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.?
The KGB?s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union?s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name ?Kram.? ?The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.?
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So not only was he a dishonest person but was a pervert to boot. I'm not
surprised.
So you'll fall for any disinformation as long as it comes from the CIA.
Actually Marsh I got my information that Lane was dishonest from several
sources, none being the CIA. I'll include a few here for you. I don't
give a damn if he was a pervert or not but I must say that I don't trust
people prone to make false statements.
Mark Lane -- Smearing America's Soldiers - Mcadams.posc.mu.edu?
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smearing.htm
As I said - CIA. That's all you have.
Post by Bill Clarke
His book Conversations With Americans portrayed American soldiers as
brutal war criminals with the same selective use of evidence and the same
reliance on unreliable witnesses that mark his JFK conspiracy books.
Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Neil Sheehan reported on the Vietnam War
for the New York Times.
Conversation with Neil Sheehan, cover page
globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversations/Sheehan/
Harry Kreisler interviews Neil Sheehan on covering the Vietnam War;
November 1988. ... Sheehan. Remembering the Vietnam War; Conversation with
Neil Sheehan, 11/14/88 by ... Mr. Sheehan has just written a new book,
published by Random House, called A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and
America in Vietnam.
BFD. You've gone off-topic again. You always do that when you've lost an
argument. I have that book of course. Stay on topic. Mark Lane is not in
the index.
Bill Clarke
2018-02-10 20:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a ?trusted
relationship? with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane?s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock?s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission?s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau?s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women ?hand printed instructions ? in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.?
The KGB?s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union?s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name ?Kram.? ?The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.?
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So not only was he a dishonest person but was a pervert to boot. I'm not
surprised.
So you'll fall for any disinformation as long as it comes from the CIA.
Actually Marsh I got my information that Lane was dishonest from several
sources, none being the CIA. I'll include a few here for you. I don't
give a damn if he was a pervert or not but I must say that I don't trust
people prone to make false statements.
Mark Lane -- Smearing America's Soldiers - Mcadams.posc.mu.edu?
mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smearing.htm
As I said - CIA. That's all you have.
Yeah, guess I forgot John works for the CIA. Rolling on the floor again
Marsh.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
His book Conversations With Americans portrayed American soldiers as
brutal war criminals with the same selective use of evidence and the same
reliance on unreliable witnesses that mark his JFK conspiracy books.
Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Neil Sheehan reported on the Vietnam War
for the New York Times.
Conversation with Neil Sheehan, cover page
globetrotter.berkeley.edu/conversations/Sheehan/
Harry Kreisler interviews Neil Sheehan on covering the Vietnam War;
November 1988. ... Sheehan. Remembering the Vietnam War; Conversation with
Neil Sheehan, 11/14/88 by ... Mr. Sheehan has just written a new book,
published by Random House, called A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and
America in Vietnam.
BFD. You've gone off-topic again. You always do that when you've lost an
argument.
Good god Marsh. You should talk! I've just watched you post everything
but the order for your false statement that "JFK ordered 1,000 men per
month home from Vietnam" and you have the nerve to post this crap?

I have that book of course. Stay on topic. Mark Lane is not in
Post by Anthony Marsh
the index.
I didn't say he was. But the author of that book is the one that exposed
Lane's book as a bunch of lies. Try to keep up.
BOZ
2018-02-11 01:29:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a ?trusted
relationship? with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane?s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock?s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission?s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau?s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women ?hand printed instructions ? in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.?
The KGB?s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union?s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name ?Kram.? ?The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.?
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So not only was he a dishonest person but was a pervert to boot. I'm not
surprised.
So you'll fall for any disinformation as long as it comes from the CIA.
Stop spreading disinformation.
g***@gmail.com
2018-02-07 03:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a ?trusted
relationship? with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane?s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock?s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission?s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau?s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women ?hand printed instructions ? in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.?
The KGB?s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union?s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name ?Kram.? ?The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.?
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
So not only was he a dishonest person but was a pervert to boot. I'm not
surprised.
Not unlike J. Edgar.

Squinty
BOZ
2018-02-06 00:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
It sounds like Mark Lane was part of the Kinsey Report.
mainframetech
2018-02-06 01:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
"Mark Lane soon became aware of a smear campaign against him by the FBI
and the CIA. As Bernard Fensterwald, pointed out: "Mark Lane, the long
time critic of the Warren Report has often spoken of FBI harassment and
surveillance directed against him. While many observers were at first
skeptical about Lane's characteristically vocal allegations against the
FBI, the list of classified Warren Commission documents that was later
released substantiated Lane's charges, as it contained several FBI files
about him. Lane had earlier uncovered a February 24, 1964 Warren
Commission memorandum from staff counsel Harold Willens to General Counsel
J. Lee Rankin. The memorandum revealed that FBI agents had Lane's
movements and lectures under surveillance, and were forwarding their
reports to the Warren Commission.""

From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKlaneM.htm

Chris
John McAdams
2018-02-06 01:25:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
"Mark Lane soon became aware of a smear campaign against him by the FBI
and the CIA. As Bernard Fensterwald, pointed out: "Mark Lane, the long
time critic of the Warren Report has often spoken of FBI harassment and
surveillance directed against him. While many observers were at first
skeptical about Lane's characteristically vocal allegations against the
FBI, the list of classified Warren Commission documents that was later
released substantiated Lane's charges, as it contained several FBI files
about him. Lane had earlier uncovered a February 24, 1964 Warren
Commission memorandum from staff counsel Harold Willens to General Counsel
J. Lee Rankin. The memorandum revealed that FBI agents had Lane's
movements and lectures under surveillance, and were forwarding their
reports to the Warren Commission.""
From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKlaneM.htm
So you object to the FBI surveilling Mark Lane, who had considerable
communist "connections," but was not known to have broken any law?

(Well . . . laws about certain sexual behavior, but that was no
business of the FBI. Just the Queens County DA.)

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-07 03:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a ???trusted
relationship??? with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane???s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock???s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission???s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau???s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women ???hand printed instructions ??? in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.???
The KGB???s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union???s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name ???Kram.??? ???The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.???
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
"Mark Lane soon became aware of a smear campaign against him by the FBI
and the CIA. As Bernard Fensterwald, pointed out: "Mark Lane, the long
time critic of the Warren Report has often spoken of FBI harassment and
surveillance directed against him. While many observers were at first
skeptical about Lane's characteristically vocal allegations against the
FBI, the list of classified Warren Commission documents that was later
released substantiated Lane's charges, as it contained several FBI files
about him. Lane had earlier uncovered a February 24, 1964 Warren
Commission memorandum from staff counsel Harold Willens to General Counsel
J. Lee Rankin. The memorandum revealed that FBI agents had Lane's
movements and lectures under surveillance, and were forwarding their
reports to the Warren Commission.""
From: http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKlaneM.htm
So you object to the FBI surveilling Mark Lane, who had considerable
communist "connections," but was not known to have broken any law?
You don't have to wait until someone actually breaks the law to
investigate.
Post by John McAdams
(Well . . . laws about certain sexual behavior, but that was no
business of the FBI. Just the Queens County DA.)
CIA slander.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ace Kefford
2018-02-06 02:45:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.

Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.

In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
John McAdams
2018-02-06 02:50:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.
That actually has been known since the Garrison trial era.
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.

Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-07 02:28:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a ???trusted
relationship??? with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane???s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock???s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission???s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau???s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women ???hand printed instructions ??? in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.???
The KGB???s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union???s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name ???Kram.??? ???The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.???
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.
That actually has been known since the Garrison trial era.
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
It may take us a few months to figure out what you mean. Carter Page
sexual kinks? Carter Page passing secrets to the KGB? I will defend him on
that. He was too young when there still was a KGB to know that those were
secrets, He just though they were Find a Word puzzles. He did not yet know
about The Puzzle Palace, I heard someone accidentally using a SCI code
word, but he didn't know that it meant.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
OMG, and the ACLU represented the Nazi. What's wrong with these people
defending unpopular speech. I bet even YOU had a Jewish lawyer defending
your unpopular speech.
Post by John McAdams
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
Did you misspell his name? Did you mean Trump?
Gotta watch those typos.

Why didn't you bring up Mark Lane's running the NY campaign for JFK?
Can't you use that to prove that he was a dirty Communist? Lane, JFK,
both, whatever?

In 1959, Lane helped found the Reform Democrat movement within the New
York Democratic Party. He was elected with the support of Eleanor
Roosevelt and presidential candidate John F. Kennedy (JFK) to the New York
Legislature in 1960. During his own campaign, he also managed the New York
City area's campaign for JFK's 1960 presidential bid.[8] He was a member
of the New York State Assembly (New York County's 10th District,
encompassing East Harlem and Yorkville, where Lane resided) in 1961 and
1962.[9] In
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Ace Kefford
2018-02-07 17:18:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.
That actually has been known since the Garrison trial era.
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.

This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.

All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.

P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
John McAdams
2018-02-07 17:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.
That actually has been known since the Garrison trial era.
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.

Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.

You recognize the irony in this, right?


Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?

Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.

But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.

But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-08 15:33:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a ???trusted
relationship??? with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane???s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock???s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission???s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau???s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women ???hand printed instructions ??? in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.???
The KGB???s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union???s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name ???Kram.??? ???The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.???
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.
That actually has been known since the Garrison trial era.
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Red means Communist. Communism is dead. Didn't you get the memo? Why don't
you bring up McCarthyism to show how hip you are and keeping up with the
times?
Post by John McAdams
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
You're pretty good at irony. Did you invent it?
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
You make no sense. They are just doing their jobs. They didn't
manufacture anything. They just followed the leads. Something that ANY
legal system does anywhere.
Post by John McAdams
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
False. Show me Communist connectsions in the US.
One Soviet agent tried to contact him.
Post by John McAdams
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
Mark Lane or Carter Page?
What classified information did either of them have. Soviet agents use
sources with influential contacts. They don't always get classified
information, just access and insight into persons of interest.
Post by John McAdams
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
No, it was funny. Trump's way of getting revenge on Obama for when Obama
humiliated him at the Press Club dinner.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-02-09 02:12:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.
That actually has been known since the Garrison trial era.
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
Sadly, the Steele Dossier has had some of it proven out from other
sources, and as per Senator Feinstein, it has had NONE of it proven to be
incorrect. Considering the probable rape of the thirteen year old girl,
Trump will probably be found to have done that stuff too:

https://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

Chris
Ace Kefford
2018-02-23 02:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.
That actually has been known since the Garrison trial era.
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."

That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.

"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"

The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.

And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party. But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.

On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump. Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
John McAdams
2018-02-23 02:23:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.

Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?

Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html

Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"

Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.

But it was fine for the FBI.
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."

It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.

As for the Mueller probe:

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.

Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.

The whole tone of your post reminds me of this:



.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-02-24 21:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Odd. I thought that Ronald Reagan, a Republican, first called Russia
an 'evil empire':

"I urge you to beware the temptation of pride–the temptation of
blithely..uh..declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides
equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive
impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant
misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between
right and wrong and good and evil."

From: http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/reagan-evil-empire-speech-text/
Post by John McAdams
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
Guilt is guilt, no matter who the victim is, of course, we don't want
to give any credit to 'fake news' that issues from the White House
frequently.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Did the Republicans in power find any wrong to be done by Susan Rice?
Or was it the usual tempest in a teapot, as with Hillary and Benghazi?
No charges, no crime.
Post by John McAdams
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
But it was fine for the FBI.
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Anti-Trump sentiment has been wide open and obvious. Why hide what the
majority feel?
Post by John McAdams
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-02-24 21:49:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Odd. I thought that Ronald Reagan, a Republican, first called Russia
"I urge you to beware the temptation of pride–the temptation of
blithely..uh..declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides
equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive
impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant
misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between
right and wrong and good and evil."
From: http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/reagan-evil-empire-speech-text/
And now you agree with Reagan?

That's odd, since liberals condemned the speech.

<quote on>

What Reagan said was exactly right, and sorely needed. But that’s not
how liberals saw it. The left, naturally, went bonkers, accusing
Reagan of all sorts of evil and pride and temptation — worst of all,
of America-centrism. But it’s funny what the left doesn’t remember:
Before Reagan pointed the finger at the USSR, he paused in the speech
to point it inward at the faults and “moral evils” of his own country:
“Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal,” said
Reagan. “For example, the long struggle of minority citizens for equal
rights…. There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of
ethnic and racial hatred in this country.”

<end quote>

https://spectator.org/33780_reagans-evil-empire-turns-30/
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
No answer from Mainframe.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
Guilt is guilt, no matter who the victim is, of course, we don't want
to give any credit to 'fake news' that issues from the White House
frequently.
But you accept fake news from CNN.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Did the Republicans in power find any wrong to be done by Susan Rice?
Or was it the usual tempest in a teapot, as with Hillary and Benghazi?
No charges, no crime.
No charges against Trump. J. Edgar Hoover was never charged with a
crime either. Abuses don't ncessarily lead to indictments.

But you evaded my question about Rice.

Directed against a particular party or not?
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
No answer from Mainframe.
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Anti-Trump sentiment has been wide open and obvious. Why hide what the
majority feel?
The FBI is not supposed to be moved by ideological bias.

In fact, I think it's more likely moved by bureaucratic
self-preservation.

In J. Edgar Hoover's time, anti-communist sentiment was wide open and
obvious. Does that justify what he did?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-26 04:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Odd. I thought that Ronald Reagan, a Republican, first called Russia
"I urge you to beware the temptation of pride–the temptation of
blithely..uh..declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides
equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive
impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant
misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between
right and wrong and good and evil."
From: http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/reagan-evil-empire-speech-text/
And now you agree with Reagan?
That's odd, since liberals condemned the speech.
As I said before, the politics about Russia have flipped. The
Republicans are no pro-Russia and the Democrats are now anti-Russia.
And you aren't old enough to remember when the US and the Russian were
ALLIES against Nazi Germany.
Post by John McAdams
<quote on>
What Reagan said was exactly right, and sorely needed. But that’s not
how liberals saw it. The left, naturally, went bonkers, accusing
Reagan of all sorts of evil and pride and temptation — worst of all,
You mean like America First? You thought Trump invented that!
Post by John McAdams
Before Reagan pointed the finger at the USSR, he paused in the speech
“Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal,” said
Reagan. “For example, the long struggle of minority citizens for equal
rights…. There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of
ethnic and racial hatred in this country.”
<end quote>
OMG, you just let someone say anti-Semitism in this newsgroup!
Post by John McAdams
https://spectator.org/33780_reagans-evil-empire-turns-30/
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
No answer from Mainframe.
Not far enough Right for Trump.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
Guilt is guilt, no matter who the victim is, of course, we don't want
to give any credit to 'fake news' that issues from the White House
frequently.
But you accept fake news from CNN.
Don't watch CNN. Were you thinking of NSNBC?
You prefer covered up news from The National Enquirer to protect your
hero Trump. How much did he have to pay to kill the story about the
abortion he paid for?
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Did the Republicans in power find any wrong to be done by Susan Rice?
Or was it the usual tempest in a teapot, as with Hillary and Benghazi?
No charges, no crime.
No charges against Trump. J. Edgar Hoover was never charged with a
crime either. Abuses don't ncessarily lead to indictments.
You just figured that out this year only because it applies to Trump?
Was Hillary Clinton indicted? Was Bill Clinton indicted?
Was Nixon indicted?
Post by John McAdams
But you evaded my question about Rice.
Directed against a particular party or not?
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
No answer from Mainframe.
I answered that before. Get a better time machine, Doctor.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Anti-Trump sentiment has been wide open and obvious. Why hide what the
majority feel?
The FBI is not supposed to be moved by ideological bias.
In fact, I think it's more likely moved by bureaucratic
self-preservation.
In J. Edgar Hoover's time, anti-communist sentiment was wide open and
obvious. Does that justify what he did?
Did that justify the letter to Martin Luther King, Jr. telling him to
commit suicide?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-02-26 22:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Odd. I thought that Ronald Reagan, a Republican, first called Russia
"I urge you to beware the temptation of pride–the temptation of
blithely..uh..declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides
equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive
impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant
misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between
right and wrong and good and evil."
From: http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/reagan-evil-empire-speech-text/
And now you agree with Reagan?
I didn't say I agreed with Reagan, but at that time I was a law & order
Republican. I also foolishly believed that Oswald was guilty all alone
for killing JFK. I got away from all my foolishness when Bush got into
office and I saw the hand writing on the wall. I realized that being a
Republican was the worst I could do, and became an Independent who knew
that the JFK killing was a conspiracy.
Post by John McAdams
That's odd, since liberals condemned the speech.
<quote on>
What Reagan said was exactly right, and sorely needed. But that’s not
how liberals saw it. The left, naturally, went bonkers, accusing
Reagan of all sorts of evil and pride and temptation — worst of all,
Before Reagan pointed the finger at the USSR, he paused in the speech
“Our nation, too, has a legacy of evil with which it must deal,” said
Reagan. “For example, the long struggle of minority citizens for equal
rights…. There is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, or other forms of
ethnic and racial hatred in this country.”
<end quote>
https://spectator.org/33780_reagans-evil-empire-turns-30/
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
No answer from Mainframe.
I just looked back and saw there was reply now. I looked at the clip,
but didn't see Obama's name anywhere in the article. As a note, I agreed
with Reagan about Russia, but not with the almost religious term 'evil'
which was a bit much for me. I saw it as an expansionist country looking
to take over the whole ball of mud.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
Guilt is guilt, no matter who the victim is, of course, we don't want
to give any credit to 'fake news' that issues from the White House
frequently.
But you accept fake news from CNN.
Because YOU say it is? I see agreement with PBS and BBC and others
with CNN, and the only one that gets it wrong now and then is FOX News and
maybe a few radio commentators like Limbaugh. I see CNN apologizing when
they get it wrong as well. See if Trump ever really apologized for all
his mistakes.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Did the Republicans in power find any wrong to be done by Susan Rice?
Or was it the usual tempest in a teapot, as with Hillary and Benghazi?
No charges, no crime.
No charges against Trump. J. Edgar Hoover was never charged with a
crime either. Abuses don't ncessarily lead to indictments.
On the case of Trump and his legal problems, the case is still under
investigation, which is different from the Rice situation. The odds are
great that there will be pending charges lodged against Trump.
Post by John McAdams
But you evaded my question about Rice.
Directed against a particular party or not?
Doesn't matter, and the Republicans berated and questioned Hillary for
11 hours in congress, which she stood for, and came up with NO charges
recommended to law enforcement. At a time when there were all Republican
controls on the 3 areas of the USA, no charges could be found to tie on to
Hillary. Seems with all that desire to hold her accountable for something
SOMETHING could be found if she was so guilty of everything. Or was that
all political noise generated by we know who?
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
No answer from Mainframe.
Because I only now looked to see if there were any responses. I'll be
happy to answer, and you know me well enough to know if I see it, I'll
respond. My answer to the Steele comment is that based on further info
from politicians, that the Steele Dossier was not only NOT the only thing
used for the warrant request, but was actually a less important reason
used. The FBI had data (apparently bad stuff) on Carter Page since 2013,
long before the Steele document came out. A note here on the Steele
Dossier, is that it has been and continues to be checked out by the FBI
and whatever they've been able to check has been found to be true.
Senator Diane Feinstein stated that she knew that not one item in the
Steele Dossier has been found to be incorrect so far.
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Anti-Trump sentiment has been wide open and obvious. Why hide what the
majority feel?
The FBI is not supposed to be moved by ideological bias.
In fact, I think it's more likely moved by bureaucratic
self-preservation.
In J. Edgar Hoover's time, anti-communist sentiment was wide open and
obvious. Does that justify what he did?
Each crime must be decided on its own. Of course, if it's the current
president, we should act quickly because there is too much that can be
damaged too quickly. As is already happening.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-25 00:28:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
OMG. If McAdams starts letting us talk about peoples sex lives, where
would it end? He'd have to let us talk about Trump raping 13-year-old
girls and defend Trump.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
The Carter Page stuff started years before the Steele dossier. You are
getting confused by all your time travel, Doctor. Something like jet lag.
Post by John McAdams
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
So you say. Not a fact. It was not their cup of tea and not what their
audiences wanted to hear.
Post by John McAdams
But it was fine for the FBI.
What was fine? Can't you see that the FBI is prosecuting those criminals
right now? That doesn't qualify as fine.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
No, we are pointing out that all Trump supporters just repeat his
talking points directly from cue cards.
Post by John McAdams
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Wow, out of all the thousands of FBI agents 2 didn't like Trump.
What a scandal. Oh, the humanity.
That does not qualify as a Secret Society.
Post by John McAdams
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Of course you would cite a source like that. Why not quote directly from
Fox News if you want to make people know how righwing you are?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Another false equivalency. So you say Obama is as bad as Trump?
Then you are admitting that Trump is bad.
Post by John McAdams
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
What?
What interests?
Publishing?
I am not allowed to tell you what you remind me of, but it is a little
river in Germany.
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
BOZ
2018-02-26 04:41:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
OMG. If McAdams starts letting us talk about peoples sex lives, where
would it end? He'd have to let us talk about Trump raping 13-year-old
girls and defend Trump.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
The Carter Page stuff started years before the Steele dossier. You are
getting confused by all your time travel, Doctor. Something like jet lag.
Post by John McAdams
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
So you say. Not a fact. It was not their cup of tea and not what their
audiences wanted to hear.
Post by John McAdams
But it was fine for the FBI.
What was fine? Can't you see that the FBI is prosecuting those criminals
right now? That doesn't qualify as fine.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
No, we are pointing out that all Trump supporters just repeat his
talking points directly from cue cards.
Post by John McAdams
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Wow, out of all the thousands of FBI agents 2 didn't like Trump.
What a scandal. Oh, the humanity.
That does not qualify as a Secret Society.
Post by John McAdams
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Of course you would cite a source like that. Why not quote directly from
Fox News if you want to make people know how righwing you are?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Another false equivalency. So you say Obama is as bad as Trump?
Then you are admitting that Trump is bad.
Post by John McAdams
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
What?
What interests?
Publishing?
I am not allowed to tell you what you remind me of, but it is a little
river in Germany.
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Trump didn't rape a 13 year old.That was Roman Polanski.
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-27 01:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
OMG. If McAdams starts letting us talk about peoples sex lives, where
would it end? He'd have to let us talk about Trump raping 13-year-old
girls and defend Trump.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
The Carter Page stuff started years before the Steele dossier. You are
getting confused by all your time travel, Doctor. Something like jet lag.
Post by John McAdams
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
So you say. Not a fact. It was not their cup of tea and not what their
audiences wanted to hear.
Post by John McAdams
But it was fine for the FBI.
What was fine? Can't you see that the FBI is prosecuting those criminals
right now? That doesn't qualify as fine.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
No, we are pointing out that all Trump supporters just repeat his
talking points directly from cue cards.
Post by John McAdams
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Wow, out of all the thousands of FBI agents 2 didn't like Trump.
What a scandal. Oh, the humanity.
That does not qualify as a Secret Society.
Post by John McAdams
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Of course you would cite a source like that. Why not quote directly from
Fox News if you want to make people know how righwing you are?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Another false equivalency. So you say Obama is as bad as Trump?
Then you are admitting that Trump is bad.
Post by John McAdams
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
What?
What interests?
Publishing?
I am not allowed to tell you what you remind me of, but it is a little
river in Germany.
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Trump didn't rape a 13 year old.That was Roman Polanski.
We already knew about that. They are not the only ones. False comparison.
I was talking about Trump having sex with a 13 year old girl in New York.
That is too young to give consent so even if she was willing, even if she
was a prostitute it is still called rape. You can defend Trump all you
want, but it reflects badly on your character.
Bud
2018-02-27 19:44:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
OMG. If McAdams starts letting us talk about peoples sex lives, where
would it end? He'd have to let us talk about Trump raping 13-year-old
girls and defend Trump.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
The Carter Page stuff started years before the Steele dossier. You are
getting confused by all your time travel, Doctor. Something like jet lag.
Post by John McAdams
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
So you say. Not a fact. It was not their cup of tea and not what their
audiences wanted to hear.
Post by John McAdams
But it was fine for the FBI.
What was fine? Can't you see that the FBI is prosecuting those criminals
right now? That doesn't qualify as fine.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
No, we are pointing out that all Trump supporters just repeat his
talking points directly from cue cards.
Post by John McAdams
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Wow, out of all the thousands of FBI agents 2 didn't like Trump.
What a scandal. Oh, the humanity.
That does not qualify as a Secret Society.
Post by John McAdams
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Of course you would cite a source like that. Why not quote directly from
Fox News if you want to make people know how righwing you are?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Another false equivalency. So you say Obama is as bad as Trump?
Then you are admitting that Trump is bad.
Post by John McAdams
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
What?
What interests?
Publishing?
I am not allowed to tell you what you remind me of, but it is a little
river in Germany.
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Trump didn't rape a 13 year old.That was Roman Polanski.
We already knew about that. They are not the only ones. False comparison.
I was talking about Trump having sex with a 13 year old girl in New York.
That is too young to give consent so even if she was willing, even if she
was a prostitute it is still called rape. You can defend Trump all you
want, but it reflects badly on your character.
Just like with the assassination, Tony is willing to believe people are
guilty of heinous crimes on paltry evidence. Say-so is always accepted by
those who like what is being said.

You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-28 02:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
OMG. If McAdams starts letting us talk about peoples sex lives, where
would it end? He'd have to let us talk about Trump raping 13-year-old
girls and defend Trump.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
The Carter Page stuff started years before the Steele dossier. You are
getting confused by all your time travel, Doctor. Something like jet lag.
Post by John McAdams
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
So you say. Not a fact. It was not their cup of tea and not what their
audiences wanted to hear.
Post by John McAdams
But it was fine for the FBI.
What was fine? Can't you see that the FBI is prosecuting those criminals
right now? That doesn't qualify as fine.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
No, we are pointing out that all Trump supporters just repeat his
talking points directly from cue cards.
Post by John McAdams
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Wow, out of all the thousands of FBI agents 2 didn't like Trump.
What a scandal. Oh, the humanity.
That does not qualify as a Secret Society.
Post by John McAdams
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Of course you would cite a source like that. Why not quote directly from
Fox News if you want to make people know how righwing you are?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Another false equivalency. So you say Obama is as bad as Trump?
Then you are admitting that Trump is bad.
Post by John McAdams
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
What?
What interests?
Publishing?
I am not allowed to tell you what you remind me of, but it is a little
river in Germany.
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Trump didn't rape a 13 year old.That was Roman Polanski.
We already knew about that. They are not the only ones. False comparison.
I was talking about Trump having sex with a 13 year old girl in New York.
That is too young to give consent so even if she was willing, even if she
was a prostitute it is still called rape. You can defend Trump all you
want, but it reflects badly on your character.
Just like with the assassination, Tony is willing to believe people are
guilty of heinous crimes on paltry evidence. Say-so is always accepted by
those who like what is being said.
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
John McAdams
2018-02-28 02:35:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.


The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
2018-03-01 02:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
I've wondered about that too. Does he think we won't notice?
Jason Burke
2018-03-01 23:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
I've wondered about that too. Does he think we won't notice?
Sadly, I think he does.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-02 22:18:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
I've wondered about that too. Does he think we won't notice?
Hey, I thought you killfiled me. No peeking.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-01 02:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-03-02 00:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.

Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-02 22:38:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
I have the documents, you don't. You've never listened to the tapes.
You've never filed a FOIA request. You are not a registered researcher.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-03-03 16:24:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
I have the documents, you don't. You've never listened to the tapes.
You've never filed a FOIA request. You are not a registered researcher.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
I don't make erroneous claims about what documents say either. Or the
tapes either.

I'd be a terrible failure as a bona fide JFK researcher. They'd throw me
out of the club or whatever the hell it is.

I'd just be devastated.
mainframetech
2018-03-12 14:19:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
I have the documents, you don't. You've never listened to the tapes.
You've never filed a FOIA request. You are not a registered researcher.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
I don't make erroneous claims about what documents say either. Or the
tapes either.
The best way to correct that problem is to supply the text of the
answer and the link to it so that folks can go there and see the context.
It's nice to know that you make no mistakes in that area, but better if
you supply the correct info so there's no argument.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
I'd be a terrible failure as a bona fide JFK researcher. They'd throw me
out of the club or whatever the hell it is.
I'd just be devastated.
Awww, maybe not.

Chris
mainframetech
2018-03-04 00:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?

Chris
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-03-05 01:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?
Chris
No, it's a phrase about people who think the passengers on a plane that
crashed into the Pentagon are being secretly held somewhere and they
weren't actually on the plane.

And it's about people who think the DNA testing of their body parts was a
fraud and that the family survivors who buried those parts were all part
of an act, a charade.

Here, print this next line out and have an adult read it to you:

THAT'S FUCKING KOOK HISTORY.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-06 02:42:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?
Chris
No, it's a phrase about people who think the passengers on a plane that
crashed into the Pentagon are being secretly held somewhere and they
weren't actually on the plane.
And it's about people who think the DNA testing of their body parts was a
fraud and that the family survivors who buried those parts were all part
of an act, a charade.
THAT'S FUCKING KOOK HISTORY.
McAdams just told me that we're not allowed to use language like that.
But I guess the rule don't apply to his minions.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-03-07 03:08:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?
Chris
No, it's a phrase about people who think the passengers on a plane that
crashed into the Pentagon are being secretly held somewhere and they
weren't actually on the plane.
And it's about people who think the DNA testing of their body parts was a
fraud and that the family survivors who buried those parts were all part
of an act, a charade.
THAT'S FUCKING KOOK HISTORY.
McAdams just told me that we're not allowed to use language like that.
But I guess the rule don't apply to his minions.
I am to blame not John. He can't catch everything.

I apologize to John and others for the language.
John McAdams
2018-03-07 03:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 6 Mar 2018 22:08:31 -0500, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
No, it's a phrase about people who think the passengers on a plane that
crashed into the Pentagon are being secretly held somewhere and they
weren't actually on the plane.
And it's about people who think the DNA testing of their body parts was a
fraud and that the family survivors who buried those parts were all part
of an act, a charade.
THAT'S FUCKING KOOK HISTORY.
McAdams just told me that we're not allowed to use language like that.
But I guess the rule don't apply to his minions.
I am to blame not John. He can't catch everything.
I apologize to John and others for the language.
No need to apologize to me.

I saw that and passed it.

Generally, I'll let people describe as "kook" any *theory,* but not
call another poster a "kook."

I do make some exceptions when a particular poster is so closely is so
closely and obviously identified with a particular that it's close to
calling the poster a "kook."

So maybe I should have rejecte this. Close call.

But even then, people who aren't kooks sometimes have *some* kook
opinions.

P.S. Never believe Tony about anything that I said. He always mangles
it.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-08 01:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 6 Mar 2018 22:08:31 -0500, "Steve M. Galbraith"
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
No, it's a phrase about people who think the passengers on a plane that
crashed into the Pentagon are being secretly held somewhere and they
weren't actually on the plane.
And it's about people who think the DNA testing of their body parts was a
fraud and that the family survivors who buried those parts were all part
of an act, a charade.
THAT'S FUCKING KOOK HISTORY.
McAdams just told me that we're not allowed to use language like that.
But I guess the rule don't apply to his minions.
I am to blame not John. He can't catch everything.
I apologize to John and others for the language.
No need to apologize to me.
I saw that and passed it.
Generally, I'll let people describe as "kook" any *theory,* but not
call another poster a "kook."
I do make some exceptions when a particular poster is so closely is so
closely and obviously identified with a particular that it's close to
calling the poster a "kook."
So maybe I should have rejecte this. Close call.
I was not talking about the word KOOK. You can claim that he was not
calling anyone HERE a kook so it is OK to refer to someone who is not
posting here as a KOOK. I was talking about the word BEFORE Kook which
you say your filter automatically rejects.
Maybe it missed it because it wasn't Cockney.
Post by John McAdams
But even then, people who aren't kooks sometimes have *some* kook
opinions.
P.S. Never believe Tony about anything that I said. He always mangles
it.
I actually quoted your e-mails verbatim.
It's called Cut and Paste.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-08 01:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?
Chris
No, it's a phrase about people who think the passengers on a plane that
crashed into the Pentagon are being secretly held somewhere and they
weren't actually on the plane.
And it's about people who think the DNA testing of their body parts was a
fraud and that the family survivors who buried those parts were all part
of an act, a charade.
THAT'S FUCKING KOOK HISTORY.
McAdams just told me that we're not allowed to use language like that.
But I guess the rule don't apply to his minions.
I am to blame not John. He can't catch everything.
I apologize to John and others for the language.
Try Cockney next time, mate.
BOZ
2018-03-09 02:03:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?
Chris
No, it's a phrase about people who think the passengers on a plane that
crashed into the Pentagon are being secretly held somewhere and they
weren't actually on the plane.
And it's about people who think the DNA testing of their body parts was a
fraud and that the family survivors who buried those parts were all part
of an act, a charade.
THAT'S FUCKING KOOK HISTORY.
McAdams just told me that we're not allowed to use language like that.
But I guess the rule don't apply to his minions.
I am to blame not John. He can't catch everything.
I apologize to John and others for the language.
I WONDER IF JOE PESCI COULD PLAY STEVE GAILBRAITH
mainframetech
2018-03-12 14:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?
Chris
No, it's a phrase about people who think the passengers on a plane that
crashed into the Pentagon are being secretly held somewhere and they
weren't actually on the plane.
And it's about people who think the DNA testing of their body parts was a
fraud and that the family survivors who buried those parts were all part
of an act, a charade.
THAT'S FUCKING KOOK HISTORY.
Aww, you sound all ticked off! You might some day try listening to the
various things said and evidence put forward (serious stuff, not the kooky
stuff) and learn what happened that day. I do NOT say any passengers were
herded off and saved away somewhere. I don't know if they killed them or
let them off somehow. I DO know that the crashes at the Pentagon and the
Shanksville sites and the collapses of the 3 towers were phony, from clear
solid evidence. A DNA report can easily be talked about, but did you see
it, or have your specialist verify it? Did they really take samples of
bodies when there were none around, like at The Shanksville site?

I've spoken out about my misgivings concerning the evidence. You think
otherwise, but I'm not complaining. Why are you? It's America, remember?

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-05 16:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?
Chris
History is written by the killers.
BOZ
2018-03-06 19:58:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?
Chris
READ THE POPULAR MECHANICS ARTICLE ABOUT WHY THE TOWERS FELL
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-07 22:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?
Chris
READ THE POPULAR MECHANICS ARTICLE ABOUT WHY THE TOWERS FELL
Off-topic. Why does McAdams allow off-topic posts?
OHLeeRedux
2018-03-08 20:16:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?
Chris
READ THE POPULAR MECHANICS ARTICLE ABOUT WHY THE TOWERS FELL
Off-topic. Why does McAdams allow off-topic posts?
Your existence is off-topic.
mainframetech
2018-03-12 14:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?
Chris
READ THE POPULAR MECHANICS ARTICLE ABOUT WHY THE TOWERS FELL
You mean Trump was truthful, and that there really IS fake news in the
national media?

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-13 16:10:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
Sorry no: You repeatedly cite document as "proving" your claims but when
we examine the documents they don't say what you originally claim.
Too many in the conspiracy crowd do this; they rely on "kook" history too
much. It's the Oliver Stone Syndrome.
'Kook history'? Is that another phrase for WCR?
Chris
READ THE POPULAR MECHANICS ARTICLE ABOUT WHY THE TOWERS FELL
You mean Trump was truthful, and that there really IS fake news in the
national media?
Yes, because he paid for it.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
bpete1969
2018-03-05 01:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-06 02:43:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
bpete1969
2018-03-07 02:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
Then quit claiming you've proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-08 01:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
Then quit claiming you've proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Wrong. I was the first person to publish and explain the ghost images
and how they prove the authenticity. I beat Zazvada by only a few months
because he had signed a secrecy agreement.
bpete1969
2018-03-09 01:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
Then quit claiming you've proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Wrong. I was the first person to publish and explain the ghost images
and how they prove the authenticity. I beat Zazvada by only a few months
because he had signed a secrecy agreement.
Wrong? Not at all.

It is impossible for you to prove the Zapruder film authentic when you've
never seen the Zapruder film. You have seen purported copies.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-10 14:29:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
Then quit claiming you've proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Wrong. I was the first person to publish and explain the ghost images
and how they prove the authenticity. I beat Zazvada by only a few months
because he had signed a secrecy agreement.
Wrong? Not at all.
It is impossible for you to prove the Zapruder film authentic when you've
never seen the Zapruder film. You have seen purported copies.
Purported?
So you think the Zapruder film at the National Archives which Zavada
examined is not the real one and so you say that Zavada did not examine
the real Zapruder film?
So what do YOU call the real Zapruder film?
bpete1969
2018-03-11 00:52:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
Then quit claiming you've proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Wrong. I was the first person to publish and explain the ghost images
and how they prove the authenticity. I beat Zazvada by only a few months
because he had signed a secrecy agreement.
Wrong? Not at all.
It is impossible for you to prove the Zapruder film authentic when you've
never seen the Zapruder film. You have seen purported copies.
Purported?
So you think the Zapruder film at the National Archives which Zavada
examined is not the real one and so you say that Zavada did not examine
the real Zapruder film?
So what do YOU call the real Zapruder film?
No. I'm saying you haven't seen the Zapruder film and therefore it is
impossible for you to have proved it's authenticity.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-12 01:26:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
Then quit claiming you've proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Wrong. I was the first person to publish and explain the ghost images
and how they prove the authenticity. I beat Zazvada by only a few months
because he had signed a secrecy agreement.
Wrong? Not at all.
It is impossible for you to prove the Zapruder film authentic when you've
never seen the Zapruder film. You have seen purported copies.
Purported?
So you think the Zapruder film at the National Archives which Zavada
examined is not the real one and so you say that Zavada did not examine
the real Zapruder film?
So what do YOU call the real Zapruder film?
No. I'm saying you haven't seen the Zapruder film and therefore it is
impossible for you to have proved it's authenticity.
You are spewing nonsense and you are afraid to answer my questions. Do you
claim that Zavada did not see the Zapruder film? How do you define THE
Zapruder film? WHich copy?


Why are you attacking me when I was the guy who proved that the Zapruder
film is authentic? Not even McAadams was foolish enough to attack me for
proving that the Zapruder film is authentic. Did you attack Zavada when he
proved that the Zapruder film is authentic? Afraid? Why didn't you write
to him and claim that HE did not see the real Zapruder film? What is YOUR
conspiracy theory? You know where the REAL Zapruder film is and only you
have seen it? What?

Or do you just see my name and have to make up some type of personal
attack?
bpete1969
2018-03-12 20:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
Then quit claiming you've proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Wrong. I was the first person to publish and explain the ghost images
and how they prove the authenticity. I beat Zazvada by only a few months
because he had signed a secrecy agreement.
Wrong? Not at all.
It is impossible for you to prove the Zapruder film authentic when you've
never seen the Zapruder film. You have seen purported copies.
Purported?
So you think the Zapruder film at the National Archives which Zavada
examined is not the real one and so you say that Zavada did not examine
the real Zapruder film?
So what do YOU call the real Zapruder film?
No. I'm saying you haven't seen the Zapruder film and therefore it is
impossible for you to have proved it's authenticity.
You are spewing nonsense and you are afraid to answer my questions. Do you
claim that Zavada did not see the Zapruder film? How do you define THE
Zapruder film? WHich copy?
Why are you attacking me when I was the guy who proved that the Zapruder
film is authentic? Not even McAadams was foolish enough to attack me for
proving that the Zapruder film is authentic. Did you attack Zavada when he
proved that the Zapruder film is authentic? Afraid? Why didn't you write
to him and claim that HE did not see the real Zapruder film? What is YOUR
conspiracy theory? You know where the REAL Zapruder film is and only you
have seen it? What?
Or do you just see my name and have to make up some type of personal
attack?
This has nothing to do with McAdams, Zavada, me or anyone else other than
you and your claim.

Throw all the temper tantrums you want, but it doesn't change what is
possible or impossible. You haven't proved the Zapruder film authentic.

Quit claiming you have.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-13 16:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
Then quit claiming you've proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Wrong. I was the first person to publish and explain the ghost images
and how they prove the authenticity. I beat Zazvada by only a few months
because he had signed a secrecy agreement.
Wrong? Not at all.
It is impossible for you to prove the Zapruder film authentic when you've
never seen the Zapruder film. You have seen purported copies.
Purported?
So you think the Zapruder film at the National Archives which Zavada
examined is not the real one and so you say that Zavada did not examine
the real Zapruder film?
So what do YOU call the real Zapruder film?
No. I'm saying you haven't seen the Zapruder film and therefore it is
impossible for you to have proved it's authenticity.
You are spewing nonsense and you are afraid to answer my questions. Do you
claim that Zavada did not see the Zapruder film? How do you define THE
Zapruder film? WHich copy?
Why are you attacking me when I was the guy who proved that the Zapruder
film is authentic? Not even McAadams was foolish enough to attack me for
proving that the Zapruder film is authentic. Did you attack Zavada when he
proved that the Zapruder film is authentic? Afraid? Why didn't you write
to him and claim that HE did not see the real Zapruder film? What is YOUR
conspiracy theory? You know where the REAL Zapruder film is and only you
have seen it? What?
Or do you just see my name and have to make up some type of personal
attack?
This has nothing to do with McAdams, Zavada, me or anyone else other than
you and your claim.
Throw all the temper tantrums you want, but it doesn't change what is
possible or impossible. You haven't proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Quit claiming you have.
So, you attack me personally and then are afraid to answer questions.
Do you think that the Zapruder film is authentic, yes or no?
Do you agree that Roland Zavada proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic, yes or no?
bpete1969
2018-03-14 19:13:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
Then quit claiming you've proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Wrong. I was the first person to publish and explain the ghost images
and how they prove the authenticity. I beat Zazvada by only a few months
because he had signed a secrecy agreement.
Wrong? Not at all.
It is impossible for you to prove the Zapruder film authentic when you've
never seen the Zapruder film. You have seen purported copies.
Purported?
So you think the Zapruder film at the National Archives which Zavada
examined is not the real one and so you say that Zavada did not examine
the real Zapruder film?
So what do YOU call the real Zapruder film?
No. I'm saying you haven't seen the Zapruder film and therefore it is
impossible for you to have proved it's authenticity.
You are spewing nonsense and you are afraid to answer my questions. Do you
claim that Zavada did not see the Zapruder film? How do you define THE
Zapruder film? WHich copy?
Why are you attacking me when I was the guy who proved that the Zapruder
film is authentic? Not even McAadams was foolish enough to attack me for
proving that the Zapruder film is authentic. Did you attack Zavada when he
proved that the Zapruder film is authentic? Afraid? Why didn't you write
to him and claim that HE did not see the real Zapruder film? What is YOUR
conspiracy theory? You know where the REAL Zapruder film is and only you
have seen it? What?
Or do you just see my name and have to make up some type of personal
attack?
This has nothing to do with McAdams, Zavada, me or anyone else other than
you and your claim.
Throw all the temper tantrums you want, but it doesn't change what is
possible or impossible. You haven't proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Quit claiming you have.
So, you attack me personally and then are afraid to answer questions.
Do you think that the Zapruder film is authentic, yes or no?
Do you agree that Roland Zavada proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic, yes or no?
No, I attacked your claim. If I attacked you personally, McAdams would
have disallowed my post.

I have no idea if the Zapruder film is authentic because I've never seen
it. Which means I'm not so stupid as to claim I've proved it's
authenticity.

Zavada concluded that Archive original is an in camera original. What he
doesn't explain is the missing footage found in various Archive copies.

Do I agree with Zapada? No, because I haven't seen the footage. Is Zavada
correct? He very well could be. I doesn't matter to me either way.

What matters to me are people making claims that don't hold water. Your
doesn't.
bpete1969
2018-03-15 19:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
Then quit claiming you've proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Wrong. I was the first person to publish and explain the ghost images
and how they prove the authenticity. I beat Zazvada by only a few months
because he had signed a secrecy agreement.
Wrong? Not at all.
It is impossible for you to prove the Zapruder film authentic when you've
never seen the Zapruder film. You have seen purported copies.
Purported?
So you think the Zapruder film at the National Archives which Zavada
examined is not the real one and so you say that Zavada did not examine
the real Zapruder film?
So what do YOU call the real Zapruder film?
No. I'm saying you haven't seen the Zapruder film and therefore it is
impossible for you to have proved it's authenticity.
You are spewing nonsense and you are afraid to answer my questions. Do you
claim that Zavada did not see the Zapruder film? How do you define THE
Zapruder film? WHich copy?
Why are you attacking me when I was the guy who proved that the Zapruder
film is authentic? Not even McAadams was foolish enough to attack me for
proving that the Zapruder film is authentic. Did you attack Zavada when he
proved that the Zapruder film is authentic? Afraid? Why didn't you write
to him and claim that HE did not see the real Zapruder film? What is YOUR
conspiracy theory? You know where the REAL Zapruder film is and only you
have seen it? What?
Or do you just see my name and have to make up some type of personal
attack?
This has nothing to do with McAdams, Zavada, me or anyone else other than
you and your claim.
Throw all the temper tantrums you want, but it doesn't change what is
possible or impossible. You haven't proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Quit claiming you have.
So, you attack me personally and then are afraid to answer questions.
Do you think that the Zapruder film is authentic, yes or no?
Do you agree that Roland Zavada proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic, yes or no?
No, I attacked your claim. If I attacked you personally, McAdams would
have disallowed my post.
I have no idea if the Zapruder film is authentic because I've never seen
it. Which means I'm not so stupid as to claim I've proved it's
authenticity.
Zavada concluded that Archive original is an in camera original. What he
doesn't explain is the missing footage found in various Archive copies.
Do I agree with Zapada? No, because I haven't seen the footage. Is Zavada
correct? He very well could be. I doesn't matter to me either way.
What matters to me are people making claims that don't hold water. Your
doesn't.
Additionally, Zavada had no knowledge of an unslit double 8 film showing
up at the NPIC still in 16mm format that was used by Homer McMahon to
create prints used on briefing boards (assembled by others) on Sunday
night, after the assassination.

Now, if you proved the Zapruder film authentic, explain how an unslit copy
showed up at the Washington Naval Yard on Sunday, November 24th.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-16 17:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
Then quit claiming you've proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Wrong. I was the first person to publish and explain the ghost images
and how they prove the authenticity. I beat Zazvada by only a few months
because he had signed a secrecy agreement.
Wrong? Not at all.
It is impossible for you to prove the Zapruder film authentic when you've
never seen the Zapruder film. You have seen purported copies.
Purported?
So you think the Zapruder film at the National Archives which Zavada
examined is not the real one and so you say that Zavada did not examine
the real Zapruder film?
So what do YOU call the real Zapruder film?
No. I'm saying you haven't seen the Zapruder film and therefore it is
impossible for you to have proved it's authenticity.
You are spewing nonsense and you are afraid to answer my questions. Do you
claim that Zavada did not see the Zapruder film? How do you define THE
Zapruder film? WHich copy?
Why are you attacking me when I was the guy who proved that the Zapruder
film is authentic? Not even McAadams was foolish enough to attack me for
proving that the Zapruder film is authentic. Did you attack Zavada when he
proved that the Zapruder film is authentic? Afraid? Why didn't you write
to him and claim that HE did not see the real Zapruder film? What is YOUR
conspiracy theory? You know where the REAL Zapruder film is and only you
have seen it? What?
Or do you just see my name and have to make up some type of personal
attack?
This has nothing to do with McAdams, Zavada, me or anyone else other than
you and your claim.
Throw all the temper tantrums you want, but it doesn't change what is
possible or impossible. You haven't proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Quit claiming you have.
So, you attack me personally and then are afraid to answer questions.
Do you think that the Zapruder film is authentic, yes or no?
Do you agree that Roland Zavada proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic, yes or no?
No, I attacked your claim. If I attacked you personally, McAdams would
have disallowed my post.
I have no idea if the Zapruder film is authentic because I've never seen
it. Which means I'm not so stupid as to claim I've proved it's
authenticity.
Zavada concluded that Archive original is an in camera original. What he
doesn't explain is the missing footage found in various Archive copies.
Do I agree with Zapada? No, because I haven't seen the footage. Is Zavada
correct? He very well could be. I doesn't matter to me either way.
What matters to me are people making claims that don't hold water. Your
doesn't.
Additionally, Zavada had no knowledge of an unslit double 8 film showing
up at the NPIC still in 16mm format that was used by Homer McMahon to
create prints used on briefing boards (assembled by others) on Sunday
night, after the assassination.
I believe he interviewed people at NPIC.
Post by bpete1969
Now, if you proved the Zapruder film authentic, explain how an unslit copy
showed up at the Washington Naval Yard on Sunday, November 24th.
Probably carried there by a Secret Service agent.
bpete1969
2018-03-17 00:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Excuse me? I bought the MPI release and I had a black and white bootleg
copy. It's silly for you to think that I could have the original.
No one from the public was allowed to see the original. That's the whole
point of a cover-up.
Then quit claiming you've proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Wrong. I was the first person to publish and explain the ghost images
and how they prove the authenticity. I beat Zazvada by only a few months
because he had signed a secrecy agreement.
Wrong? Not at all.
It is impossible for you to prove the Zapruder film authentic when you've
never seen the Zapruder film. You have seen purported copies.
Purported?
So you think the Zapruder film at the National Archives which Zavada
examined is not the real one and so you say that Zavada did not examine
the real Zapruder film?
So what do YOU call the real Zapruder film?
No. I'm saying you haven't seen the Zapruder film and therefore it is
impossible for you to have proved it's authenticity.
You are spewing nonsense and you are afraid to answer my questions. Do you
claim that Zavada did not see the Zapruder film? How do you define THE
Zapruder film? WHich copy?
Why are you attacking me when I was the guy who proved that the Zapruder
film is authentic? Not even McAadams was foolish enough to attack me for
proving that the Zapruder film is authentic. Did you attack Zavada when he
proved that the Zapruder film is authentic? Afraid? Why didn't you write
to him and claim that HE did not see the real Zapruder film? What is YOUR
conspiracy theory? You know where the REAL Zapruder film is and only you
have seen it? What?
Or do you just see my name and have to make up some type of personal
attack?
This has nothing to do with McAdams, Zavada, me or anyone else other than
you and your claim.
Throw all the temper tantrums you want, but it doesn't change what is
possible or impossible. You haven't proved the Zapruder film authentic.
Quit claiming you have.
So, you attack me personally and then are afraid to answer questions.
Do you think that the Zapruder film is authentic, yes or no?
Do you agree that Roland Zavada proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic, yes or no?
No, I attacked your claim. If I attacked you personally, McAdams would
have disallowed my post.
I have no idea if the Zapruder film is authentic because I've never seen
it. Which means I'm not so stupid as to claim I've proved it's
authenticity.
Zavada concluded that Archive original is an in camera original. What he
doesn't explain is the missing footage found in various Archive copies.
Do I agree with Zapada? No, because I haven't seen the footage. Is Zavada
correct? He very well could be. I doesn't matter to me either way.
What matters to me are people making claims that don't hold water. Your
doesn't.
Additionally, Zavada had no knowledge of an unslit double 8 film showing
up at the NPIC still in 16mm format that was used by Homer McMahon to
create prints used on briefing boards (assembled by others) on Sunday
night, after the assassination.
I believe he interviewed people at NPIC.
Post by bpete1969
Now, if you proved the Zapruder film authentic, explain how an unslit copy
showed up at the Washington Naval Yard on Sunday, November 24th.
Probably carried there by a Secret Service agent.
Major fail Marsh.

mainframetech
2018-03-12 14:18:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Seeing is NOT believing. These days they can do magical things with
film, but in 1963 they were no slouches either. Read "Inside the ARRB" by
Douglas Horne, who spent years on the ARRB gathering testimony and
swearing in witnesses.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-13 16:10:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 27 Feb 2018 21:29:40 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
http://youtu.be/VBe_guezGGc
The odd thing about Tony is not that he posts stuff that is untrue.
It's that he posts stuff that is so easily proven to be untrue.
No, I always back up what I say with the documents. You BLOCK them from
being seen in the messages so that you and your minions can pretend that
you've never read the documents. Sometimes I have to cut and paste very
long documents, then the filter rejects them.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Let's see your rebuttal to my article that proves that the Zapruder film
is authentic.
That's easy. You've never seen the Zapruder film.
Seeing is NOT believing. These days they can do magical things with
film, but in 1963 they were no slouches either. Read "Inside the ARRB" by
Douglas Horne, who spent years on the ARRB gathering testimony and
swearing in witnesses.
Junk. Study the film stock.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
Bud
2018-03-01 02:22:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
OMG. If McAdams starts letting us talk about peoples sex lives, where
would it end? He'd have to let us talk about Trump raping 13-year-old
girls and defend Trump.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
The Carter Page stuff started years before the Steele dossier. You are
getting confused by all your time travel, Doctor. Something like jet lag.
Post by John McAdams
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
So you say. Not a fact. It was not their cup of tea and not what their
audiences wanted to hear.
Post by John McAdams
But it was fine for the FBI.
What was fine? Can't you see that the FBI is prosecuting those criminals
right now? That doesn't qualify as fine.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
No, we are pointing out that all Trump supporters just repeat his
talking points directly from cue cards.
Post by John McAdams
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Wow, out of all the thousands of FBI agents 2 didn't like Trump.
What a scandal. Oh, the humanity.
That does not qualify as a Secret Society.
Post by John McAdams
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Of course you would cite a source like that. Why not quote directly from
Fox News if you want to make people know how righwing you are?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Another false equivalency. So you say Obama is as bad as Trump?
Then you are admitting that Trump is bad.
Post by John McAdams
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
What?
What interests?
Publishing?
I am not allowed to tell you what you remind me of, but it is a little
river in Germany.
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Trump didn't rape a 13 year old.That was Roman Polanski.
We already knew about that. They are not the only ones. False comparison.
I was talking about Trump having sex with a 13 year old girl in New York.
That is too young to give consent so even if she was willing, even if she
was a prostitute it is still called rape. You can defend Trump all you
want, but it reflects badly on your character.
Just like with the assassination, Tony is willing to believe people are
guilty of heinous crimes on paltry evidence. Say-so is always accepted by
those who like what is being said.
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women.
You can believe anything you like Tony, its a free country. You just
don`t get to declare someone truthful because you like what she said or
because she has a vagina.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.

BOZ
2018-03-04 00:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
OMG. If McAdams starts letting us talk about peoples sex lives, where
would it end? He'd have to let us talk about Trump raping 13-year-old
girls and defend Trump.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
The Carter Page stuff started years before the Steele dossier. You are
getting confused by all your time travel, Doctor. Something like jet lag.
Post by John McAdams
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
So you say. Not a fact. It was not their cup of tea and not what their
audiences wanted to hear.
Post by John McAdams
But it was fine for the FBI.
What was fine? Can't you see that the FBI is prosecuting those criminals
right now? That doesn't qualify as fine.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
No, we are pointing out that all Trump supporters just repeat his
talking points directly from cue cards.
Post by John McAdams
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Wow, out of all the thousands of FBI agents 2 didn't like Trump.
What a scandal. Oh, the humanity.
That does not qualify as a Secret Society.
Post by John McAdams
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Of course you would cite a source like that. Why not quote directly from
Fox News if you want to make people know how righwing you are?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Another false equivalency. So you say Obama is as bad as Trump?
Then you are admitting that Trump is bad.
Post by John McAdams
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
What?
What interests?
Publishing?
I am not allowed to tell you what you remind me of, but it is a little
river in Germany.
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Trump didn't rape a 13 year old.That was Roman Polanski.
We already knew about that. They are not the only ones. False comparison.
I was talking about Trump having sex with a 13 year old girl in New York.
That is too young to give consent so even if she was willing, even if she
was a prostitute it is still called rape. You can defend Trump all you
want, but it reflects badly on your character.
Just like with the assassination, Tony is willing to believe people are
guilty of heinous crimes on paltry evidence. Say-so is always accepted by
those who like what is being said.
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
Bill Clinton said, "I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this
again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I
never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are
false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-05 16:32:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
OMG. If McAdams starts letting us talk about peoples sex lives, where
would it end? He'd have to let us talk about Trump raping 13-year-old
girls and defend Trump.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
The Carter Page stuff started years before the Steele dossier. You are
getting confused by all your time travel, Doctor. Something like jet lag.
Post by John McAdams
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
So you say. Not a fact. It was not their cup of tea and not what their
audiences wanted to hear.
Post by John McAdams
But it was fine for the FBI.
What was fine? Can't you see that the FBI is prosecuting those criminals
right now? That doesn't qualify as fine.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
No, we are pointing out that all Trump supporters just repeat his
talking points directly from cue cards.
Post by John McAdams
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Wow, out of all the thousands of FBI agents 2 didn't like Trump.
What a scandal. Oh, the humanity.
That does not qualify as a Secret Society.
Post by John McAdams
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Of course you would cite a source like that. Why not quote directly from
Fox News if you want to make people know how righwing you are?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Another false equivalency. So you say Obama is as bad as Trump?
Then you are admitting that Trump is bad.
Post by John McAdams
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
What?
What interests?
Publishing?
I am not allowed to tell you what you remind me of, but it is a little
river in Germany.
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Trump didn't rape a 13 year old.That was Roman Polanski.
We already knew about that. They are not the only ones. False comparison.
I was talking about Trump having sex with a 13 year old girl in New York.
That is too young to give consent so even if she was willing, even if she
was a prostitute it is still called rape. You can defend Trump all you
want, but it reflects badly on your character.
Just like with the assassination, Tony is willing to believe people are
guilty of heinous crimes on paltry evidence. Say-so is always accepted by
those who like what is being said.
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
Bill Clinton said, "I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this
again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I
English here please. Clinton was very cleverly basing that on the law
they cited which defined sexual relations as intercourse. He did not
have intercourse, just a blow job.
Post by BOZ
never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are
false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."
mainframetech
2018-03-12 14:19:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
OMG. If McAdams starts letting us talk about peoples sex lives, where
would it end? He'd have to let us talk about Trump raping 13-year-old
girls and defend Trump.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
The Carter Page stuff started years before the Steele dossier. You are
getting confused by all your time travel, Doctor. Something like jet lag.
Post by John McAdams
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
So you say. Not a fact. It was not their cup of tea and not what their
audiences wanted to hear.
Post by John McAdams
But it was fine for the FBI.
What was fine? Can't you see that the FBI is prosecuting those criminals
right now? That doesn't qualify as fine.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
No, we are pointing out that all Trump supporters just repeat his
talking points directly from cue cards.
Post by John McAdams
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Wow, out of all the thousands of FBI agents 2 didn't like Trump.
What a scandal. Oh, the humanity.
That does not qualify as a Secret Society.
Post by John McAdams
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Of course you would cite a source like that. Why not quote directly from
Fox News if you want to make people know how righwing you are?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Another false equivalency. So you say Obama is as bad as Trump?
Then you are admitting that Trump is bad.
Post by John McAdams
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
What?
What interests?
Publishing?
I am not allowed to tell you what you remind me of, but it is a little
river in Germany.
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Trump didn't rape a 13 year old.That was Roman Polanski.
We already knew about that. They are not the only ones. False comparison.
I was talking about Trump having sex with a 13 year old girl in New York.
That is too young to give consent so even if she was willing, even if she
was a prostitute it is still called rape. You can defend Trump all you
want, but it reflects badly on your character.
Just like with the assassination, Tony is willing to believe people are
guilty of heinous crimes on paltry evidence. Say-so is always accepted by
those who like what is being said.
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
Bill Clinton said, "I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this
again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I
never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are
false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."
You mean a president can lie to the American public? Oh my, were in
trouble now!

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-12 23:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bud
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
OMG. If McAdams starts letting us talk about peoples sex lives, where
would it end? He'd have to let us talk about Trump raping 13-year-old
girls and defend Trump.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
The Carter Page stuff started years before the Steele dossier. You are
getting confused by all your time travel, Doctor. Something like jet lag.
Post by John McAdams
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
So you say. Not a fact. It was not their cup of tea and not what their
audiences wanted to hear.
Post by John McAdams
But it was fine for the FBI.
What was fine? Can't you see that the FBI is prosecuting those criminals
right now? That doesn't qualify as fine.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
No, we are pointing out that all Trump supporters just repeat his
talking points directly from cue cards.
Post by John McAdams
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Wow, out of all the thousands of FBI agents 2 didn't like Trump.
What a scandal. Oh, the humanity.
That does not qualify as a Secret Society.
Post by John McAdams
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Of course you would cite a source like that. Why not quote directly from
Fox News if you want to make people know how righwing you are?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Another false equivalency. So you say Obama is as bad as Trump?
Then you are admitting that Trump is bad.
Post by John McAdams
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
What?
What interests?
Publishing?
I am not allowed to tell you what you remind me of, but it is a little
river in Germany.
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Trump didn't rape a 13 year old.That was Roman Polanski.
We already knew about that. They are not the only ones. False comparison.
I was talking about Trump having sex with a 13 year old girl in New York.
That is too young to give consent so even if she was willing, even if she
was a prostitute it is still called rape. You can defend Trump all you
want, but it reflects badly on your character.
Just like with the assassination, Tony is willing to believe people are
guilty of heinous crimes on paltry evidence. Say-so is always accepted by
those who like what is being said.
So as a Trump supporter you always believe him and never he women. Is
there a name for that?
Post by Bud
You need the physical evidence to corroborate, Bill Clinton would still
be lying about Monica Lewinsky if it weren`t for that dress.
He admitted that he had a sexual relationship with he.
Bill Clinton said, "I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this
again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I
never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are
false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you."
You mean a president can lie to the American public? Oh my, were in
trouble now!
It wasn't a direct lie. Maybe you weren't old enough to understand at
the time. He meant that he had not had sexual intercourse with her at
the time. Are we allowed to say that word here? Or should I use the word
that McAdams says is forbidden, except when his minions use it?
Post by mainframetech
Chris
mainframetech
2018-02-28 17:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by BOZ
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
OMG. If McAdams starts letting us talk about peoples sex lives, where
would it end? He'd have to let us talk about Trump raping 13-year-old
girls and defend Trump.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
The Carter Page stuff started years before the Steele dossier. You are
getting confused by all your time travel, Doctor. Something like jet lag.
Post by John McAdams
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
So you say. Not a fact. It was not their cup of tea and not what their
audiences wanted to hear.
Post by John McAdams
But it was fine for the FBI.
What was fine? Can't you see that the FBI is prosecuting those criminals
right now? That doesn't qualify as fine.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
No, we are pointing out that all Trump supporters just repeat his
talking points directly from cue cards.
Post by John McAdams
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
Wow, out of all the thousands of FBI agents 2 didn't like Trump.
What a scandal. Oh, the humanity.
That does not qualify as a Secret Society.
Post by John McAdams
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Of course you would cite a source like that. Why not quote directly from
Fox News if you want to make people know how righwing you are?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Another false equivalency. So you say Obama is as bad as Trump?
Then you are admitting that Trump is bad.
Post by John McAdams
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
What?
What interests?
Publishing?
I am not allowed to tell you what you remind me of, but it is a little
river in Germany.
Post by John McAdams
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Trump didn't rape a 13 year old.That was Roman Polanski.
Definitely Trump too. Trump made his thinking about females clear.
And he has an OBVIOUS inferiority complex, probably given to him by his
father. Either way, a girl tried to sue him for rape in California, and
was put out of the court because he made legal mistakes. She got herself
a lawyer in NY and he sued Trump again. It came out in the news just
before he was going to be chosen candidate for president. She had another
girl as a witness, which is not common in these 'he said, she said' cases.
The case was accepted by the court, and soon after that she closed it and
went away. I believe she was paid off at a critical time. Here's the
legal document:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/310835987/Donald-Trump-Lawsuit

Story:

https://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

Given his attitudes about women, it's only a short step to violating a
young girl.

Chris
Ace Kefford
2018-02-28 02:03:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
But it was fine for the FBI.
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Hah! You Trumpies will stop at nothing to support your man. Twist
yourselves into pretzels and throw over board whatever principles you once
held. It's been a blast to hear guys like Nunes speaking excitedly about
"the secret FISA court" as though this were not something he has gladly
lived with for over a decade.
John McAdams
2018-02-28 02:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
But it was fine for the FBI.
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
Hah! You Trumpies will stop at nothing to support your man. Twist
yourselves into pretzels and throw over board whatever principles you once
held. It's been a blast to hear guys like Nunes speaking excitedly about
"the secret FISA court" as though this were not something he has gladly
lived with for over a decade.
Pot, meet kettle.

Liberals who have been critical of the FISA court, and surveillance
generally, now think it's OK when the targets are Trump associates.

Conservatives (including the "never Trump" crowd) have condoned
surveillance when the targets were suspected of terrorist ties.

Even that, of course, is subject to abuse.

But using surveillance to target ones political adversaries is a whole
different matter.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-01 23:31:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
It's perfectly accurate to say that for liberals Russia has become the
"evil empire," that is a huge threat.
Did you watch the video clip above? Noticed how Obama ridiculed
Romney?
Was Romney right?
Post by Ace Kefford
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
That seems to depend on who is president, and who is stretching the
law.
Post by Ace Kefford
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party.
Was the Susan Rice unmasking of Trump associates aimed at a particular
political party?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/23/obama-administration-records-on-trump-team-unmasking-withheld-from-judicial-watch.html
Was the use of the Steele dossier to justify spying on Carter Page
"aimed at a particular party?"
Remember, it was attempted to be leaked to several mainstream media
outlets, and they rejected it as unreliable.
But it was fine for the FBI.
Post by Ace Kefford
But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
You are begging the question when you call it "false equivalency."
It *ought* to disturb any civil libertarian.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump.
There was, apparently, a small group that actually talked to each
other and were virulently anti-Trump. But it was a lot broader than
that.
http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/21/exclusive-zero-registered-republicans-mueller-lawyer/
Post by Ace Kefford
Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Straw man argument. Believing in ideological bias on the part of
bureaucrats is pretty mainstream.
Perhaps as important is the self-preservation instinct on their part.
They have furiously leaked against Trump, much more than Obama. But
Obama, in spite of being a liberal, didn't threaten their interests.
http://youtu.be/lfgIawRDQM4
Hah! You Trumpies will stop at nothing to support your man. Twist
yourselves into pretzels and throw over board whatever principles you once
held. It's been a blast to hear guys like Nunes speaking excitedly about
"the secret FISA court" as though this were not something he has gladly
lived with for over a decade.
Pot, meet kettle.
Liberals who have been critical of the FISA court, and surveillance
generally, now think it's OK when the targets are Trump associates.
Which Liberals? Give me some examples. You mean they objected to
terrorists being spied on?
Post by John McAdams
Conservatives (including the "never Trump" crowd) have condoned
surveillance when the targets were suspected of terrorist ties.
Which ones? I can't remember that column.
Post by John McAdams
Even that, of course, is subject to abuse.
Abuse? As I explained to you in 2001, EVERYONE is being spied on all the
time. Someone here accused me of assassination so the Secret Service paid
me a little visit. I didn't object. I was happy to see them acting
properly and following all leads. Maybe Hosty should have done a better
job.
Post by John McAdams
But using surveillance to target ones political adversaries is a whole
different matter.
It happens all the time.
But you approve of Republicans using the RUSSIAN hackers to spy on
Democrats. I don't call that hypocrisy. There is a more accurate word
for it.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-25 00:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.
That actually has been known since the Garrison trial era.
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't
like you engage in red baiting.
Way to go! All kind of things are topsy-turvy in the Trump era.
You recognize the irony in this, right?
http://youtu.be/bowhUWl6rxQ
Post by Ace Kefford
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?
Remember, Lane had strong communist connections in the U.S. And one
Soviet source said he was connected to a Soviet agent.
But as you pointed out, there is no evidence he was ever taking orders
from the Soviets. And none that he ever turned over any classified
material to them.
But the same can be said of Carter Page.
Post by Ace Kefford
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Was the "golden showers" stuff in the Steele dossier equally
stomach-turning?
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
"So you are a liberal, and when you encounter an argument you don't like
you engage in red baiting."
That's not red-baiting, that is telling the truth. The Trumpist
Republicans are like the old Soviet Union in trying to make false
equivalencies.
"The question is: are you equally concerned about FBI abuses when
directed at Trump's people?"
That is not a question. That is a straw man. There are no FBI abuses
direected at Trump's people. Many of their crimes were committed eveb
before Trump took them on.
Post by Ace Kefford
The answer is, yes, of course, in what kind of strange world would you
think I (or any real liberal or leftist) wouldn't be? We are not like you
and your Trumpist Republicans who put party, actually even worse not just
party but one short-fingered man, over country. We believe in America and
democracy and the rule of law.
And I would remind you Professor that there is a difference between
systematic law enforcement abuses aimed at those having certain political
views and the incidental catching of some people as part of an overall
program not aimed at a particular domestic political party. But that's the
kind of real distinction that the "but what would" false equivalency
Trumpists and old-line Soviets like to gloss over.
Cointelpro. The letter telling MLK to commit suicide.
Post by Ace Kefford
On the other hand if you are, as increasingly appears to be the case, a
true committed Trumpist, then you probably believe with Alex Jones, der
President and the rest that there was some "secret society" FBI plot
against Trump. Egad! If you are headed down that road be careful because
you will end up in the same camp as what are essentially the
"alterationists" of the political world who believe in "crisis actors" and
"false flag" operations as part of the anti-gun fake school shooting
plots. Re-reading any good book debunking conspiracy theory and thinking,
even your own, and applying what you read to the Trump-centric world might
prove beneficial.
Trump and his supporters have their own crazy conspiracy theories,
usually about liberals.
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-08 15:35:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.
That actually has been known since the Garrison trial era.
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
Sure. Are you guessing that he is gay?
Look up felching. I'm sure McAdams doesn't know what it means and it's
not a Cockney expression so his filter won't pick it up.
mainframetech
2018-02-09 02:12:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.
That actually has been known since the Garrison trial era.
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
This has nothing to do with current investigations into Carter Page.
You've followed the typical approach of the current right wing of adopting
the old Soviet apologist dodge of saying if two things can be "equated"
with words or characterization then they are equal and the same. Makes no
sense.
This is an article about a long ago figure. I pointed out, as you had,
that it was weak stuff. Also, since this was a JFK assassination forum, I
added that it was hard to believe anyone still defended Lane. It also
involved gratuitous stuff about his sex life.
All of us on the the left/liberal end of things are well aware of the bias
that can be found in official investigative reports. Hoover's FBI was the
worst for it. You can read lots of books about it if you are interested.
P.S. Got anything on Carter Page's sex life (a stomach-turning thought)?
He's an oddball, so there's bound to be something.

Chris
mainframetech
2018-02-08 02:29:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.
That actually has been known since the Garrison trial era.
Post by Ace Kefford
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
You'll apply the same standard to Carter Page, I trust? :-)
Post by Ace Kefford
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
From the experiences of WW2, who more than a Jew would want to
represent Liberty?
Post by John McAdams
Self aggrandizement for Mark Lane (with little respect for truth) was
always his agenda.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-02-08 02:31:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
From the experiences of WW2, who more than a Jew would want to
represent Liberty?
The Liberty Lobby were a bunch of anti-Semites.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
mainframetech
2018-02-09 02:11:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by mainframetech
Post by John McAdams
In spite of Lane's rather deep Communist connections, the real story
of who he was is shown in the fact that he, a Jew, represented the
Liberty Lobby.
From the experiences of WW2, who more than a Jew would want to
represent Liberty?
The Liberty Lobby were a bunch of anti-Semites.
Is that intended to show his urge to represent the downtrodden?

Chris
mainframetech
2018-02-08 02:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a “trusted
relationship” with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane’s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock’s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission’s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau’s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women “hand printed instructions … in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.”
The KGB’s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union’s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name “Kram.” “The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.”
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
There is no defense for how Lane presented his "evidence," but this is
really weak stuff. Not only based on one source but also with gratuitous
addition about his sexual kinks.
Truly what should be so surprising that a prominent leftist would be
speaking with someone affiliated with Russian intelligence (which Lane
might not have even known). Now if you tell me Lane was knowingly
providing classified information to a known KGB agent or source or that he
was taking marching orders from the Soviets like plenty of U.S. Communist
leaders were, then that's another matter.
In any case I can't imagine anyone other than the true believers who could
never be persuaded still stands behind Lane and his methods. Even when I
was a teenager I could see through his stuff.
Mark Lane's work often proved things the LN people didn't like, as it
went against the story they told. While I don't care for the way that
Lane advertised himself and his work, the people that he put into videos
appear to be very normal people and they are convincing as to their
experiences. Naturally, the LNs will always do all they can to discredit
anyone that dares to go against their version of events.

Chris
claviger
2018-02-10 01:40:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Mark Lane's work often proved things the LN people didn't like, as it
went against the story they told. While I don't care for the way that
Lane advertised himself and his work, the people that he put into videos
appear to be very normal people and they are convincing as to their
experiences. Naturally, the LNs will always do all they can to discredit
anyone that dares to go against their version of events.
Chris
Mark Lane was adept at suborning witnesses. Keep in mind at no point was
he ever objective about this case. Marguerite Oswald hired him to defend
her son in January 1964. Lawyers are not hired to be neutral or
impartial, but defend their clients anyway they can, ethical or unethical.
As lawyer, researcher and CT, Lane was never nonpartisan or unbiased about
his client or this controversial case.
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-10 18:32:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Mark Lane's work often proved things the LN people didn't like, as it
went against the story they told. While I don't care for the way that
Lane advertised himself and his work, the people that he put into videos
appear to be very normal people and they are convincing as to their
experiences. Naturally, the LNs will always do all they can to discredit
anyone that dares to go against their version of events.
Chris
Mark Lane was adept at suborning witnesses. Keep in mind at no point was
he ever objective about this case. Marguerite Oswald hired him to defend
Keep in mind that YOU were never objective about this case. You were
always a WC defender even when you didn't know what they said. Sad.
Post by claviger
her son in January 1964. Lawyers are not hired to be neutral or
impartial, but defend their clients anyway they can, ethical or unethical.
As lawyer, researcher and CT, Lane was never nonpartisan or unbiased about
his client or this controversial case.
Well, some people just don't like it when you kill their President.
Maybe you are OK with it, but millions of Americans are not.
claviger
2018-02-11 20:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Mark Lane's work often proved things the LN people didn't like, as it
went against the story they told. While I don't care for the way that
Lane advertised himself and his work, the people that he put into videos
appear to be very normal people and they are convincing as to their
experiences. Naturally, the LNs will always do all they can to discredit
anyone that dares to go against their version of events.
Chris
Mark Lane was adept at suborning witnesses. Keep in mind at no point was
he ever objective about this case. Marguerite Oswald hired him to defend
Keep in mind that YOU were never objective about this case. You were
always a WC defender even when you didn't know what they said. Sad.
After seeing the Zapruder film I was a CT until reading Mortal Error and
joining this Newsgroup.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
her son in January 1964. Lawyers are not hired to be neutral or
impartial, but defend their clients anyway they can, ethical or unethical.
As lawyer, researcher and CT, Lane was never nonpartisan or unbiased about
his client or this controversial case.
Well, some people just don't like it when you kill their President.
Maybe you are OK with it, but millions of Americans are not.
Mark Lane was never an objective researcher on this case. He had a dual
purpose agenda from the beginning and influenced witnesses to alter their
story to align with his scheme to exonerate LHO.
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-13 02:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Mark Lane's work often proved things the LN people didn't like, as it
went against the story they told. While I don't care for the way that
Lane advertised himself and his work, the people that he put into videos
appear to be very normal people and they are convincing as to their
experiences. Naturally, the LNs will always do all they can to discredit
anyone that dares to go against their version of events.
Chris
Mark Lane was adept at suborning witnesses. Keep in mind at no point was
he ever objective about this case. Marguerite Oswald hired him to defend
Keep in mind that YOU were never objective about this case. You were
always a WC defender even when you didn't know what they said. Sad.
After seeing the Zapruder film I was a CT until reading Mortal Error and
joining this Newsgroup.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
her son in January 1964. Lawyers are not hired to be neutral or
impartial, but defend their clients anyway they can, ethical or unethical.
As lawyer, researcher and CT, Lane was never nonpartisan or unbiased about
his client or this controversial case.
Well, some people just don't like it when you kill their President.
Maybe you are OK with it, but millions of Americans are not.
Mark Lane was never an objective researcher on this case. He had a dual
purpose agenda from the beginning and influenced witnesses to alter their
story to align with his scheme to exonerate LHO.
I didn't say anything about objective.
claviger
2018-02-14 03:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Mark Lane's work often proved things the LN people didn't like, as it
went against the story they told. While I don't care for the way that
Lane advertised himself and his work, the people that he put into videos
appear to be very normal people and they are convincing as to their
experiences. Naturally, the LNs will always do all they can to discredit
anyone that dares to go against their version of events.
Chris
Mark Lane was adept at suborning witnesses. Keep in mind at no point was
he ever objective about this case. Marguerite Oswald hired him to defend
Keep in mind that YOU were never objective about this case. You were
always a WC defender even when you didn't know what they said. Sad.
After seeing the Zapruder film I was a CT until reading Mortal Error and
joining this Newsgroup.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
her son in January 1964. Lawyers are not hired to be neutral or
impartial, but defend their clients anyway they can, ethical or unethical.
As lawyer, researcher and CT, Lane was never nonpartisan or unbiased about
his client or this controversial case.
Well, some people just don't like it when you kill their President.
Maybe you are OK with it, but millions of Americans are not.
Mark Lane was never an objective researcher on this case. He had a dual
purpose agenda from the beginning and influenced witnesses to alter their
story to align with his scheme to exonerate LHO.
I didn't say anything about objective.
People don't hire Lawyers to be neutral. That responsibility belongs to
the Judge and Jury. It could not be more obvious Lane was recruiting
witnesses to modify their observations to fit his template. It appears a
few witness were only too happy to oblige for TV exposure or free trip to
NO as a witnesses in the fiasco concocted by DA Jim Garrison.
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-06 18:52:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/10/jfk-files-kgb-had-trusted-relationship-longtime-warren-commission-critic-mark-lane/1018691001/
<quote on>
Mark Lane, the New York attorney who challenged the findings of the
commission that investigated the JFK assassination had a ???trusted
relationship??? with the Soviet KGB, according to a KGB informant for
the CIA.
Lane???s relationship with the KGB, which was revealed in new files
released from the investigation of the assassination of President John
F Kennedy, was disclosed by a little-known Soviet informant code named
Shamrock. That source, a KGB official who worked in the Soviet
delegation office at the United Nations, contacted the CIA on Jan. 16,
1967, and agreed to share information with both the CIA and FBI, an
April 4, 1967, FBI memo shows.
Shamrock???s name was made public for the first time among the more than
35,500 files connected to the Kennedy investigation that were released
late last year.
Lane, who died at age 89 in May 2016, first represented the mother of
Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as the Warren Commission conducted
its investigation. In 1966, he published the best-selling Rush to
Judgment, which criticized the commission???s work as sloppy and
incomplete.
A Nov. 7, 1967, memorandum from FBI official W.A. Branigan to William
Sullivan, the bureau???s longtime intelligence chief, said the
information provided by Shamrock about Lane would be passed to the
White House if Sullivan approved. The Lane file included claims that
Lane, a one-time Democratic member of the New York Assembly, was once
investigated for sodomy by the Queens County, N.Y., district attorney
and had once given two women ???hand printed instructions ??? in order
that they could perform upon his person perverted sexual acts of a
sadistic and masochistic nature.???
The KGB???s contact with Lane, the FBI memo said, was Boris Orehkov, a
former official at the Soviet Union???s UN delegation.
A Jan. 9, 1968, FBI report released as part of the JFK files said that
an FBI information identified only as "NY 5812-S" said the KGB had
given Lane the code name ???Kram.??? ???The source stated that BORIS
OREKHOV, a KGB officer, assigned to the NY residency, had had two
meetings with LANE and had established a trusted relationship with
him.???
<end quote>
Of course, this seems to be based on a single source.
So what? Your job his is to pass along CIA disinformation to slander all
conspiracy believers. YOU are not allowed to argue the facts so you MUST
make personal attacks. Do you really think no on here had ever heard this
crap before?

The KGB is always trying to contact and use Americans. You don't seem to
understand the danger in your use of false equivalency. In trying to
defend Trump and his people by saying LOOK, everyone else is doing it too,
YOU are admitting that Trump and his people were doing it. Foolish tactic.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Loading...