Discussion:
CTs on a losing streak
Add Reply
claviger
2018-06-26 14:56:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.

As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.

An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.

This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
OHLeeRedux
2018-06-26 21:58:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.



Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
Post by claviger
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
bigdog
2018-06-27 15:15:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.
You beat me to it. Mine hasn't posted yet.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-28 19:46:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by OHLeeRedux
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.
You beat me to it. Mine hasn't posted yet.
McAdams is still eating the spaghetti.
bigdog
2018-06-27 01:49:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
"That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.".

"Now it's garbage.".
Post by claviger
Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Chris finally stumbled on the right answer which is that JFK was shot by a
shooter on the knoll south of Commerce St. That means he has 86ed all his
previous theories. Next week he'll have a new theory.
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
I don't think it was luck. He was bound to run into Truly and Baker at
some point and the second floor is where it happened to be. I don't
believe Oswald was heading for the lunchroom but when he heard the first
steps racing up the stairs from the first floor he chose to duck into the
lunchroom to escape detection. It almost worked but an alert Baker spotted
him just after he head entered the lunchroom through the window of the
outer door. No evidence for that. Just part hunch, part educated guess.
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
They have as much evidence for their theories as I do for my belief Oswald
wasn't intending to go to the lunchroom. The difference is that I
recognize the that I have no evidence to support my hunch.
Jason Burke
2018-06-27 19:57:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
"That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.".
"Now it's garbage.".
Post by claviger
Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Chris finally stumbled on the right answer which is that JFK was shot by a
shooter on the knoll south of Commerce St. That means he has 86ed all his
previous theories. Next week he'll have a new theory.
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
I don't think it was luck. He was bound to run into Truly and Baker at
some point and the second floor is where it happened to be. I don't
believe Oswald was heading for the lunchroom but when he heard the first
steps racing up the stairs from the first floor he chose to duck into the
lunchroom to escape detection. It almost worked but an alert Baker spotted
him just after he head entered the lunchroom through the window of the
outer door. No evidence for that. Just part hunch, part educated guess.
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
They have as much evidence for their theories as I do for my belief Oswald
wasn't intending to go to the lunchroom. The difference is that I
recognize the that I have no evidence to support my hunch.
Not sure you can really count nuffin as a losing streak when you ain't
actually won nuffin.

Parse that, Anthony Anthony...
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-28 14:36:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jason Burke
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
"That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.".
"Now it's garbage.".
Post by claviger
Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Chris finally stumbled on the right answer which is that JFK was shot by a
shooter on the knoll south of Commerce St. That means he has 86ed all his
previous theories. Next week he'll have a new theory.
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy.  Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor.  Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs.  He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
I don't think it was luck. He was bound to run into Truly and Baker at
some point and the second floor is where it happened to be. I don't
believe Oswald was heading for the lunchroom but when he heard the first
steps racing up the stairs from the first floor he chose to duck into the
lunchroom to escape detection. It almost worked but an alert Baker spotted
him just after he head entered the lunchroom through the window of the
Close, but Baker did not spot him. He saw the automatic door closing and
realized that someone had just gone through that doorway so he followed
to look inside.
And saw Oswald walking away with a Coke in his hand.
Naturally he assumed that the man had just shot the President and ran
down to get a Coke. Coke, the drink of assassins.
Post by Jason Burke
Post by bigdog
outer door. No evidence for that. Just part hunch, part educated guess.
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors.  No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade.  Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
They have as much evidence for their theories as I do for my belief Oswald
wasn't intending to go to the lunchroom. The difference is that I
recognize the that I have no evidence to support my hunch.
Not sure you can really count nuffin as a losing streak when you ain't
actually won nuffin.
Parse that, Anthony Anthony...
<cue the music> Nothin from Nothin equals Nothin.
claviger
2018-06-29 00:49:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Close, but Baker did not spot him. He saw the automatic door closing and
realized that someone had just gone through that doorway so he followed
to look inside.
And saw Oswald walking away with a Coke in his hand.
Naturally he assumed that the man had just shot the President and ran
down to get a Coke. Coke, the drink of assassins.
Cite please.
Post by Anthony Marsh
<cue the music> Nothin from Nothin equals Nothin.
Your theme song.
Jason Burke
2018-06-29 16:13:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Jason Burke
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
"That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.".
"Now it's garbage.".
Post by claviger
Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Chris finally stumbled on the right answer which is that JFK was shot by a
shooter on the knoll south of Commerce St. That means he has 86ed all his
previous theories. Next week he'll have a new theory.
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy.  Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor.  Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs.  He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
I don't think it was luck. He was bound to run into Truly and Baker at
some point and the second floor is where it happened to be. I don't
believe Oswald was heading for the lunchroom but when he heard the first
steps racing up the stairs from the first floor he chose to duck into the
lunchroom to escape detection. It almost worked but an alert Baker spotted
him just after he head entered the lunchroom through the window of the
Close, but Baker did not spot him. He saw the automatic door closing and
realized that someone had just gone through that doorway so he followed
to look inside.
And saw Oswald walking away with a Coke in his hand.
Naturally he assumed that the man had just shot the President and ran
down to get a Coke. Coke, the drink of assassins.
Post by Jason Burke
Post by bigdog
outer door. No evidence for that. Just part hunch, part educated guess.
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors.  No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade.  Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
They have as much evidence for their theories as I do for my belief Oswald
wasn't intending to go to the lunchroom. The difference is that I
recognize the that I have no evidence to support my hunch.
Not sure you can really count nuffin as a losing streak when you ain't
actually won nuffin.
Parse that, Anthony Anthony...
<cue the music> Nothin from Nothin equals Nothin.
Well, 'leaves'. But close enough for a white guy!
mainframetech
2018-06-28 01:39:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
"That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.".
"Now it's garbage.".
Post by claviger
Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Chris finally stumbled on the right answer which is that JFK was shot by a
shooter on the knoll south of Commerce St. That means he has 86ed all his
previous theories. Next week he'll have a new theory.
Ol' bd makes yet another mistake to add to the myriad mistakes he has
already shown. I don't work with theories like the WCR does. Mainly
facts that lead to knowledge.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
WRONG! He wasn't in front of the drink machine, he was just inside the
door with a window in it.
Post by bigdog
I don't think it was luck. He was bound to run into Truly and Baker at
some point and the second floor is where it happened to be.
WRONG! The possibility that no one came down the stairs but were in
the 2nd floor lunchroom all the time has to be considered. It made no
sense to go up to the 6th floor and then have to fight for the window that
witnesses had seen 2 men with a gun in.
Post by bigdog
I don't
believe Oswald was heading for the lunchroom but when he heard the first
steps racing up the stairs from the first floor he chose to duck into the
lunchroom to escape detection. It almost worked but an alert Baker spotted
him just after he head entered the lunchroom through the window of the
outer door. No evidence for that. Just part hunch, part educated guess.
All hunch. Seeing Oswald through the window in the door doesn't mean
he just came into the room, he could easily have been getting ready to
leave.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
If a team of shooters had gone up to the 6th floor, they would easily
have been able to walk out without being noticed since everyone was
looking out their windows or from the stoop. Richard Carr ought to be
checked.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
They have as much evidence for their theories as I do for my belief Oswald
wasn't intending to go to the lunchroom. The difference is that I
recognize the that I have no evidence to support my hunch.
It's OK. I recognize it too.

Chris
bigdog
2018-06-28 20:03:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
"That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.".
"Now it's garbage.".
Post by claviger
Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Chris finally stumbled on the right answer which is that JFK was shot by a
shooter on the knoll south of Commerce St. That means he has 86ed all his
previous theories. Next week he'll have a new theory.
Ol' bd makes yet another mistake to add to the myriad mistakes he has
already shown. I don't work with theories like the WCR does. Mainly
facts that lead to knowledge.
Why do your facts keep changing?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
WRONG! He wasn't in front of the drink machine, he was just inside the
door with a window in it.
I know that. He had just entered the lunchroom when Baker spotted him. If
he had been in front of the drink machine, Baker wouldn't have seen him.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I don't think it was luck. He was bound to run into Truly and Baker at
some point and the second floor is where it happened to be.
WRONG! The possibility that no one came down the stairs but were in
the 2nd floor lunchroom all the time has to be considered.
Not when there is overwhelming evidence that someone had been on the 6th
floor a short time earlier.
Post by mainframetech
It made no
sense to go up to the 6th floor and then have to fight for the window that
witnesses had seen 2 men with a gun in.
Wow, we haven't heard about your imaginary two men for months.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I don't
believe Oswald was heading for the lunchroom but when he heard the first
steps racing up the stairs from the first floor he chose to duck into the
lunchroom to escape detection. It almost worked but an alert Baker spotted
him just after he head entered the lunchroom through the window of the
outer door. No evidence for that. Just part hunch, part educated guess.
All hunch. Seeing Oswald through the window in the door doesn't mean
he just came into the room, he could easily have been getting ready to
leave.
So you think it is more likely he went to the door and did a U-turn than
that he had just entered the lunchroom.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
If a team of shooters had gone up to the 6th floor, they would easily
have been able to walk out without being noticed since everyone was
looking out their windows or from the stoop. Richard Carr ought to be
checked.
Why?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
They have as much evidence for their theories as I do for my belief Oswald
wasn't intending to go to the lunchroom. The difference is that I
recognize the that I have no evidence to support my hunch.
It's OK. I recognize it too.
Too bad you can't recognize it for your own theories.
mainframetech
2018-06-30 01:17:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
"That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.".
"Now it's garbage.".
Post by claviger
Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Chris finally stumbled on the right answer which is that JFK was shot by a
shooter on the knoll south of Commerce St. That means he has 86ed all his
previous theories. Next week he'll have a new theory.
Ol' bd makes yet another mistake to add to the myriad mistakes he has
already shown. I don't work with theories like the WCR does. Mainly
facts that lead to knowledge.
Why do your facts keep changing?
Why do your questions always have data missing so they can't be
answered? Afraid of what you may hear?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
WRONG! He wasn't in front of the drink machine, he was just inside the
door with a window in it.
I know that. He had just entered the lunchroom when Baker spotted him. If
he had been in front of the drink machine, Baker wouldn't have seen him.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I don't think it was luck. He was bound to run into Truly and Baker at
some point and the second floor is where it happened to be.
WRONG! The possibility that no one came down the stairs but were in
the 2nd floor lunchroom all the time has to be considered.
Not when there is overwhelming evidence that someone had been on the 6th
floor a short time earlier.
"Someone" is not evidence that Oswald was there. And there's damn
little of that!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It made no
sense to go up to the 6th floor and then have to fight for the window that
witnesses had seen 2 men with a gun in.
Wow, we haven't heard about your imaginary two men for months.
Now is when you led the discussion to it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I don't
believe Oswald was heading for the lunchroom but when he heard the first
steps racing up the stairs from the first floor he chose to duck into the
lunchroom to escape detection. It almost worked but an alert Baker spotted
him just after he head entered the lunchroom through the window of the
outer door. No evidence for that. Just part hunch, part educated guess.
All hunch. Seeing Oswald through the window in the door doesn't mean
he just came into the room, he could easily have been getting ready to
leave.
So you think it is more likely he went to the door and did a U-turn than
that he had just entered the lunchroom.
Use your head.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
If a team of shooters had gone up to the 6th floor, they would easily
have been able to walk out without being noticed since everyone was
looking out their windows or from the stoop. Richard Carr ought to be
checked.
Why?
He saw a man in the window of the 6th floor, in a tan suit and with
heavy black rimmed glasses. Later when he was on the ground, he saw that
same man coming out f the back of the TSBD.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
They have as much evidence for their theories as I do for my belief Oswald
wasn't intending to go to the lunchroom. The difference is that I
recognize the that I have no evidence to support my hunch.
It's OK. I recognize it too.
Too bad you can't recognize it for your own theories.
WRONG! I don't use theories like the WCR does, as you well know.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-01 00:37:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
"That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.".
"Now it's garbage.".
Post by claviger
Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Chris finally stumbled on the right answer which is that JFK was shot by a
shooter on the knoll south of Commerce St. That means he has 86ed all his
previous theories. Next week he'll have a new theory.
Ol' bd makes yet another mistake to add to the myriad mistakes he has
already shown. I don't work with theories like the WCR does. Mainly
facts that lead to knowledge.
Why do your facts keep changing?
Why do your questions always have data missing so they can't be
answered? Afraid of what you may hear?
You dodged my question with a question.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
WRONG! He wasn't in front of the drink machine, he was just inside the
door with a window in it.
I know that. He had just entered the lunchroom when Baker spotted him. If
he had been in front of the drink machine, Baker wouldn't have seen him.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I don't think it was luck. He was bound to run into Truly and Baker at
some point and the second floor is where it happened to be.
WRONG! The possibility that no one came down the stairs but were in
the 2nd floor lunchroom all the time has to be considered.
Not when there is overwhelming evidence that someone had been on the 6th
floor a short time earlier.
"Someone" is not evidence that Oswald was there. And there's damn
little of that!
That someone was Oswald.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It made no
sense to go up to the 6th floor and then have to fight for the window that
witnesses had seen 2 men with a gun in.
Wow, we haven't heard about your imaginary two men for months.
Now is when you led the discussion to it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I don't
believe Oswald was heading for the lunchroom but when he heard the first
steps racing up the stairs from the first floor he chose to duck into the
lunchroom to escape detection. It almost worked but an alert Baker spotted
him just after he head entered the lunchroom through the window of the
outer door. No evidence for that. Just part hunch, part educated guess.
All hunch. Seeing Oswald through the window in the door doesn't mean
he just came into the room, he could easily have been getting ready to
leave.
So you think it is more likely he went to the door and did a U-turn than
that he had just entered the lunchroom.
Use your head.
I just did.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
If a team of shooters had gone up to the 6th floor, they would easily
have been able to walk out without being noticed since everyone was
looking out their windows or from the stoop. Richard Carr ought to be
checked.
Why?
He saw a man in the window of the 6th floor, in a tan suit and with
heavy black rimmed glasses. Later when he was on the ground, he saw that
same man coming out f the back of the TSBD.
This from an HSCA document regarding Carr:

"Richard Randolph Carr stated to the FBI on January 4, 1964, that he saw a
man looking out of a window on the top floor of the depository a few
minutes before Carr heard shots.(99) He described the man as white,
wearing a hat, tan sport coat and glasses.(100) He said that at the time
of the motorcade, he was standing on about the sixth floor of the new
courthouse which was under construction at Houston and Commerce
Streets.(101) Carr said that from that spot he could only see the top
floor and roof of the depository building.(102) It was from that location
that he observed the man in the depository window.(103) Carr said that
after the shots he was going toward the direction of the triple underpass;
when he got to the intersection of Houston and Commerce Streets, he saw a
man whom he believed to be the same individual he had seen in the window
of the depository.(104) "

If Carr "could only see the top floor and roof of the depository building"
how could he have seen a man in a tan suit on the 6th floor?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
They have as much evidence for their theories as I do for my belief Oswald
wasn't intending to go to the lunchroom. The difference is that I
recognize the that I have no evidence to support my hunch.
It's OK. I recognize it too.
Too bad you can't recognize it for your own theories.
WRONG! I don't use theories like the WCR does, as you well know.
All you present are your theories and they make no sense. They aren't
supported by realize evidence, only your assumptions and speculations.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-02 15:07:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
"That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.".
"Now it's garbage.".
Post by claviger
Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Chris finally stumbled on the right answer which is that JFK was shot by a
shooter on the knoll south of Commerce St. That means he has 86ed all his
previous theories. Next week he'll have a new theory.
Ol' bd makes yet another mistake to add to the myriad mistakes he has
already shown. I don't work with theories like the WCR does. Mainly
facts that lead to knowledge.
Why do your facts keep changing?
Why do your questions always have data missing so they can't be
answered? Afraid of what you may hear?
You dodged my question with a question.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
WRONG! He wasn't in front of the drink machine, he was just inside the
door with a window in it.
I know that. He had just entered the lunchroom when Baker spotted him. If
he had been in front of the drink machine, Baker wouldn't have seen him.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I don't think it was luck. He was bound to run into Truly and Baker at
some point and the second floor is where it happened to be.
WRONG! The possibility that no one came down the stairs but were in
the 2nd floor lunchroom all the time has to be considered.
Not when there is overwhelming evidence that someone had been on the 6th
floor a short time earlier.
"Someone" is not evidence that Oswald was there. And there's damn
little of that!
That someone was Oswald.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It made no
sense to go up to the 6th floor and then have to fight for the window that
witnesses had seen 2 men with a gun in.
Wow, we haven't heard about your imaginary two men for months.
Now is when you led the discussion to it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I don't
believe Oswald was heading for the lunchroom but when he heard the first
steps racing up the stairs from the first floor he chose to duck into the
lunchroom to escape detection. It almost worked but an alert Baker spotted
him just after he head entered the lunchroom through the window of the
outer door. No evidence for that. Just part hunch, part educated guess.
All hunch. Seeing Oswald through the window in the door doesn't mean
he just came into the room, he could easily have been getting ready to
leave.
So you think it is more likely he went to the door and did a U-turn than
that he had just entered the lunchroom.
Use your head.
I just did.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
If a team of shooters had gone up to the 6th floor, they would easily
have been able to walk out without being noticed since everyone was
looking out their windows or from the stoop. Richard Carr ought to be
checked.
Why?
He saw a man in the window of the 6th floor, in a tan suit and with
heavy black rimmed glasses. Later when he was on the ground, he saw that
same man coming out f the back of the TSBD.
"Richard Randolph Carr stated to the FBI on January 4, 1964, that he saw a
man looking out of a window on the top floor of the depository a few
Oh, so now you think the the shots were fired from the SEVENTH floor. By
oswald or by someone else?

You could make up a theory that Oswald was on the 6th, but his rifle
jammed so the backup shooter had to take his shot from the 7th floor.
Maybe this is why the bullet missed JFK and hit Connally. I like it.
Post by bigdog
minutes before Carr heard shots.(99) He described the man as white,
wearing a hat, tan sport coat and glasses.(100) He said that at the time
of the motorcade, he was standing on about the sixth floor of the new
courthouse which was under construction at Houston and Commerce
Streets.(101) Carr said that from that spot he could only see the top
floor and roof of the depository building.(102) It was from that location
that he observed the man in the depository window.(103) Carr said that
after the shots he was going toward the direction of the triple underpass;
when he got to the intersection of Houston and Commerce Streets, he saw a
man whom he believed to be the same individual he had seen in the window
of the depository.(104) "
If Carr "could only see the top floor and roof of the depository building"
how could he have seen a man in a tan suit on the 6th floor?
Never rely on witness statements.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
They have as much evidence for their theories as I do for my belief Oswald
wasn't intending to go to the lunchroom. The difference is that I
recognize the that I have no evidence to support my hunch.
It's OK. I recognize it too.
Too bad you can't recognize it for your own theories.
WRONG! I don't use theories like the WCR does, as you well know.
All you present are your theories and they make no sense. They aren't
supported by realize evidence, only your assumptions and speculations.
YOU destroyed the evidence.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-30 01:12:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.
"That's not spaghetti. It's linguini.".
"Now it's garbage.".
Post by claviger
Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Chris finally stumbled on the right answer which is that JFK was shot by a
shooter on the knoll south of Commerce St. That means he has 86ed all his
previous theories. Next week he'll have a new theory.
Ol' bd makes yet another mistake to add to the myriad mistakes he has
already shown. I don't work with theories like the WCR does. Mainly
facts that lead to knowledge.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
WRONG! He wasn't in front of the drink machine, he was just inside the
door with a window in it.
Post by bigdog
I don't think it was luck. He was bound to run into Truly and Baker at
some point and the second floor is where it happened to be.
WRONG! The possibility that no one came down the stairs but were in
the 2nd floor lunchroom all the time has to be considered. It made no
sense to go up to the 6th floor and then have to fight for the window that
witnesses had seen 2 men with a gun in.
Post by bigdog
I don't
believe Oswald was heading for the lunchroom but when he heard the first
steps racing up the stairs from the first floor he chose to duck into the
lunchroom to escape detection. It almost worked but an alert Baker spotted
him just after he head entered the lunchroom through the window of the
outer door. No evidence for that. Just part hunch, part educated guess.
All hunch. Seeing Oswald through the window in the door doesn't mean
he just came into the room, he could easily have been getting ready to
leave.
Baker assumed that he just walked in because he saw the automatic door
closing and Oswald walkiing AWAY from the door.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
If a team of shooters had gone up to the 6th floor, they would easily
have been able to walk out without being noticed since everyone was
looking out their windows or from the stoop. Richard Carr ought to be
checked.
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
They have as much evidence for their theories as I do for my belief Oswald
wasn't intending to go to the lunchroom. The difference is that I
recognize the that I have no evidence to support my hunch.
It's OK. I recognize it too.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-27 01:50:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Wrong. The 99% wrong are the WC defenders who can't even agree on when
the shots were fired and when they hit what.

With any complex case like this you can get consensus on the major
points but there will always be different opinions on mitor points.
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
WHose theory is that? Yours?
Anyone else?

You have no moral authority to tell others that they are wrong.
yOU are the only one who thinks the SS shot the President in the head.
Post by claviger
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
Any shot can be done with the open sights. The question is which is
easier to us and which is more accurate at what range.
Post by claviger
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
Why would any shooter need to act calm on the way down the strairs?
There was no one there to see him. No one saw someone coming down the
strairs.
Post by claviger
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
Prove that Oswald was standing in front of the drink machine. Baker saw
the door closing and found Oswald already holing the Coke just inside
the Lucnch room. Maybe he had the Coke all the time.
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
No, no one does that, not even on TV. You are imagining things.
Post by claviger
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
Who said anything about a group of strangers? All it takes is one.
Post by claviger
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
The fact that you are saying silly things proves our case without having
to present any arguments. Thanks for helping us.
claviger
2018-06-28 01:57:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Wrong. The 99% wrong are the WC defenders who can't even agree on
when the shots were fired and when they hit what.
Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I was talking about CTs
as a subset. If there were 100 CTs in that subset, all with different
theories and only one is correct, that means 99 got it wrong.
Therefore 1% got it right and 99% got it wrong. Capiche?
Post by Anthony Marsh
With any complex case like this you can get consensus on the major
points but there will always be different opinions on mitor points.
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
WHose theory is that? Yours?
Yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Anyone else?
The Warren Commission Report.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You have no moral authority to tell others that they are wrong.
yOU are the only one who thinks the SS shot the President in the head.
Demonstrably false.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
Any shot can be done with the open sights. The question is which is
easier to us and which is more accurate at what range.
Since you are not a hunter you don't know that many
riflemen prefer open sights on a close target inside
100 yards.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
Why would any shooter need to act calm on the way down the strairs?
There was no one there to see him. No one saw someone coming down the
strairs.
So he was yelling and hollering as he celebrated on
the way down the stairs?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
Prove that Oswald was standing in front of the drink machine. Baker saw
the door closing and found Oswald already holing the Coke just inside
the Lucnch room. Maybe he had the Coke all the time.
Mr. BELIN - Yes, sir. We are going to get to that with one more question,
if I can, sir. When you saw him, he then turned around, is that correct,
and then walked back toward you?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Was he carrying anything in his hands?
Mr. BAKER - He had nothing at that time.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
No, no one does that, not even on TV. You are imagining things.
Then why were the doors locked by other Police Officers
after Baker went upstairs?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
Who said anything about a group of strangers? All it takes is one.
MFT said a team of snipers came in the TSBD then went
out the backdoor after the shooting.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of
another shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
The fact that you are saying silly things proves our case without
having to present any arguments. Thanks for helping us.
Jean Hill thought the SSA fired shots during the ambush.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-29 16:15:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Wrong. The 99% wrong are the WC defenders who can't even agree on
when the shots were fired and when they hit what.
Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I was talking about CTs
as a subset. If there were 100 CTs in that subset, all with different
Subset of what? It is clear that you aimed it at some conspiracy
believers here and tried to lump them all into one enemy.
Post by claviger
theories and only one is correct, that means 99 got it wrong.
Stupid logic. You could name several different groups you think were
involved and in your simplistic logic say that only one is the correct
one. But the world does not work that way. The plots to assassinate Fidel
Castro involved several different groups acting together, including but
not limited to the CIA, the Mafia, Big Business, Cuban Exiles. You can't
just pick one and say it they did it, the others are innocent. You are
being childish on purpose to avoid ever admitting any fact.
Post by claviger
Therefore 1% got it right and 99% got it wrong. Capiche?
Silly.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
With any complex case like this you can get consensus on the major
points but there will always be different opinions on mitor points.
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
WHose theory is that? Yours?
Yes.
I doubt it. I think it is a hoax you made up on the spur of the moment.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Anyone else?
The Warren Commission Report.
No, they were not stupid enough to say that.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
You have no moral authority to tell others that they are wrong.
yOU are the only one who thinks the SS shot the President in the head.
Demonstrably false.
You are the only one arguing that.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
Any shot can be done with the open sights. The question is which is
easier to us and which is more accurate at what range.
Since you are not a hunter you don't know that many
riflemen prefer open sights on a close target inside
100 yards.
I don't have to be hunter to know that some people prefer to use the
open sights. Why did you leave out the military. Millions of Italian
soldiers used the open sights, but as Dave Emary pointed out they often
missed the target because they could not guess the distance accurately
enough.

That could be why the TSBD shooter missed everyhing wit one shot. Or
maybe hit an obstacle that he did not know was in the way of a clear shot.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
Why would any shooter need to act calm on the way down the strairs?
There was no one there to see him. No one saw someone coming down the
strairs.
So he was yelling and hollering as he celebrated on
the way down the stairs?
So you can't deal with the facts I just gave you and have to make up a
straw man argument. Shame. No one saw Oswald on the stairs.
There was no reason for Oswald to be calm.
When the cop saw him he was.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
Prove that Oswald was standing in front of the drink machine. Baker saw
the door closing and found Oswald already holing the Coke just inside
the Lucnch room. Maybe he had the Coke all the time.
Mr. BELIN - Yes, sir. We are going to get to that with one more question,
if I can, sir. When you saw him, he then turned around, is that correct,
and then walked back toward you?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Was he carrying anything in his hands?
Mr. BAKER - He had nothing at that time.
SUborning perjury. In his statement to the FBI Baker said that Oswald
had a Coke. Maybe your way out of this perjury is to claim that it was
only in one hand, not hands plural. Please work on that evasion.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
No, no one does that, not even on TV. You are imagining things.
Then why were the doors locked by other Police Officers
after Baker went upstairs?
What doors where and when. Not all doors. People could still get out the
back.

Who locked them, the cops or Truly. Read the statement more carefully.
You have a history of making wild claims without backing them up with
documents.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
Who said anything about a group of strangers? All it takes is one.
MFT said a team of snipers came in the TSBD then went
out the backdoor after the shooting.
I don't care what the kook says. I am not his babysitter.
Something does not have to be true just because it is possible.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of
another shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
The fact that you are saying silly things proves our case without
having to present any arguments. Thanks for helping us.
Jean Hill thought the SSA fired shots during the ambush.
Several agent firing revolvers. That is not your theory.
And that would be shooting back at the assassins, not shooting the
President in the head. She was a kook, but she never said that.
donald willis
2018-06-30 15:13:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Wrong. The 99% wrong are the WC defenders who can't even agree on
when the shots were fired and when they hit what.
Your reading comprehension is atrocious. I was talking about CTs
as a subset. If there were 100 CTs in that subset, all with different
theories and only one is correct, that means 99 got it wrong.
Therefore 1% got it right and 99% got it wrong. Capiche?
Post by Anthony Marsh
With any complex case like this you can get consensus on the major
points but there will always be different opinions on mitor points.
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
WHose theory is that? Yours?
Yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Anyone else?
The Warren Commission Report.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You have no moral authority to tell others that they are wrong.
yOU are the only one who thinks the SS shot the President in the head.
Demonstrably false.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
Any shot can be done with the open sights. The question is which is
easier to us and which is more accurate at what range.
Since you are not a hunter you don't know that many
riflemen prefer open sights on a close target inside
100 yards.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
Why would any shooter need to act calm on the way down the strairs?
There was no one there to see him. No one saw someone coming down the
strairs.
So he was yelling and hollering as he celebrated on
the way down the stairs?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
Prove that Oswald was standing in front of the drink machine. Baker saw
the door closing and found Oswald already holing the Coke just inside
the Lucnch room. Maybe he had the Coke all the time.
Mr. BELIN - Yes, sir. We are going to get to that with one more question,
if I can, sir. When you saw him, he then turned around, is that correct,
and then walked back toward you?
Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Was he carrying anything in his hands?
Mr. BAKER - He had nothing at that time.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
No, no one does that, not even on TV. You are imagining things.
Then why were the doors locked by other Police Officers
after Baker went upstairs?
Where did you get this idea? Either the front door was still unlocked
when Insp. Sawyer, Sgt. Hill, & Patrolman Valentine went in circa 12:50,
or Sawyer said the secret password & the cops inside let him in.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
Who said anything about a group of strangers? All it takes is one.
MFT said a team of snipers came in the TSBD then went
out the backdoor after the shooting.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of
another shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
The fact that you are saying silly things proves our case without
having to present any arguments. Thanks for helping us.
Jean Hill thought the SSA fired shots during the ambush.
claviger
2018-07-01 00:47:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by donald willis
Post by claviger
Then why were the doors locked by other Police Officers
after Baker went upstairs?
Where did you get this idea? Either the front door was still unlocked
when Insp. Sawyer, Sgt. Hill, & Patrolman Valentine went in circa 12:50,
or Sawyer said the secret password & the cops inside let him in.
I got this idea because Charles Givens was locked out when he tried
to get back inside to check in with Mr Truly and get his hat and coat.

_____________________________________________________
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. GIVENS. Three.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you heard them?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, we broke and ran down that way, and by the time we got
to the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going
toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks. And we asked--I
asked someone some white fellow there, 'What happened ?" And he said,
"Somebody shot the President." Like that. So I stood there for a while,
and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the
shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in the
officer at the door wouldn't let me in.
Mr. BELIN. Did you tell him you worked there?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes; but he still wouldn't let me in. He told me he wouldn't
let no one in.
Mr. BELIN. This was the front of Elm Street?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. So I goes back over to the parking lot and I wait until I
seen Junior.
Mr. BELIN. Is that Jarman?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. They were on their way home, and they told me that they
let them all go home for the evening, and I said, "I'd better go back and
get my hat and coat." So I started over there to pick up my hat and coat,
and Officer Dawson saw me and he called me and asked me was my name
Charles Givens, and I said," yes." And he said, "We want you to go
downtown and make a statement." And he puts me in the car and takes me
down to the city hall and I made a statement to Will Fritz down there.

Alphabetical list of witnesses and testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/givens1.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-02 15:05:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by donald willis
Post by claviger
Then why were the doors locked by other Police Officers
after Baker went upstairs?
Where did you get this idea? Either the front door was still unlocked
when Insp. Sawyer, Sgt. Hill, & Patrolman Valentine went in circa 12:50,
or Sawyer said the secret password & the cops inside let him in.
I got this idea because Charles Givens was locked out when he tried
to get back inside to check in with Mr Truly and get his hat and coat.
_____________________________________________________
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. GIVENS. Three.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you heard them?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, we broke and ran down that way, and by the time we got
to the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going
toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks. And we asked--I
asked someone some white fellow there, 'What happened ?" And he said,
"Somebody shot the President." Like that. So I stood there for a while,
and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the
shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in the
officer at the door wouldn't let me in.
OFFICER. Singular. Nothing about locking doors.
Why would the officer have the keys?
Post by claviger
Mr. BELIN. Did you tell him you worked there?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes; but he still wouldn't let me in. He told me he wouldn't
let no one in.
Mr. BELIN. This was the front of Elm Street?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. So I goes back over to the parking lot and I wait until I
seen Junior.
Mr. BELIN. Is that Jarman?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. They were on their way home, and they told me that they
On their way HOME? I thought you just said that only assassins go HOME
after a shooting. Try to be consistent.
Post by claviger
let them all go home for the evening, and I said, "I'd better go back and
get my hat and coat." So I started over there to pick up my hat and coat,
and Officer Dawson saw me and he called me and asked me was my name
Charles Givens, and I said," yes." And he said, "We want you to go
downtown and make a statement." And he puts me in the car and takes me
down to the city hall and I made a statement to Will Fritz down there.
Was this before or after the DPD put out an APB over the radio for him?

1392. 9: 9. We have a man we would like to have you pass this up
on to the CID to see if we can pick this man up.
Charles
Douglas Givens, G-I-V-E-N-S. He's a colored male,
thirty-seven, six foot three, a hundred sixty-five
pounds. He has an ID number in the Sheriff's
Department,
37954. He's a porter that worked on this floor
up here.
He has a police record and he left.
1393. 492: 492, out Texas Theater.
1394. DIS: 10-4, 9.
Post by claviger
Alphabetical list of witnesses and testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/givens1.htm
claviger
2018-07-03 17:13:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by donald willis
Post by claviger
Then why were the doors locked by other Police Officers
after Baker went upstairs?
Where did you get this idea? Either the front door was still unlocked
when Insp. Sawyer, Sgt. Hill, & Patrolman Valentine went in circa 12:50,
or Sawyer said the secret password & the cops inside let him in.
I got this idea because Charles Givens was locked out when he tried
to get back inside to check in with Mr Truly and get his hat and coat.
_____________________________________________________
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. GIVENS. Three.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you heard them?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, we broke and ran down that way, and by the time we got
to the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going
toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks. And we asked--I
asked someone some white fellow there, 'What happened ?" And he said,
"Somebody shot the President." Like that. So I stood there for a while,
and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the
shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in the
officer at the door wouldn't let me in.
OFFICER. Singular. Nothing about locking doors.
Why would the officer have the keys?
So now we argue is guarded the same as being locked out?
Effectively yes. Were people on the inside allowed to leave?
If police were guarding the front and back doors they might
be rather curious about odd shaped packages being carried
out and ask to look inside.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Mr. BELIN. Did you tell him you worked there?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes; but he still wouldn't let me in. He told me he wouldn't
let no one in.
Mr. BELIN. This was the front of Elm Street?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. So I goes back over to the parking lot and I wait until I
seen Junior.
Mr. BELIN. Is that Jarman?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. They were on their way home, and they told me that they
On their way HOME? I thought you just said that only assassins go HOME
after a shooting. Try to be consistent.
Only assassins go home, not innocent people? What about ET?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
let them all go home for the evening, and I said, "I'd better go back and
get my hat and coat." So I started over there to pick up my hat and coat,
and Officer Dawson saw me and he called me and asked me was my name
Charles Givens, and I said," yes." And he said, "We want you to go
downtown and make a statement." And he puts me in the car and takes me
down to the city hall and I made a statement to Will Fritz down there.
Was this before or after the DPD put out an APB over the radio for him?
1392. 9: 9. We have a man we would like to have you pass this up
on to the CID to see if we can pick this man up.
Charles
Douglas Givens, G-I-V-E-N-S. He's a colored male,
thirty-seven, six foot three, a hundred sixty-five
pounds. He has an ID number in the Sheriff's
Department,
37954. He's a porter that worked on this floor
up here.
He has a police record and he left.
1393. 492: 492, out Texas Theater.
1394. DIS: 10-4, 9.
Post by claviger
Alphabetical list of witnesses and testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/givens1.htm
Yes, we all know about Givens being outside waiting to get back in.
Was LHO standing right behind Givens in line? Was his excuse he
left a sack of curtain rods on the 6th floor?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-04 01:34:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by donald willis
Post by claviger
Then why were the doors locked by other Police Officers
after Baker went upstairs?
Where did you get this idea? Either the front door was still unlocked
when Insp. Sawyer, Sgt. Hill, & Patrolman Valentine went in circa 12:50,
or Sawyer said the secret password & the cops inside let him in.
I got this idea because Charles Givens was locked out when he tried
to get back inside to check in with Mr Truly and get his hat and coat.
_____________________________________________________
Mr. BELIN. How many shots did you hear?
Mr. GIVENS. Three.
Mr. BELIN. What did you do when you heard them?
Mr. GIVENS. Well, we broke and ran down that way, and by the time we got
to the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going
toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks. And we asked--I
asked someone some white fellow there, 'What happened ?" And he said,
"Somebody shot the President." Like that. So I stood there for a while,
and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the
shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in the
officer at the door wouldn't let me in.
OFFICER. Singular. Nothing about locking doors.
Why would the officer have the keys?
So now we argue is guarded the same as being locked out?
The difference is the careless use of the word lock.
Post by claviger
Effectively yes. Were people on the inside allowed to leave?
Yes, they did. They left out the back door. So what? This was long after
Oswald had been confronted by a cop and let go and left the TSBD.
Post by claviger
If police were guarding the front and back doors they might
be rather curious about odd shaped packages being carried
out and ask to look inside.
WHat packages?
Did a cop ask to look inside Oswald's package?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Mr. BELIN. Did you tell him you worked there?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes; but he still wouldn't let me in. He told me he wouldn't
let no one in.
Mr. BELIN. This was the front of Elm Street?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. So I goes back over to the parking lot and I wait until I
seen Junior.
Mr. BELIN. Is that Jarman?
Mr. GIVENS. Yes. They were on their way home, and they told me that they
On their way HOME? I thought you just said that only assassins go HOME
after a shooting. Try to be consistent.
Only assassins go home, not innocent people? What about ET?
ET was not an assassin. The ET Innocence Project.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
let them all go home for the evening, and I said, "I'd better go back and
get my hat and coat." So I started over there to pick up my hat and coat,
and Officer Dawson saw me and he called me and asked me was my name
Charles Givens, and I said," yes." And he said, "We want you to go
downtown and make a statement." And he puts me in the car and takes me
down to the city hall and I made a statement to Will Fritz down there.
Was this before or after the DPD put out an APB over the radio for him?
1392. 9: 9. We have a man we would like to have you pass this up
on to the CID to see if we can pick this man up.
Charles
Douglas Givens, G-I-V-E-N-S. He's a colored male,
thirty-seven, six foot three, a hundred sixty-five
pounds. He has an ID number in the Sheriff's
Department,
37954. He's a porter that worked on this floor
up here.
He has a police record and he left.
1393. 492: 492, out Texas Theater.
1394. DIS: 10-4, 9.
Post by claviger
Alphabetical list of witnesses and testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/givens1.htm
Yes, we all know about Givens being outside waiting to get back in.
Was LHO standing right behind Givens in line? Was his excuse he
left a sack of curtain rods on the 6th floor?
Why would Oswald stand near Givens?
He left the curtain rods in the Domino Room under his jacket.
Ace Kefford
2018-06-27 02:15:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
bigdog
2018-06-27 20:04:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-28 14:33:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
No, silly. A beauty pagent is not like politics. There may be some place
where the runner up is automatically next in line, but I don't of any
here.
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-06-28 19:50:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
One liberal proposed the following: Trump should be impeached for
collusion with Russian and then Pence would become vice president.

Then Ryan would resign as Speaker and Hillary Clinton would be named
Speaker of the House. This is before Pence selected a VP candidate to
replace him.

Then - yeah, are you still with me? - Pence would resign - his election
was illegitimate even though he wasn't guilty of collusion - and Hillary,
being next in line as Speaker (remember there's no VP) - would become
president.

Lifton's body stealing scenario is more plausible.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-30 01:07:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
One liberal proposed the following: Trump should be impeached for
collusion with Russian and then Pence would become vice president.
Silly straw man argument. No one said that. Pence is already
Vice-President. The idea was to impeach and remove Trump then Pence
would become President.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Then Ryan would resign as Speaker and Hillary Clinton would be named
Speaker of the House. This is before Pence selected a VP candidate to
replace him.
No. If Ryan resigned then another Republican would take his place. Not a
Democrat. How could Hillary become the Speaker of the House when she was
not elected to the House.
You dropped some straw along the way.
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Then - yeah, are you still with me? - Pence would resign - his election
was illegitimate even though he wasn't guilty of collusion - and Hillary,
being next in line as Speaker (remember there's no VP) - would become
president.
Lifton's body stealing scenario is more plausible.
Your theory is impossible.
mainframetech
2018-06-30 01:18:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
One liberal proposed the following: Trump should be impeached for
collusion with Russian and then Pence would become vice president.
Then Ryan would resign as Speaker and Hillary Clinton would be named
Speaker of the House. This is before Pence selected a VP candidate to
replace him.
Then - yeah, are you still with me? - Pence would resign - his election
was illegitimate even though he wasn't guilty of collusion - and Hillary,
being next in line as Speaker (remember there's no VP) - would become
president.
Lifton's body stealing scenario is more plausible.
Never mind the silly political mess. The casket switch was documented,
on paper and in sworn testimony.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-30 21:23:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
One liberal proposed the following: Trump should be impeached for
collusion with Russian and then Pence would become vice president.
Then Ryan would resign as Speaker and Hillary Clinton would be named
Speaker of the House. This is before Pence selected a VP candidate to
replace him.
Then - yeah, are you still with me? - Pence would resign - his election
was illegitimate even though he wasn't guilty of collusion - and Hillary,
being next in line as Speaker (remember there's no VP) - would become
president.
Lifton's body stealing scenario is more plausible.
Never mind the silly political mess. The casket switch was documented,
on paper and in sworn testimony.
Chris
No
bigdog
2018-07-01 00:34:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
One liberal proposed the following: Trump should be impeached for
collusion with Russian and then Pence would become vice president.
Then Ryan would resign as Speaker and Hillary Clinton would be named
Speaker of the House. This is before Pence selected a VP candidate to
replace him.
Then - yeah, are you still with me? - Pence would resign - his election
was illegitimate even though he wasn't guilty of collusion - and Hillary,
being next in line as Speaker (remember there's no VP) - would become
president.
Lifton's body stealing scenario is more plausible.
Never mind the silly political mess. The casket switch was documented,
on paper and in sworn testimony.
What document shows the casket was switch? Who testified to a casket
switch?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-02 15:08:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
One liberal proposed the following: Trump should be impeached for
collusion with Russian and then Pence would become vice president.
Then Ryan would resign as Speaker and Hillary Clinton would be named
Speaker of the House. This is before Pence selected a VP candidate to
replace him.
Then - yeah, are you still with me? - Pence would resign - his election
was illegitimate even though he wasn't guilty of collusion - and Hillary,
being next in line as Speaker (remember there's no VP) - would become
president.
Lifton's body stealing scenario is more plausible.
Never mind the silly political mess. The casket switch was documented,
on paper and in sworn testimony.
What document shows the casket was switch? Who testified to a casket
switch?
What kind of a softball question is that? No matter which witness he
cites all you do is say he was lying? We're onto your tricks.
If I quote Jesus you say he's a liar or a Communist.
claviger
2018-07-03 04:29:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
What document shows the casket was switch? Who testified to a casket
switch?
What kind of a softball question is that? No matter which witness he
cites all you do is say he was lying? We're onto your tricks.
If I quote Jesus you say he's a liar or a Communist.
Jesus could never be a Communist. He believed in the Ten Commandments.
Communists are Atheist Socialists who believe in situational ethics.
mainframetech
2018-07-03 21:19:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
What document shows the casket was switch? Who testified to a casket
switch?
First, Edward Reed, who helped get the body out of the shipping
casket, identified the shipping casket as such, then identified JFK when
he saw the body. He was doing sworn testimony. Second, Dennis David was
in charge of a small detail that was to move the shipping casket into the
morgue. He identified the casket as a SHIPPING casket, and directed the
movement of the casket into the morgue. GHe was aided by a man named
Rebentisch. Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian was in charge of the security
detail at the morgue and hospital to keep onlookers away. He logged in
his after action report that the casket arrived at 6:35pm at the morgue.

Since we know that the body was placed in the Bronze casket at
Parkland hospital, by taking the body out of the SHIPPING casket, we've
proved that the body was switched from the Bronze casket to the SHIPPING
casket.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
What kind of a softball question is that? No matter which witness he
cites all you do is say he was lying? We're onto your tricks.
If I quote Jesus you say he's a liar or a Communist.
Jesus could never be a Communist. He believed in the Ten Commandments.
Communists are Atheist Socialists who believe in situational ethics.
No matter. If you need actual text of the above eyewitnesses, let me
know.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-04 14:57:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
What document shows the casket was switch? Who testified to a casket
switch?
First, Edward Reed, who helped get the body out of the shipping
casket, identified the shipping casket as such, then identified JFK when
he saw the body. He was doing sworn testimony. Second, Dennis David was
in charge of a small detail that was to move the shipping casket into the
morgue. He identified the casket as a SHIPPING casket, and directed the
movement of the casket into the morgue. GHe was aided by a man named
Rebentisch. Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian was in charge of the security
detail at the morgue and hospital to keep onlookers away. He logged in
his after action report that the casket arrived at 6:35pm at the morgue.
Since we know that the body was placed in the Bronze casket at
Parkland hospital, by taking the body out of the SHIPPING casket, we've
proved that the body was switched from the Bronze casket to the SHIPPING
casket.
Of course you overlook the possibility that these people were wrong about
the body being in a shipping casket even though they gave these accounts
many years later. One possible explanation is that somebody else's body
had arrived during that evening in a shipping casket and these witnesses
just assumed that shipping casket contained JFK's body. Another could be
that it was the norm for bodies to arrive at a military hospital in a
shipping casket and this colored their memories of the evening. The fact
is there are conflicting accounts of what kind of casket JFK's body
arrived in and you simply assume that the ones who said a shipping casket
were right even though that account conflicts with other known facts. You
ignore that David Powers has stated the body was never left unattended on
AF1 from the time it was loaded onto the plane at Love Field until it was
loaded into the ambulance at Andrews. You ignore the logistical
impossibility of smuggling a second casket onto AF1 and then keeping it
hidden from view during the flight. You ignore the fact that live TV
cameras were at Andrews when the body arrived and recorded the unloading
of a bronze casket into the Navy ambulance and that none of the cameras or
any of the multitude of witnesses who were at Andrews ever saw a second
casket unloaded from the plane. Lastly you ignore that statements of the
two FBI agents who said they accompanied the body from Andrews to Bethesda
and saw the body removed from the bronze casket.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
What kind of a softball question is that? No matter which witness he
cites all you do is say he was lying? We're onto your tricks.
If I quote Jesus you say he's a liar or a Communist.
Jesus could never be a Communist. He believed in the Ten Commandments.
Communists are Atheist Socialists who believe in situational ethics.
No matter. If you need actual text of the above eyewitnesses, let me
know.
You not only cherry pick the witnesses, you cherry pick the portions of
their testimony you choose to believe and ignore others. You ignore the
part of Dennis David's account in which he says the body was transported
by ambulance while he rode with the color guard to Bethesda by chopper.
You ignore Jenkins when he says the bullet hole he saw was in the temporal
bone. You take the these various witnesses' statements and eliminate the
parts that don't fit your theories.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-05 23:12:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
What document shows the casket was switch? Who testified to a casket
switch?
First, Edward Reed, who helped get the body out of the shipping
casket, identified the shipping casket as such, then identified JFK when
he saw the body. He was doing sworn testimony. Second, Dennis David was
in charge of a small detail that was to move the shipping casket into the
morgue. He identified the casket as a SHIPPING casket, and directed the
movement of the casket into the morgue. GHe was aided by a man named
Rebentisch. Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian was in charge of the security
detail at the morgue and hospital to keep onlookers away. He logged in
his after action report that the casket arrived at 6:35pm at the morgue.
Since we know that the body was placed in the Bronze casket at
Parkland hospital, by taking the body out of the SHIPPING casket, we've
proved that the body was switched from the Bronze casket to the SHIPPING
casket.
Of course you overlook the possibility that these people were wrong about
the body being in a shipping casket even though they gave these accounts
OMG, you can't go around admitting that witnesses were wrong. Especially
when you NEED their lies to frame Oswald.
Post by bigdog
many years later. One possible explanation is that somebody else's body
had arrived during that evening in a shipping casket and these witnesses
I like that explanation a lot. Maybe you can prove that it was a
casualty from the Vietnam War who was shipped back in a shipping casket?
Got a name?
Post by bigdog
just assumed that shipping casket contained JFK's body. Another could be
Physically impossible.
Post by bigdog
that it was the norm for bodies to arrive at a military hospital in a
shipping casket and this colored their memories of the evening. The fact
OK, prove it. Stop guessing. We want FACTS, not your imagination.
Post by bigdog
is there are conflicting accounts of what kind of casket JFK's body
No, there are no conflicting accounts. What are you, some type of
conspiracy kook?
Post by bigdog
arrived in and you simply assume that the ones who said a shipping casket
were right even though that account conflicts with other known facts. You
ignore that David Powers has stated the body was never left unattended on
AF1 from the time it was loaded onto the plane at Love Field until it was
loaded into the ambulance at Andrews. You ignore the logistical
impossibility of smuggling a second casket onto AF1 and then keeping it
Oh, please. Stop giving him a way out.
Post by bigdog
hidden from view during the flight. You ignore the fact that live TV
cameras were at Andrews when the body arrived and recorded the unloading
of a bronze casket into the Navy ambulance and that none of the cameras or
But are YOU smart enough to SEE the broken handles as they put it into
the ambulance?

That would be like actual research.
Post by bigdog
any of the multitude of witnesses who were at Andrews ever saw a second
casket unloaded from the plane. Lastly you ignore that statements of the
Please stop doing that. You know he will say that they snuck it out of
the other side of the plane.
Post by bigdog
two FBI agents who said they accompanied the body from Andrews to Bethesda
and saw the body removed from the bronze casket.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
What kind of a softball question is that? No matter which witness he
cites all you do is say he was lying? We're onto your tricks.
If I quote Jesus you say he's a liar or a Communist.
Jesus could never be a Communist. He believed in the Ten Commandments.
Communists are Atheist Socialists who believe in situational ethics.
No matter. If you need actual text of the above eyewitnesses, let me
know.
You not only cherry pick the witnesses, you cherry pick the portions of
their testimony you choose to believe and ignore others. You ignore the
part of Dennis David's account in which he says the body was transported
by ambulance while he rode with the color guard to Bethesda by chopper.
You ignore Jenkins when he says the bullet hole he saw was in the temporal
bone. You take the these various witnesses' statements and eliminate the
parts that don't fit your theories.
You're just learning that? It's what alterationists always do.
They don't believe in physical evidence.
mainframetech
2018-07-06 01:32:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
What document shows the casket was switch? Who testified to a casket
switch?
First, Edward Reed, who helped get the body out of the shipping
casket, identified the shipping casket as such, then identified JFK when
he saw the body. He was doing sworn testimony. Second, Dennis David was
in charge of a small detail that was to move the shipping casket into the
morgue. He identified the casket as a SHIPPING casket, and directed the
movement of the casket into the morgue. GHe was aided by a man named
Rebentisch. Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian was in charge of the security
detail at the morgue and hospital to keep onlookers away. He logged in
his after action report that the casket arrived at 6:35pm at the morgue.
Since we know that the body was placed in the Bronze casket at
Parkland hospital, by taking the body out of the SHIPPING casket, we've
proved that the body was switched from the Bronze casket to the SHIPPING
casket.
Of course you overlook the possibility that these people were wrong about
the body being in a shipping casket even though they gave these accounts
many years later. One possible explanation is that somebody else's body
had arrived during that evening in a shipping casket and these witnesses
just assumed that shipping casket contained JFK's body.
WRONG! How stupid can people get? There were 3 different people
corroborating each other's sighting of the SHIPPING casket, and those who
saw JFK when that casket was opened. You've run out of your silly
gimmicks, and all this has been argued to death. All your ridiculous
efforts have been answered. You're not going to get different answers by
beating the dead horse.
Post by bigdog
Another could be
that it was the norm for bodies to arrive at a military hospital in a
shipping casket and this colored their memories of the evening. The fact
is there are conflicting accounts of what kind of casket JFK's body
arrived in and you simply assume that the ones who said a shipping casket
were right even though that account conflicts with other known facts. You
ignore that David Powers has stated the body was never left unattended on
AF1 from the time it was loaded onto the plane at Love Field until it was
loaded into the ambulance at Andrews. You ignore the logistical
impossibility of smuggling a second casket onto AF1 and then keeping it
hidden from view during the flight. You ignore the fact that live TV
cameras were at Andrews when the body arrived and recorded the unloading
of a bronze casket into the Navy ambulance and that none of the cameras or
any of the multitude of witnesses who were at Andrews ever saw a second
casket unloaded from the plane. Lastly you ignore that statements of the
two FBI agents who said they accompanied the body from Andrews to Bethesda
and saw the body removed from the bronze casket.
As usual, you're WRONG! I don't ignore information, though I may use
it differently than you. First, I've proved the FBI agents were away from
the casket for periods of time by the sworn testimony of James Sibert, the
FBI agent in question. Second, there were 3 arrivals of caskets, so which
one were you talking about? The third arrival was the Bronze casket and
it had the body of JFK in it, so that could be the opening they saw,
though it was later in the evening, but before the scheduled autopsy.
And don't start your crap about the time of autopsy, which was scheduled
for 8:00pm. We've been over all that.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
What kind of a softball question is that? No matter which witness he
cites all you do is say he was lying? We're onto your tricks.
If I quote Jesus you say he's a liar or a Communist.
Jesus could never be a Communist. He believed in the Ten Commandments.
Communists are Atheist Socialists who believe in situational ethics.
No matter. If you need actual text of the above eyewitnesses, let me
know.
You not only cherry pick the witnesses, you cherry pick the portions of
their testimony you choose to believe and ignore others. You ignore the
part of Dennis David's account in which he says the body was transported
by ambulance while he rode with the color guard to Bethesda by chopper.
Dennis David did NOT say that, he wasn't even part of the story until
the body had arrived at the morgue. You might be talking about Richard
Lipsey, aide to General Wehle, which was confusing in his testimony, but
made it clear that there was a 'decoy' ambulance and that the ambulance
with the body arrived first at the morgue an then later the ambulance with
the decoy casket in it.

Either Lipsey was trying to hold to the phony story to avoid the truth
that they were playing musical caskets with the president's body, or he
just got mixed up. There is other proof that clears his mistake away.
For instance the body in the SHIPPING casket arrived at Bethesda morgue 42
minutes before the Bronze casket. The only way that could happen was in a
helicopter. Lipsey made it clear that he and the general took a
helicopter to Bethesda. He failed to mention that the SHIPPING casket was
with them.
Post by bigdog
You ignore Jenkins when he says the bullet hole he saw was in the temporal
bone. You take the these various witnesses' statements and eliminate the
parts that don't fit your theories.
LOL! I see you're trying to emulate your hero bd! And of course, you
also ignore the answer he got when he tried that one. The bullet hole was
in the forehead/temple area, and he made the mistake of calling it the
'temporal' rather than the 'temple'. Simple. You see, the bullet hole
that Jenkins described was a quarter inch in diameter, and the only would
of that size was the bullet hole. So the mistake is easily explained.
You need to do your own thinking because bd will drag you into all kinds
of silliness. Just look at his record of WRONGS!

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-07 12:47:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
What document shows the casket was switch? Who testified to a casket
switch?
First, Edward Reed, who helped get the body out of the shipping
casket, identified the shipping casket as such, then identified JFK when
he saw the body. He was doing sworn testimony. Second, Dennis David was
in charge of a small detail that was to move the shipping casket into the
morgue. He identified the casket as a SHIPPING casket, and directed the
movement of the casket into the morgue. GHe was aided by a man named
Rebentisch. Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian was in charge of the security
detail at the morgue and hospital to keep onlookers away. He logged in
his after action report that the casket arrived at 6:35pm at the morgue.
Since we know that the body was placed in the Bronze casket at
Parkland hospital, by taking the body out of the SHIPPING casket, we've
proved that the body was switched from the Bronze casket to the SHIPPING
casket.
Of course you overlook the possibility that these people were wrong about
the body being in a shipping casket even though they gave these accounts
many years later. One possible explanation is that somebody else's body
had arrived during that evening in a shipping casket and these witnesses
just assumed that shipping casket contained JFK's body.
WRONG! How stupid can people get? There were 3 different people
corroborating each other's sighting of the SHIPPING casket, and those who
saw JFK when that casket was opened. You've run out of your silly
gimmicks, and all this has been argued to death. All your ridiculous
efforts have been answered. You're not going to get different answers by
beating the dead horse.
You ignore the fact that Sibert and O'Neill said the body came out of the
ornamental casket. One of those versions has to be wrong. You
automatically choose to believe the one that fits your narrative rather
than the one that fits other known facts. We know that Powers and McHugh
have said the ornamental casket was never unattended while on AF1. No one
saw a shipping casket loaded on AF1 at Love Field. There was no place to
stow a second casket on AF1. No one saw a shipping casket unloaded from
AF1 at Andrews despite there being hundreds of witnesses live TV cameras,
film cameras, and still photographers. That pretty much precludes the
possibility that JFK's body was switched to a shipping casket on AF1.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Another could be
that it was the norm for bodies to arrive at a military hospital in a
shipping casket and this colored their memories of the evening. The fact
is there are conflicting accounts of what kind of casket JFK's body
arrived in and you simply assume that the ones who said a shipping casket
were right even though that account conflicts with other known facts. You
ignore that David Powers has stated the body was never left unattended on
AF1 from the time it was loaded onto the plane at Love Field until it was
loaded into the ambulance at Andrews. You ignore the logistical
impossibility of smuggling a second casket onto AF1 and then keeping it
hidden from view during the flight. You ignore the fact that live TV
cameras were at Andrews when the body arrived and recorded the unloading
of a bronze casket into the Navy ambulance and that none of the cameras or
any of the multitude of witnesses who were at Andrews ever saw a second
casket unloaded from the plane. Lastly you ignore that statements of the
two FBI agents who said they accompanied the body from Andrews to Bethesda
and saw the body removed from the bronze casket.
As usual, you're WRONG! I don't ignore information, though I may use
it differently than you. First, I've proved the FBI agents were away from
the casket for periods of time by the sworn testimony of James Sibert, the
FBI agent in question.
How silly can you get? Why is it you can't understand that they didn't
leave the body until AFTER they had already seen it removed from the
ornamental casket. You can't use the period when they left the body during
the x-rays as a time the body could have been put back in the ornamental
casket because by that time the body had already been removed from the
casket. I know you can't be that stupid so that means you are just being
stubborn by refusing to deal with the sequence of events that makes your
explanation impossible.
Post by mainframetech
Second, there were 3 arrivals of caskets, so which
one were you talking about? The third arrival was the Bronze casket and
it had the body of JFK in it, so that could be the opening they saw,
though it was later in the evening, but before the scheduled autopsy.
And don't start your crap about the time of autopsy, which was scheduled
for 8:00pm. We've been over all that.
So now you are admitting JFK's body arrived in the Bronze casket.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
What kind of a softball question is that? No matter which witness he
cites all you do is say he was lying? We're onto your tricks.
If I quote Jesus you say he's a liar or a Communist.
Jesus could never be a Communist. He believed in the Ten Commandments.
Communists are Atheist Socialists who believe in situational ethics.
No matter. If you need actual text of the above eyewitnesses, let me
know.
You not only cherry pick the witnesses, you cherry pick the portions of
their testimony you choose to believe and ignore others. You ignore the
part of Dennis David's account in which he says the body was transported
by ambulance while he rode with the color guard to Bethesda by chopper.
Dennis David did NOT say that, he wasn't even part of the story until
the body had arrived at the morgue. You might be talking about Richard
Lipsey, aide to General Wehle, which was confusing in his testimony, but
made it clear that there was a 'decoy' ambulance and that the ambulance
with the body arrived first at the morgue an then later the ambulance with
the decoy casket in it.
Yes I did mistakenly say David when I meant Lipsey. It still presents the
same problem for you.
Post by mainframetech
Either Lipsey was trying to hold to the phony story to avoid the truth
that they were playing musical caskets with the president's body, or he
just got mixed up.
How do you know it isn't the witnesses you rely on who were mixed up?
Post by mainframetech
There is other proof that clears his mistake away.
For instance the body in the SHIPPING casket arrived at Bethesda morgue 42
minutes before the Bronze casket. The only way that could happen was in a
helicopter. Lipsey made it clear that he and the general took a
helicopter to Bethesda. He failed to mention that the SHIPPING casket was
with them.
The Bronze casket arrived at 6:35 and was logged in. Lipsey didn't fail to
mention anything. He specifically stated the body was driven to Bethesda
while he and the honor guard flew.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You ignore Jenkins when he says the bullet hole he saw was in the temporal
bone. You take the these various witnesses' statements and eliminate the
parts that don't fit your theories.
LOL! I see you're trying to emulate your hero bd!
You're so confused you don't even know this is "bd" who wrote this.
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you
also ignore the answer he got when he tried that one. The bullet hole was
in the forehead/temple area, and he made the mistake of calling it the
'temporal' rather than the 'temple'. Simple. You see, the bullet hole
that Jenkins described was a quarter inch in diameter, and the only would
of that size was the bullet hole. So the mistake is easily explained.
You need to do your own thinking because bd will drag you into all kinds
of silliness. Just look at his record of WRONGS!
A perfect example of you cherry picking the parts of a witness' statement
you want to believe and then "correcting" the parts you don't want to
believe.
mainframetech
2018-07-09 13:57:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
What document shows the casket was switch? Who testified to a casket
switch?
First, Edward Reed, who helped get the body out of the shipping
casket, identified the shipping casket as such, then identified JFK when
he saw the body. He was doing sworn testimony. Second, Dennis David was
in charge of a small detail that was to move the shipping casket into the
morgue. He identified the casket as a SHIPPING casket, and directed the
movement of the casket into the morgue. GHe was aided by a man named
Rebentisch. Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian was in charge of the security
detail at the morgue and hospital to keep onlookers away. He logged in
his after action report that the casket arrived at 6:35pm at the morgue.
Since we know that the body was placed in the Bronze casket at
Parkland hospital, by taking the body out of the SHIPPING casket, we've
proved that the body was switched from the Bronze casket to the SHIPPING
casket.
Of course you overlook the possibility that these people were wrong about
the body being in a shipping casket even though they gave these accounts
many years later. One possible explanation is that somebody else's body
had arrived during that evening in a shipping casket and these witnesses
just assumed that shipping casket contained JFK's body.
WRONG! How stupid can people get? There were 3 different people
corroborating each other's sighting of the SHIPPING casket, and those who
saw JFK when that casket was opened. You've run out of your silly
gimmicks, and all this has been argued to death. All your ridiculous
efforts have been answered. You're not going to get different answers by
beating the dead horse.
You ignore the fact that Sibert and O'Neill said the body came out of the
ornamental casket. One of those versions has to be wrong. You
automatically choose to believe the one that fits your narrative rather
than the one that fits other known facts.
WRONG as usual. I do not ignore evidence, and Sibert and O'Neill gave
testimony to the effect of that happening, which I also believe.
However, you don't listen or you can't understand what you're told and so
you continue to make mistakes. Once again, and please listen carefully;
I believe that Sibert and O'Neill saw the body come out of the Bronze
casket that night. Just after the third arrival of a casket (Bronze).
The 3 arrivals were: first, the SHIPPING casket with the body of JFK in
it. Thee are witnesses that helped carry the casket in, and witnesses
that saw the body of JFK come out of that casket. The witnesses were in
sworn testimony, and a document states the time of arrival. The FBI
agents weren't there yet and they did NOT see that.

The Second arrival was at about 42 minutes later and was the Bronze
casket along with the FBI and SS agents. The Casket was empty, and it
appears that some or all of the agents knew it. The third arrival was
when they put the body of JFK back into the Bronze casket and sent it out
again, where the honor guard found it in an ambulance on the grounds.
They brought it back and the FBI and SS agents then saw the body come out
of the Bronze casket and some helped them put it on the table.

Now you may find that hard to understand, but if you think carefully,
and consider that they may have wanted to be clear on the stand that they
saw the body come out of the Bronze casket, then they could only do that
by sending it out and watching when it came back. As with the bullet
through the windshield, that was seen by 6 eyewitnesses, they went to a
lot of trouble to keep things looking a certain way. It was crucial to
the plotters getting away with their plan.
Post by bigdog
We know that Powers and McHugh
have said the ornamental casket was never unattended while on AF1.
And yet the FBI agents said that too and were caught when both had
been away from the casket at the same time. We don't know what bathroom
trips they made or other movements in the plane. However, we also don't
know whether they HELPED with the switch of the caskets. Since the excuse
was to fool the press, they all might have helped if asked to find a way
to defeat the press who would follow the body and the casket it was in,
leaving Jackie alone.

Now please stop going wrong on this stuff you keep asking me about.
Post by bigdog
No one
saw a shipping casket loaded on AF1 at Love Field. There was no place to
stow a second casket on AF1.
Here's a diagram of AF1, and the casket is noted there. I see lots of
room in the plane for another casket which would only look like a service
module for the galley:

Loading Image...
Post by bigdog
No one saw a shipping casket unloaded from
AF1 at Andrews despite there being hundreds of witnesses live TV cameras,
film cameras, and still photographers. That pretty much precludes the
possibility that JFK's body was switched to a shipping casket on AF1.
How dumb can people get? Do they think that a shipping casket would
be unloaded in front of the world? Naturally they would wait for the
press and the cameras, etc. to go, THEN unload the SHIPPING casket.
Think!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Another could be
that it was the norm for bodies to arrive at a military hospital in a
shipping casket and this colored their memories of the evening. The fact
is there are conflicting accounts of what kind of casket JFK's body
arrived in and you simply assume that the ones who said a shipping casket
were right even though that account conflicts with other known facts. You
ignore that David Powers has stated the body was never left unattended on
AF1 from the time it was loaded onto the plane at Love Field until it was
loaded into the ambulance at Andrews. You ignore the logistical
impossibility of smuggling a second casket onto AF1 and then keeping it
hidden from view during the flight. You ignore the fact that live TV
cameras were at Andrews when the body arrived and recorded the unloading
of a bronze casket into the Navy ambulance and that none of the cameras or
any of the multitude of witnesses who were at Andrews ever saw a second
casket unloaded from the plane. Lastly you ignore that statements of the
two FBI agents who said they accompanied the body from Andrews to Bethesda
and saw the body removed from the bronze casket.
As usual, you're WRONG! I don't ignore information, though I may use
it differently than you. First, I've proved the FBI agents were away from
the casket for periods of time by the sworn testimony of James Sibert, the
FBI agent in question.
How silly can you get? Why is it you can't understand that they didn't
leave the body until AFTER they had already seen it removed from the
ornamental casket.
WRONG as usual! I despair of pushing into your head, the answers to
these questions that have all been done before. Try and remember the 3
arrivals of caskets. The third one was where they saw the body in the
casket and helped get it out. The Bronze casket first arrival was before
the times when the FBI agents were asked to leave the room, but the body
didn't came out at that arrival.
Post by bigdog
You can't use the period when they left the body during
the x-rays as a time the body could have been put back in the ornamental
casket because by that time the body had already been removed from the
casket. I know you can't be that stupid so that means you are just being
stubborn by refusing to deal with the sequence of events that makes your
explanation impossible.
I won't comment on who's stupid, just remind you of the 3 casket
arrivals. See above.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second, there were 3 arrivals of caskets, so which
one were you talking about? The third arrival was the Bronze casket and
it had the body of JFK in it, so that could be the opening they saw,
though it was later in the evening, but before the scheduled autopsy.
And don't start your crap about the time of autopsy, which was scheduled
for 8:00pm. We've been over all that.
So now you are admitting JFK's body arrived in the Bronze casket.
I'm not admitting anything. I'm stating clearly that there were 3
arrivals of caskets, and the second and third were of the Bronze casket,
and the third arrival had the body of JFK in the Bronze casket, and was
witnessed by the FBI agents when it was brought out.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
What kind of a softball question is that? No matter which witness he
cites all you do is say he was lying? We're onto your tricks.
If I quote Jesus you say he's a liar or a Communist.
Jesus could never be a Communist. He believed in the Ten Commandments.
Communists are Atheist Socialists who believe in situational ethics.
No matter. If you need actual text of the above eyewitnesses, let me
know.
You not only cherry pick the witnesses, you cherry pick the portions of
their testimony you choose to believe and ignore others. You ignore the
part of Dennis David's account in which he says the body was transported
by ambulance while he rode with the color guard to Bethesda by chopper.
Dennis David did NOT say that, he wasn't even part of the story until
the body had arrived at the morgue. You might be talking about Richard
Lipsey, aide to General Wehle, which was confusing in his testimony, but
made it clear that there was a 'decoy' ambulance and that the ambulance
with the body arrived first at the morgue an then later the ambulance with
the decoy casket in it.
Yes I did mistakenly say David when I meant Lipsey. It still presents the
same problem for you.
Post by mainframetech
Either Lipsey was trying to hold to the phony story to avoid the truth
that they were playing musical caskets with the president's body, or he
just got mixed up.
How do you know it isn't the witnesses you rely on who were mixed up?
Because of all the sworn testimony and documents that prove otherwise.
Corroborations all over the place. You have (of course) forgotten all of
that while you drill down on one little part of the case. try and keep
your perspective a bit larger.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There is other proof that clears his mistake away.
For instance the body in the SHIPPING casket arrived at Bethesda morgue 42
minutes before the Bronze casket. The only way that could happen was in a
helicopter. Lipsey made it clear that he and the general took a
helicopter to Bethesda. He failed to mention that the SHIPPING casket was
with them.
The Bronze casket arrived at 6:35 and was logged in. Lipsey didn't fail to
mention anything. He specifically stated the body was driven to Bethesda
while he and the honor guard flew.
Saying it won't make it so. There are sworn testimonies and documents
that give the true nature of what happened. Lipsey isn't that dependable
either. His video statements don't match his HSCA statements at all.
The idea of having the body "choppered" to Bethesda was mentioned on the
AF1 plane, and I believe it had to be carried out because the sworn
testimonies make it clear that the body arrived 42 minute BEFORE the
Bronze casket that went by road.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You ignore Jenkins when he says the bullet hole he saw was in the temporal
bone. You take the these various witnesses' statements and eliminate the
parts that don't fit your theories.
LOL! I see you're trying to emulate your hero bd!
You're so confused you don't even know this is "bd" who wrote this.
Well, there's a sour note. And Jenkins wasn't ignored. I found a
rational reason for his mistake in using the term 'temporal'. You didn't
like it, but so what? I'm not here to please you. If you look into the
history of this post, you'll see that Claviger had a part in it.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you
also ignore the answer he got when he tried that one. The bullet hole was
in the forehead/temple area, and he made the mistake of calling it the
'temporal' rather than the 'temple'. Simple. You see, the bullet hole
that Jenkins described was a quarter inch in diameter, and the only would
of that size was the bullet hole. So the mistake is easily explained.
You need to do your own thinking because bd will drag you into all kinds
of silliness. Just look at his record of WRONGS!
A perfect example of you cherry picking the parts of a witness' statement
you want to believe and then "correcting" the parts you don't want to
believe.
It would be more honest if you stated that thing that was cherry
picked, and what the original statement meant that was different.
Otherwise no one can correct you if you've made yet another mistake.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-10 14:16:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
What document shows the casket was switch? Who testified to a casket
switch?
First, Edward Reed, who helped get the body out of the shipping
casket, identified the shipping casket as such, then identified JFK when
he saw the body. He was doing sworn testimony. Second, Dennis David was
in charge of a small detail that was to move the shipping casket into the
morgue. He identified the casket as a SHIPPING casket, and directed the
movement of the casket into the morgue. GHe was aided by a man named
Rebentisch. Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian was in charge of the security
detail at the morgue and hospital to keep onlookers away. He logged in
his after action report that the casket arrived at 6:35pm at the morgue.
Since we know that the body was placed in the Bronze casket at
Parkland hospital, by taking the body out of the SHIPPING casket, we've
proved that the body was switched from the Bronze casket to the SHIPPING
casket.
Of course you overlook the possibility that these people were wrong about
the body being in a shipping casket even though they gave these accounts
many years later. One possible explanation is that somebody else's body
had arrived during that evening in a shipping casket and these witnesses
just assumed that shipping casket contained JFK's body.
WRONG! How stupid can people get? There were 3 different people
corroborating each other's sighting of the SHIPPING casket, and those who
saw JFK when that casket was opened. You've run out of your silly
gimmicks, and all this has been argued to death. All your ridiculous
efforts have been answered. You're not going to get different answers by
beating the dead horse.
You ignore the fact that Sibert and O'Neill said the body came out of the
ornamental casket. One of those versions has to be wrong. You
automatically choose to believe the one that fits your narrative rather
than the one that fits other known facts.
WRONG as usual. I do not ignore evidence, and Sibert and O'Neill gave
testimony to the effect of that happening, which I also believe.
However, you don't listen or you can't understand what you're told and so
you continue to make mistakes. Once again, and please listen carefully;
I believe that Sibert and O'Neill saw the body come out of the Bronze
casket that night. Just after the third arrival of a casket (Bronze).
The 3 arrivals were: first, the SHIPPING casket with the body of JFK in
it. Thee are witnesses that helped carry the casket in, and witnesses
that saw the body of JFK come out of that casket. The witnesses were in
sworn testimony, and a document states the time of arrival. The FBI
agents weren't there yet and they did NOT see that.
This came of musical caskets which you have imagined is rather
hysterically funny. You get points for originality with your third casket
arrival. Not even Lifton or Horne thought of that one. That is entirely
your invention because not a single witness ever said that happened.
Post by mainframetech
The Second arrival was at about 42 minutes later and was the Bronze
casket along with the FBI and SS agents.
You continue to insist there was a second casket arrival 42 minutes after
the one that was logged at 6:35 even though no witness and no document
indicates that happened. You also know that is true yet you continue to
perpetuate this factoid.
Post by mainframetech
The Casket was empty, and it
appears that some or all of the agents knew it. The third arrival was
when they put the body of JFK back into the Bronze casket and sent it out
again, where the honor guard found it in an ambulance on the grounds.
They brought it back and the FBI and SS agents then saw the body come out
of the Bronze casket and some helped them put it on the table.
This is the part that really gets funny.
Post by mainframetech
Now you may find that hard to understand, but if you think carefully,
and consider that they may have wanted to be clear on the stand that they
saw the body come out of the Bronze casket, then they could only do that
by sending it out and watching when it came back. As with the bullet
through the windshield, that was seen by 6 eyewitnesses, they went to a
lot of trouble to keep things looking a certain way. It was crucial to
the plotters getting away with their plan.
How about there was only one casket an one body and both came off of AF1
together as seen by the entire country on live TV.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We know that Powers and McHugh
have said the ornamental casket was never unattended while on AF1.
And yet the FBI agents said that too and were caught when both had
been away from the casket at the same time.
Why do you keep bringing that up when you know that didn't happen until
after the body came out of the bronze casket?
Post by mainframetech
We don't know what bathroom
trips they made or other movements in the plane. However, we also don't
know whether they HELPED with the switch of the caskets.
So whatever you don't know, you just imagine it happened the way you want
to believe it happened.
Post by mainframetech
Since the excuse
was to fool the press, they all might have helped if asked to find a way
to defeat the press who would follow the body and the casket it was in,
leaving Jackie alone.
That would have been really stupid since Jackie went in the same ambulance
as the bronze casket and that would be the one the press would follow. Is
that really the best excuse you could come up with.
Post by mainframetech
Now please stop going wrong on this stuff you keep asking me about.
I keep pointing out the fallacies in your theories and you never have any
sensible answers.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No one
saw a shipping casket loaded on AF1 at Love Field. There was no place to
stow a second casket on AF1.
Here's a diagram of AF1, and the casket is noted there. I see lots of
room in the plane for another casket which would only look like a service
http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkplane.jpg
Given that they had to remove seats to make room for the bronze casket,
they would have to have done the same for your shipping casket and even
then it would not be concealed.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No one saw a shipping casket unloaded from
AF1 at Andrews despite there being hundreds of witnesses live TV cameras,
film cameras, and still photographers. That pretty much precludes the
possibility that JFK's body was switched to a shipping casket on AF1.
How dumb can people get?
You show us on a regular basis.
Post by mainframetech
Do they think that a shipping casket would
be unloaded in front of the world? Naturally they would wait for the
press and the cameras, etc. to go, THEN unload the SHIPPING casket.
Think!
How could they have gotten the shipping casket to Bethesda 42 minutes
ahead of the ambulance if they had to wait until all the cameras and
witnesses had left Andrews?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Another could be
that it was the norm for bodies to arrive at a military hospital in a
shipping casket and this colored their memories of the evening. The fact
is there are conflicting accounts of what kind of casket JFK's body
arrived in and you simply assume that the ones who said a shipping casket
were right even though that account conflicts with other known facts. You
ignore that David Powers has stated the body was never left unattended on
AF1 from the time it was loaded onto the plane at Love Field until it was
loaded into the ambulance at Andrews. You ignore the logistical
impossibility of smuggling a second casket onto AF1 and then keeping it
hidden from view during the flight. You ignore the fact that live TV
cameras were at Andrews when the body arrived and recorded the unloading
of a bronze casket into the Navy ambulance and that none of the cameras or
any of the multitude of witnesses who were at Andrews ever saw a second
casket unloaded from the plane. Lastly you ignore that statements of the
two FBI agents who said they accompanied the body from Andrews to Bethesda
and saw the body removed from the bronze casket.
As usual, you're WRONG! I don't ignore information, though I may use
it differently than you. First, I've proved the FBI agents were away from
the casket for periods of time by the sworn testimony of James Sibert, the
FBI agent in question.
How silly can you get? Why is it you can't understand that they didn't
leave the body until AFTER they had already seen it removed from the
ornamental casket.
WRONG as usual! I despair of pushing into your head, the answers to
these questions that have all been done before. Try and remember the 3
arrivals of caskets. The third one was where they saw the body in the
casket and helped get it out. The Bronze casket first arrival was before
the times when the FBI agents were asked to leave the room, but the body
didn't came out at that arrival.
Why don't you spell out in detail the sequence of events, including all
the various casket arrivals, the body alterations, the swapping of the
body, the x-rays etc. If you eat your Wheaties, you might even be able to
give us actual times of these events. I've already pointed out the
fallacies in your timeline. Let's see if you can make it work?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You can't use the period when they left the body during
the x-rays as a time the body could have been put back in the ornamental
casket because by that time the body had already been removed from the
casket. I know you can't be that stupid so that means you are just being
stubborn by refusing to deal with the sequence of events that makes your
explanation impossible.
I won't comment on who's stupid, just remind you of the 3 casket
arrivals. See above.
This is why we need you to provide us a timeline for all these
shenanigans. Let's see if you can make it work. It's easy to claim all
these things happened. The hard part is putting them all together in a
cohesive scenario.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second, there were 3 arrivals of caskets, so which
one were you talking about? The third arrival was the Bronze casket and
it had the body of JFK in it, so that could be the opening they saw,
though it was later in the evening, but before the scheduled autopsy.
And don't start your crap about the time of autopsy, which was scheduled
for 8:00pm. We've been over all that.
So now you are admitting JFK's body arrived in the Bronze casket.
I'm not admitting anything. I'm stating clearly that there were 3
arrivals of caskets, and the second and third were of the Bronze casket,
and the third arrival had the body of JFK in the Bronze casket, and was
witnessed by the FBI agents when it was brought out.
But apparently they were asleep when the body was put back into the bronze
casket.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
What kind of a softball question is that? No matter which witness he
cites all you do is say he was lying? We're onto your tricks.
If I quote Jesus you say he's a liar or a Communist.
Jesus could never be a Communist. He believed in the Ten Commandments.
Communists are Atheist Socialists who believe in situational ethics.
No matter. If you need actual text of the above eyewitnesses, let me
know.
You not only cherry pick the witnesses, you cherry pick the portions of
their testimony you choose to believe and ignore others. You ignore the
part of Dennis David's account in which he says the body was transported
by ambulance while he rode with the color guard to Bethesda by chopper.
Dennis David did NOT say that, he wasn't even part of the story until
the body had arrived at the morgue. You might be talking about Richard
Lipsey, aide to General Wehle, which was confusing in his testimony, but
made it clear that there was a 'decoy' ambulance and that the ambulance
with the body arrived first at the morgue an then later the ambulance with
the decoy casket in it.
Yes I did mistakenly say David when I meant Lipsey. It still presents the
same problem for you.
Post by mainframetech
Either Lipsey was trying to hold to the phony story to avoid the truth
that they were playing musical caskets with the president's body, or he
just got mixed up.
How do you know it isn't the witnesses you rely on who were mixed up?
Because of all the sworn testimony and documents that prove otherwise.
Corroborations all over the place. You have (of course) forgotten all of
that while you drill down on one little part of the case. try and keep
your perspective a bit larger.
There are no one little parts in these Rube Goldberg scenarios you have
dreamed up.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There is other proof that clears his mistake away.
For instance the body in the SHIPPING casket arrived at Bethesda morgue 42
minutes before the Bronze casket. The only way that could happen was in a
helicopter. Lipsey made it clear that he and the general took a
helicopter to Bethesda. He failed to mention that the SHIPPING casket was
with them.
The Bronze casket arrived at 6:35 and was logged in. Lipsey didn't fail to
mention anything. He specifically stated the body was driven to Bethesda
while he and the honor guard flew.
Saying it won't make it so. There are sworn testimonies and documents
that give the true nature of what happened. Lipsey isn't that dependable
either. His video statements don't match his HSCA statements at all.
The idea of having the body "choppered" to Bethesda was mentioned on the
AF1 plane, and I believe it had to be carried out because the sworn
testimonies make it clear that the body arrived 42 minute BEFORE the
Bronze casket that went by road.
So your explanation is that Lipsey lied. There are few minor discrepancies
between his HSCA interview and the one he gave at LSU. He was asked
different questions so naturally his answers would be different. The only
difference I saw was that in the LSU interview he said he observed the
whole autopsy while he told the HSCA he saw most of it and was spelled
occasionally by General Wehle. That's not much of a discrepancy. If I
watched a football game from the opening kickoff until the final whistle
and took a few bathroom breaks, I might say I saw the whole game even if I
missed a play or two. It's a matter of semantics, not a major
discrepancy.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You ignore Jenkins when he says the bullet hole he saw was in the temporal
bone. You take the these various witnesses' statements and eliminate the
parts that don't fit your theories.
LOL! I see you're trying to emulate your hero bd!
You're so confused you don't even know this is "bd" who wrote this.
Well, there's a sour note. And Jenkins wasn't ignored. I found a
rational reason for his mistake in using the term 'temporal'.
No, you ignored where he placed the wound and tried to modify what he said
to fit your beliefs. You do that a lot.
Post by mainframetech
You didn't
like it, but so what? I'm not here to please you. If you look into the
history of this post, you'll see that Claviger had a part in it.
Yes he did but you were responding to what I wrote.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you
also ignore the answer he got when he tried that one. The bullet hole was
in the forehead/temple area, and he made the mistake of calling it the
'temporal' rather than the 'temple'. Simple. You see, the bullet hole
that Jenkins described was a quarter inch in diameter, and the only would
of that size was the bullet hole. So the mistake is easily explained.
You need to do your own thinking because bd will drag you into all kinds
of silliness. Just look at his record of WRONGS!
A perfect example of you cherry picking the parts of a witness' statement
you want to believe and then "correcting" the parts you don't want to
believe.
It would be more honest if you stated that thing that was cherry
picked, and what the original statement meant that was different.
Otherwise no one can correct you if you've made yet another mistake.
It's been pointed out to you that Jenkins specifically said the bullet
hole he saw was in the temporal bone. You want us to believe he used the
term temporal bone without even knowing where the temporal bone was. Why
would he do that? If he didn't know where the temporal bone was, why
wouldn't he use a layman's term to describe the location. Something like
"forehead/temple"?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-12 02:04:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
What document shows the casket was switch? Who testified to a casket
switch?
First, Edward Reed, who helped get the body out of the shipping
casket, identified the shipping casket as such, then identified JFK when
he saw the body. He was doing sworn testimony. Second, Dennis David was
in charge of a small detail that was to move the shipping casket into the
morgue. He identified the casket as a SHIPPING casket, and directed the
movement of the casket into the morgue. GHe was aided by a man named
Rebentisch. Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian was in charge of the security
detail at the morgue and hospital to keep onlookers away. He logged in
his after action report that the casket arrived at 6:35pm at the morgue.
Since we know that the body was placed in the Bronze casket at
Parkland hospital, by taking the body out of the SHIPPING casket, we've
proved that the body was switched from the Bronze casket to the SHIPPING
casket.
Of course you overlook the possibility that these people were wrong about
the body being in a shipping casket even though they gave these accounts
many years later. One possible explanation is that somebody else's body
had arrived during that evening in a shipping casket and these witnesses
just assumed that shipping casket contained JFK's body.
WRONG! How stupid can people get? There were 3 different people
corroborating each other's sighting of the SHIPPING casket, and those who
saw JFK when that casket was opened. You've run out of your silly
gimmicks, and all this has been argued to death. All your ridiculous
efforts have been answered. You're not going to get different answers by
beating the dead horse.
You ignore the fact that Sibert and O'Neill said the body came out of the
ornamental casket. One of those versions has to be wrong. You
automatically choose to believe the one that fits your narrative rather
than the one that fits other known facts.
WRONG as usual. I do not ignore evidence, and Sibert and O'Neill gave
testimony to the effect of that happening, which I also believe.
However, you don't listen or you can't understand what you're told and so
you continue to make mistakes. Once again, and please listen carefully;
I believe that Sibert and O'Neill saw the body come out of the Bronze
casket that night. Just after the third arrival of a casket (Bronze).
The 3 arrivals were: first, the SHIPPING casket with the body of JFK in
it. Thee are witnesses that helped carry the casket in, and witnesses
that saw the body of JFK come out of that casket. The witnesses were in
sworn testimony, and a document states the time of arrival. The FBI
agents weren't there yet and they did NOT see that.
This came of musical caskets which you have imagined is rather
hysterically funny. You get points for originality with your third casket
arrival. Not even Lifton or Horne thought of that one. That is entirely
your invention because not a single witness ever said that happened.
Post by mainframetech
The Second arrival was at about 42 minutes later and was the Bronze
casket along with the FBI and SS agents.
You continue to insist there was a second casket arrival 42 minutes after
the one that was logged at 6:35 even though no witness and no document
indicates that happened. You also know that is true yet you continue to
perpetuate this factoid.
Post by mainframetech
The Casket was empty, and it
appears that some or all of the agents knew it. The third arrival was
when they put the body of JFK back into the Bronze casket and sent it out
again, where the honor guard found it in an ambulance on the grounds.
They brought it back and the FBI and SS agents then saw the body come out
of the Bronze casket and some helped them put it on the table.
This is the part that really gets funny.
Post by mainframetech
Now you may find that hard to understand, but if you think carefully,
and consider that they may have wanted to be clear on the stand that they
saw the body come out of the Bronze casket, then they could only do that
by sending it out and watching when it came back. As with the bullet
through the windshield, that was seen by 6 eyewitnesses, they went to a
lot of trouble to keep things looking a certain way. It was crucial to
the plotters getting away with their plan.
How about there was only one casket an one body and both came off of AF1
together as seen by the entire country on live TV.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
We know that Powers and McHugh
have said the ornamental casket was never unattended while on AF1.
And yet the FBI agents said that too and were caught when both had
been away from the casket at the same time.
Why do you keep bringing that up when you know that didn't happen until
after the body came out of the bronze casket?
Post by mainframetech
We don't know what bathroom
trips they made or other movements in the plane. However, we also don't
know whether they HELPED with the switch of the caskets.
So whatever you don't know, you just imagine it happened the way you want
to believe it happened.
Post by mainframetech
Since the excuse
was to fool the press, they all might have helped if asked to find a way
to defeat the press who would follow the body and the casket it was in,
leaving Jackie alone.
That would have been really stupid since Jackie went in the same ambulance
as the bronze casket and that would be the one the press would follow. Is
that really the best excuse you could come up with.
Post by mainframetech
Now please stop going wrong on this stuff you keep asking me about.
I keep pointing out the fallacies in your theories and you never have any
sensible answers.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No one
saw a shipping casket loaded on AF1 at Love Field. There was no place to
stow a second casket on AF1.
Here's a diagram of AF1, and the casket is noted there. I see lots of
room in the plane for another casket which would only look like a service
http://www.orwelltoday.com/jfkplane.jpg
Given that they had to remove seats to make room for the bronze casket,
they would have to have done the same for your shipping casket and even
then it would not be concealed.
Stop being silly. They would not want the extra casket out in the open and
Jackie sitting with it. They would want to HIDE it, not take out seats and
put it in the middle of the plane.

There has to be some storage area for bags and food.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
No one saw a shipping casket unloaded from
AF1 at Andrews despite there being hundreds of witnesses live TV cameras,
film cameras, and still photographers. That pretty much precludes the
possibility that JFK's body was switched to a shipping casket on AF1.
How dumb can people get?
You show us on a regular basis.
Post by mainframetech
Do they think that a shipping casket would
be unloaded in front of the world? Naturally they would wait for the
press and the cameras, etc. to go, THEN unload the SHIPPING casket.
Think!
How could they have gotten the shipping casket to Bethesda 42 minutes
ahead of the ambulance if they had to wait until all the cameras and
witnesses had left Andrews?
Not my theory, but just maybe helicopters are faster than cars. Didn't
some people go in the helicopter to get there before the ambulance?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Another could be
that it was the norm for bodies to arrive at a military hospital in a
shipping casket and this colored their memories of the evening. The fact
is there are conflicting accounts of what kind of casket JFK's body
arrived in and you simply assume that the ones who said a shipping casket
were right even though that account conflicts with other known facts. You
ignore that David Powers has stated the body was never left unattended on
AF1 from the time it was loaded onto the plane at Love Field until it was
loaded into the ambulance at Andrews. You ignore the logistical
impossibility of smuggling a second casket onto AF1 and then keeping it
hidden from view during the flight. You ignore the fact that live TV
cameras were at Andrews when the body arrived and recorded the unloading
of a bronze casket into the Navy ambulance and that none of the cameras or
any of the multitude of witnesses who were at Andrews ever saw a second
casket unloaded from the plane. Lastly you ignore that statements of the
two FBI agents who said they accompanied the body from Andrews to Bethesda
and saw the body removed from the bronze casket.
As usual, you're WRONG! I don't ignore information, though I may use
it differently than you. First, I've proved the FBI agents were away from
the casket for periods of time by the sworn testimony of James Sibert, the
FBI agent in question.
How silly can you get? Why is it you can't understand that they didn't
leave the body until AFTER they had already seen it removed from the
ornamental casket.
WRONG as usual! I despair of pushing into your head, the answers to
these questions that have all been done before. Try and remember the 3
arrivals of caskets. The third one was where they saw the body in the
casket and helped get it out. The Bronze casket first arrival was before
the times when the FBI agents were asked to leave the room, but the body
didn't came out at that arrival.
Why don't you spell out in detail the sequence of events, including all
the various casket arrivals, the body alterations, the swapping of the
body, the x-rays etc. If you eat your Wheaties, you might even be able to
give us actual times of these events. I've already pointed out the
fallacies in your timeline. Let's see if you can make it work?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You can't use the period when they left the body during
the x-rays as a time the body could have been put back in the ornamental
casket because by that time the body had already been removed from the
casket. I know you can't be that stupid so that means you are just being
stubborn by refusing to deal with the sequence of events that makes your
explanation impossible.
I won't comment on who's stupid, just remind you of the 3 casket
arrivals. See above.
This is why we need you to provide us a timeline for all these
shenanigans. Let's see if you can make it work. It's easy to claim all
these things happened. The hard part is putting them all together in a
cohesive scenario.
Why?
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Second, there were 3 arrivals of caskets, so which
one were you talking about? The third arrival was the Bronze casket and
it had the body of JFK in it, so that could be the opening they saw,
though it was later in the evening, but before the scheduled autopsy.
And don't start your crap about the time of autopsy, which was scheduled
for 8:00pm. We've been over all that.
So now you are admitting JFK's body arrived in the Bronze casket.
I'm not admitting anything. I'm stating clearly that there were 3
arrivals of caskets, and the second and third were of the Bronze casket,
and the third arrival had the body of JFK in the Bronze casket, and was
witnessed by the FBI agents when it was brought out.
But apparently they were asleep when the body was put back into the bronze
casket.
Or distracted.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
What kind of a softball question is that? No matter which witness he
cites all you do is say he was lying? We're onto your tricks.
If I quote Jesus you say he's a liar or a Communist.
Jesus could never be a Communist. He believed in the Ten Commandments.
Communists are Atheist Socialists who believe in situational ethics.
No matter. If you need actual text of the above eyewitnesses, let me
know.
You not only cherry pick the witnesses, you cherry pick the portions of
their testimony you choose to believe and ignore others. You ignore the
part of Dennis David's account in which he says the body was transported
by ambulance while he rode with the color guard to Bethesda by chopper.
Dennis David did NOT say that, he wasn't even part of the story until
the body had arrived at the morgue. You might be talking about Richard
Lipsey, aide to General Wehle, which was confusing in his testimony, but
made it clear that there was a 'decoy' ambulance and that the ambulance
with the body arrived first at the morgue an then later the ambulance with
the decoy casket in it.
Yes I did mistakenly say David when I meant Lipsey. It still presents the
same problem for you.
Post by mainframetech
Either Lipsey was trying to hold to the phony story to avoid the truth
that they were playing musical caskets with the president's body, or he
just got mixed up.
How do you know it isn't the witnesses you rely on who were mixed up?
Because of all the sworn testimony and documents that prove otherwise.
Corroborations all over the place. You have (of course) forgotten all of
that while you drill down on one little part of the case. try and keep
your perspective a bit larger.
There are no one little parts in these Rube Goldberg scenarios you have
dreamed up.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
There is other proof that clears his mistake away.
For instance the body in the SHIPPING casket arrived at Bethesda morgue 42
minutes before the Bronze casket. The only way that could happen was in a
helicopter. Lipsey made it clear that he and the general took a
helicopter to Bethesda. He failed to mention that the SHIPPING casket was
with them.
The Bronze casket arrived at 6:35 and was logged in. Lipsey didn't fail to
mention anything. He specifically stated the body was driven to Bethesda
while he and the honor guard flew.
Saying it won't make it so. There are sworn testimonies and documents
that give the true nature of what happened. Lipsey isn't that dependable
either. His video statements don't match his HSCA statements at all.
The idea of having the body "choppered" to Bethesda was mentioned on the
AF1 plane, and I believe it had to be carried out because the sworn
testimonies make it clear that the body arrived 42 minute BEFORE the
Bronze casket that went by road.
So your explanation is that Lipsey lied. There are few minor discrepancies
between his HSCA interview and the one he gave at LSU. He was asked
different questions so naturally his answers would be different. The only
difference I saw was that in the LSU interview he said he observed the
whole autopsy while he told the HSCA he saw most of it and was spelled
occasionally by General Wehle. That's not much of a discrepancy. If I
watched a football game from the opening kickoff until the final whistle
and took a few bathroom breaks, I might say I saw the whole game even if I
missed a play or two. It's a matter of semantics, not a major
discrepancy.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
You ignore Jenkins when he says the bullet hole he saw was in the temporal
bone. You take the these various witnesses' statements and eliminate the
parts that don't fit your theories.
LOL! I see you're trying to emulate your hero bd!
You're so confused you don't even know this is "bd" who wrote this.
Well, there's a sour note. And Jenkins wasn't ignored. I found a
rational reason for his mistake in using the term 'temporal'.
No, you ignored where he placed the wound and tried to modify what he said
to fit your beliefs. You do that a lot.
Post by mainframetech
You didn't
like it, but so what? I'm not here to please you. If you look into the
history of this post, you'll see that Claviger had a part in it.
Yes he did but you were responding to what I wrote.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And of course, you
also ignore the answer he got when he tried that one. The bullet hole was
in the forehead/temple area, and he made the mistake of calling it the
'temporal' rather than the 'temple'. Simple. You see, the bullet hole
that Jenkins described was a quarter inch in diameter, and the only would
of that size was the bullet hole. So the mistake is easily explained.
You need to do your own thinking because bd will drag you into all kinds
of silliness. Just look at his record of WRONGS!
A perfect example of you cherry picking the parts of a witness' statement
you want to believe and then "correcting" the parts you don't want to
believe.
It would be more honest if you stated that thing that was cherry
picked, and what the original statement meant that was different.
Otherwise no one can correct you if you've made yet another mistake.
It's been pointed out to you that Jenkins specifically said the bullet
hole he saw was in the temporal bone. You want us to believe he used the
No. WOUND. Not necessarily a bullet hole.
Post by bigdog
term temporal bone without even knowing where the temporal bone was. Why
would he do that? If he didn't know where the temporal bone was, why
wouldn't he use a layman's term to describe the location. Something like
"forehead/temple"?
claviger
2018-06-28 19:55:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
What would happen is the Vice President would step in as
President. Mike Pence is more Conservative than Trump.
mainframetech
2018-06-30 01:17:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
What would happen is the Vice President would step in as
President. Mike Pence is more Conservative than Trump.
True, but he's saner.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-30 21:23:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
What would happen is the Vice President would step in as
President. Mike Pence is more Conservative than Trump.
True, but he's saner.
That's a very low bar. Even Sirhan is saner.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
bigdog
2018-07-01 00:35:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
What would happen is the Vice President would step in as
President. Mike Pence is more Conservative than Trump.
True, but he's saner.
If he ever becomes President, you guys will start telling us he's crazier
than Trump. Just as you did comparing Trump to Bush43. All during his
presidency the left kept telling us how evil W was but after Trump was
elected they started telling us W wasn't really as bad as they had told us
but we should believe them when they tell us how bad Trump is.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bill+maher+trump+george+w+bush+comparison&view=detail&mid=B2145692B09CA13FD336B2145692B09CA13FD336&FORM=VIRE
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-02 15:07:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
What would happen is the Vice President would step in as
President. Mike Pence is more Conservative than Trump.
True, but he's saner.
If he ever becomes President, you guys will start telling us he's crazier
than Trump. Just as you did comparing Trump to Bush43. All during his
I don't remember that. Who said that Trump is saner than Bush43?
Post by bigdog
presidency the left kept telling us how evil W was but after Trump was
elected they started telling us W wasn't really as bad as they had told us
but we should believe them when they tell us how bad Trump is.
Bad or sane? Was Hitler evil or insane?
Is Trump worse than Hitler?
Or are we not allowed to compare the two as per orders from the Trump
defender here?
Post by bigdog
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=bill+maher+trump+george+w+bush+comparison&view=detail&mid=B2145692B09CA13FD336B2145692B09CA13FD336&FORM=VIRE
mainframetech
2018-06-29 00:08:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
Obviously Pence would take over if Trump were ushered out of office.
It will be interesting when Mueller comes out with all the crimes that
Trump has done, whether Trump will do a Nixon and quit after getting the
VP to agree to pardon him, or will he make a bigger mess by fighting it.

One of the newer crimes that Trump has committed is that he has
supported Scott Pruitt after Pruitt broke the law while taking good care
of himself by living like a little king while in office. By covering up
Pruitt's crimes Trump has aided and abetted Pruitt, and was an accessory
after the fact. Guilty.


Chris
Jason Burke
2018-06-29 20:59:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
Obviously Pence would take over if Trump were ushered out of office.
It will be interesting when Mueller comes out with all the crimes that
Trump has done, whether Trump will do a Nixon and quit after getting the
VP to agree to pardon him, or will he make a bigger mess by fighting it.
You're assuming there is a, uh, "mess".
No. You're hoping against hope that there is a "mess".
Which there isn't.
Post by mainframetech
One of the newer crimes that Trump has committed is that he has
supported Scott Pruitt after Pruitt broke the law while taking good care
of himself by living like a little king while in office. By covering up
Pruitt's crimes Trump has aided and abetted Pruitt, and was an accessory
after the fact. Guilty.
Yawn.
Post by mainframetech
Chris
bigdog
2018-06-29 21:00:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
Obviously Pence would take over if Trump were ushered out of office.
It will be interesting when Mueller comes out with all the crimes that
Trump has done, whether Trump will do a Nixon and quit after getting the
VP to agree to pardon him, or will he make a bigger mess by fighting it.
You seem to be assuming a lot. You are good at that.
Post by mainframetech
One of the newer crimes that Trump has committed is that he has
supported Scott Pruitt after Pruitt broke the law while taking good care
of himself by living like a little king while in office.
What statute did that violate?
Post by mainframetech
By covering up
Pruitt's crimes Trump has aided and abetted Pruitt, and was an accessory
after the fact. Guilty.
Screw due process.
claviger
2018-06-30 17:43:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
Obviously Pence would take over if Trump were ushered out of office.
It will be interesting when Mueller comes out with all the crimes that
Trump has done, whether Trump will do a Nixon and quit after getting the
VP to agree to pardon him, or will he make a bigger mess by fighting it.
You seem to be assuming a lot. You are good at that.
Post by mainframetech
One of the newer crimes that Trump has committed is that he has
supported Scott Pruitt after Pruitt broke the law while taking good care
of himself by living like a little king while in office.
What statute did that violate?
Post by mainframetech
By covering up
Pruitt's crimes Trump has aided and abetted Pruitt, and was an accessory
after the fact. Guilty.
Screw due process.
Due process does not help Liberal efforts to override the Constitution
with Mobocracy. MFT is trying to whip up a Lynch Mob mentality to undue
the national election where the voters ignored the Liberal media and voted
for an authentic democrat. The same process that elected Truman, FDR,
JFK, little Jimmy Carter, horny Bill Clinton, and lying Barack Obama is
not good enough anymore. When your team doesn't win, then move the
goalposts! Sorry sore losers, it ain't gonna happen.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-01 22:39:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
Obviously Pence would take over if Trump were ushered out of office.
It will be interesting when Mueller comes out with all the crimes that
Trump has done, whether Trump will do a Nixon and quit after getting the
VP to agree to pardon him, or will he make a bigger mess by fighting it.
You seem to be assuming a lot. You are good at that.
Post by mainframetech
One of the newer crimes that Trump has committed is that he has
supported Scott Pruitt after Pruitt broke the law while taking good care
of himself by living like a little king while in office.
What statute did that violate?
Post by mainframetech
By covering up
Pruitt's crimes Trump has aided and abetted Pruitt, and was an accessory
after the fact. Guilty.
Screw due process.
Due process does not help Liberal efforts to override the Constitution
with Mobocracy. MFT is trying to whip up a Lynch Mob mentality to undue
So you don't believe in the rule of law.
Post by claviger
the national election where the voters ignored the Liberal media and voted
for an authentic democrat. The same process that elected Truman, FDR,
All by himself? Like millions of people read this newsgroup?
Post by claviger
JFK, little Jimmy Carter, horny Bill Clinton, and lying Barack Obama is
not good enough anymore. When your team doesn't win, then move the
goalposts! Sorry sore losers, it ain't gonna happen.
I think some of you Trumpies were saying that the Democrats had become
too complacent. So did you see how a Bernie supporter beat one of the
top Democrats?
claviger
2018-07-03 04:29:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Screw due process.
Due process does not help Liberal efforts to override the Constitution
with Mobocracy. MFT is trying to whip up a Lynch Mob mentality to undue
So you don't believe in the rule of law.
I do, but your idol Barack Obama doesn't. He became imperial in his
second term in office bypassing Congress with the stroke of his pen
issuing dictates by Executive Order, just like King George III.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
the national election where the voters ignored the Liberal media and voted
for an authentic democrat. The same process that elected Truman, FDR,
All by himself? Like millions of people read this newsgroup?
Post by claviger
JFK, little Jimmy Carter, horny Bill Clinton, and lying Barack Obama is
not good enough anymore. When your team doesn't win, then move the
goalposts! Sorry sore losers, it ain't gonna happen.
I think some of you Trumpies were saying that the Democrats had become
too complacent. So did you see how a Bernie supporter beat one of the
top Democrats?
Sounds like a Socialist revolt taking place in the Demoncratic Party.
mainframetech
2018-07-03 21:20:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Screw due process.
Due process does not help Liberal efforts to override the Constitution
with Mobocracy. MFT is trying to whip up a Lynch Mob mentality to undue
So you don't believe in the rule of law.
That's more ridiculous than any other foolishness I've heard from you.
I see a much larger effort like that coming from the president and his
minions. Since the law is getting closer to bouncing the prez every day,
it's to his advantage to discredit the law. And he is trying, by trying
to put down the FBI and the DOJ, both run by his own selections.
Post by claviger
I do, but your idol Barack Obama doesn't. He became imperial in his
second term in office bypassing Congress with the stroke of his pen
issuing dictates by Executive Order, just like King George III.
Also just like Geo. Bush and other presidents, as needed. Including
Trump.


Here's the proof of the 1st 100 days, note that Trump is way ahead:

Loading Image...
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
the national election where the voters ignored the Liberal media and voted
for an authentic democrat. The same process that elected Truman, FDR,
All by himself? Like millions of people read this newsgroup?
Post by claviger
JFK, little Jimmy Carter, horny Bill Clinton, and lying Barack Obama is
not good enough anymore. When your team doesn't win, then move the
goalposts! Sorry sore losers, it ain't gonna happen.
I think some of you Trumpies were saying that the Democrats had become
too complacent. So did you see how a Bernie supporter beat one of the
top Democrats?
Sounds like a Socialist revolt taking place in the Demoncratic Party.
bigdog
2018-07-04 14:57:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Screw due process.
Due process does not help Liberal efforts to override the Constitution
with Mobocracy. MFT is trying to whip up a Lynch Mob mentality to undue
So you don't believe in the rule of law.
That's more ridiculous than any other foolishness I've heard from you.
I see a much larger effort like that coming from the president and his
minions. Since the law is getting closer to bouncing the prez every day,
it's to his advantage to discredit the law. And he is trying, by trying
to put down the FBI and the DOJ, both run by his own selections.
Post by claviger
I do, but your idol Barack Obama doesn't. He became imperial in his
second term in office bypassing Congress with the stroke of his pen
issuing dictates by Executive Order, just like King George III.
Also just like Geo. Bush and other presidents, as needed. Including
Trump.
https://ct.bunkhistory.org/attachment/3303/825x550.jpg
The number of executive orders is not the issue. Presidents are empowered
to do certain things by executive orders. The abuse of power comes when
they use the power of executive order to bypass Congress to create laws
that only Congress is empowered to enact.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-05 23:12:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Screw due process.
Due process does not help Liberal efforts to override the Constitution
with Mobocracy. MFT is trying to whip up a Lynch Mob mentality to undue
So you don't believe in the rule of law.
That's more ridiculous than any other foolishness I've heard from you.
I see a much larger effort like that coming from the president and his
minions. Since the law is getting closer to bouncing the prez every day,
it's to his advantage to discredit the law. And he is trying, by trying
to put down the FBI and the DOJ, both run by his own selections.
Post by claviger
I do, but your idol Barack Obama doesn't. He became imperial in his
second term in office bypassing Congress with the stroke of his pen
issuing dictates by Executive Order, just like King George III.
Also just like Geo. Bush and other presidents, as needed. Including
Trump.
https://ct.bunkhistory.org/attachment/3303/825x550.jpg
The number of executive orders is not the issue. Presidents are empowered
to do certain things by executive orders. The abuse of power comes when
they use the power of executive order to bypass Congress to create laws
that only Congress is empowered to enact.
That is what happens when the President is from one party and the Congress
is from another. Can't get anything passed into law. When was the last
time this Congress passed a law? They can't even name a Post Office after
Ronald Reagan because the Freedom Caucus says he was not Conservative
enough.
mainframetech
2018-07-06 01:30:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Screw due process.
Due process does not help Liberal efforts to override the Constitution
with Mobocracy. MFT is trying to whip up a Lynch Mob mentality to undue
So you don't believe in the rule of law.
That's more ridiculous than any other foolishness I've heard from you.
I see a much larger effort like that coming from the president and his
minions. Since the law is getting closer to bouncing the prez every day,
it's to his advantage to discredit the law. And he is trying, by trying
to put down the FBI and the DOJ, both run by his own selections.
Post by claviger
I do, but your idol Barack Obama doesn't. He became imperial in his
second term in office bypassing Congress with the stroke of his pen
issuing dictates by Executive Order, just like King George III.
Also just like Geo. Bush and other presidents, as needed. Including
Trump.
https://ct.bunkhistory.org/attachment/3303/825x550.jpg
The number of executive orders is not the issue. Presidents are empowered
to do certain things by executive orders. The abuse of power comes when
they use the power of executive order to bypass Congress to create laws
that only Congress is empowered to enact.
WRONG! Try and understand that YOU brought up how Obama used
executive orders like "dictates", which is what executive usually are.
But if Trump has issued more of them in the same amount of time, then the
problem of issuing "dictates" belongs to the one who is doing it the most.
Your boy Trump.

And Obama isn't my idol, Since there were many thing he should have
done and didn't.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-07 12:45:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Screw due process.
Due process does not help Liberal efforts to override the Constitution
with Mobocracy. MFT is trying to whip up a Lynch Mob mentality to undue
So you don't believe in the rule of law.
That's more ridiculous than any other foolishness I've heard from you.
I see a much larger effort like that coming from the president and his
minions. Since the law is getting closer to bouncing the prez every day,
it's to his advantage to discredit the law. And he is trying, by trying
to put down the FBI and the DOJ, both run by his own selections.
Post by claviger
I do, but your idol Barack Obama doesn't. He became imperial in his
second term in office bypassing Congress with the stroke of his pen
issuing dictates by Executive Order, just like King George III.
Also just like Geo. Bush and other presidents, as needed. Including
Trump.
https://ct.bunkhistory.org/attachment/3303/825x550.jpg
The number of executive orders is not the issue. Presidents are empowered
to do certain things by executive orders. The abuse of power comes when
they use the power of executive order to bypass Congress to create laws
that only Congress is empowered to enact.
WRONG! Try and understand that YOU brought up how Obama used
executive orders like "dictates", which is what executive usually are.
Yes, usually that is what they are used for. Obama used them to enact
things he couldn't get Congress to pass.
Post by mainframetech
But if Trump has issued more of them in the same amount of time, then the
problem of issuing "dictates" belongs to the one who is doing it the most.
Your boy Trump.
Completely illogical reasoning. One president could issue 100 lawful
executive orders and another one could issue one which he has not been
empowered to do and the one who abused power is the one who issued the
unlawful executive order.
Post by mainframetech
And Obama isn't my idol, Since there were many thing he should have
done and didn't.
Such as remain a community organizer?
mainframetech
2018-07-09 13:57:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Screw due process.
Due process does not help Liberal efforts to override the Constitution
with Mobocracy. MFT is trying to whip up a Lynch Mob mentality to undue
So you don't believe in the rule of law.
That's more ridiculous than any other foolishness I've heard from you.
I see a much larger effort like that coming from the president and his
minions. Since the law is getting closer to bouncing the prez every day,
it's to his advantage to discredit the law. And he is trying, by trying
to put down the FBI and the DOJ, both run by his own selections.
Post by claviger
I do, but your idol Barack Obama doesn't. He became imperial in his
second term in office bypassing Congress with the stroke of his pen
issuing dictates by Executive Order, just like King George III.
Also just like Geo. Bush and other presidents, as needed. Including
Trump.
https://ct.bunkhistory.org/attachment/3303/825x550.jpg
The number of executive orders is not the issue. Presidents are empowered
to do certain things by executive orders. The abuse of power comes when
they use the power of executive order to bypass Congress to create laws
that only Congress is empowered to enact.
WRONG! Try and understand that YOU brought up how Obama used
executive orders like "dictates", which is what executive usually are.
Yes, usually that is what they are used for. Obama used them to enact
things he couldn't get Congress to pass.
And you honestly believe that Trump used executive orders to do things
that congress could do? Since he had the complete congress in his pocket
kissing his feet at every turn, why would he need the executive orders?
To get things done that weren't getting done through congress, of course.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
But if Trump has issued more of them in the same amount of time, then the
problem of issuing "dictates" belongs to the one who is doing it the most.
Your boy Trump.
Completely illogical reasoning. One president could issue 100 lawful
executive orders and another one could issue one which he has not been
empowered to do and the one who abused power is the one who issued the
unlawful executive order.
So now you're going to elevate yourself to the station where YOU get
to decide what are lawful orders, and the Supreme Court cannot. I see.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And Obama isn't my idol, Since there were many thing he should have
done and didn't.
Such as remain a community organizer?
Nope. There were many occasions where a situation needed a fix NOW, but
Obama had to wait and see how the wind blew and decide later what his
position would be. By then, the emergency was done with and the
situations had been sometimes solved the wrong way.

Chris
donald willis
2018-06-30 01:16:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President.
What a dismaying thought. My guess is that if it ever got that far (which
I doubt) we'd have President Pence. And Twitter would be a whole lot less
amusing (unless Trump could be allowed to tweet from jail).

They must think
Post by bigdog
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
Ace Kefford
2018-07-03 04:23:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.

I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
mainframetech
2018-07-03 21:20:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!

Chris
claviger
2018-07-04 13:46:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?

Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.

The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.

So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.

Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-05 23:13:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
Lifting the Sanctions. That's why they hated Obama and Hillary.
Trump is not enforcing the sanctions.
mainframetech
2018-07-06 01:33:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.

As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it is
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't know
that it was done in the 2016 election.
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his silly
tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries. It's
almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin directly.
Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has been insisting on
there being no aides in the room when they get together. Most everything
Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.

Chris
claviger
2018-07-07 12:50:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
You did.
Post by mainframetech
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
Yes, that is the point.
Post by mainframetech
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
The reason why Putin made sure Obama was elected and reelected.
Post by mainframetech
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't
know that it was done in the 2016 election.
I thought you had this all figured out.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his
silly tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin
directly. Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has
been insisting on there being no aides in the room when they get
together. Most everything Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Both believe in successful economic power.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in the Middle East
when Obama took office and both were severely abused during his
presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US elections for the
last 10 years and still in control? If so, what do they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
Chris
Think about what the Russians must have had on Bill Clinton. The problem
is Liberals could care less about sexual harassment if a Democrat does it.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-08 12:54:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
You did.
Post by mainframetech
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
Yes, that is the point.
Let me get this straight: You say that Russia liked Obama because they
like the sanctions?
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
The reason why Putin made sure Obama was elected and reelected.
Ridiculous. Sanctions. Pay attention.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't
know that it was done in the 2016 election.
I thought you had this all figured out.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his
silly tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin
directly. Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has
been insisting on there being no aides in the room when they get
together. Most everything Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Both believe in successful economic power.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in the Middle East
when Obama took office and both were severely abused during his
presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US elections for the
last 10 years and still in control? If so, what do they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
Chris
Think about what the Russians must have had on Bill Clinton. The problem
is Liberals could care less about sexual harassment if a Democrat does it.
Nothing that we didn't already know about.
Did you hear that he was impeached for having sex? Shocking, what?
mainframetech
2018-07-09 13:54:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
You did.
Post by mainframetech
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
Yes, that is the point.
Post by mainframetech
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
The reason why Putin made sure Obama was elected and reelected.
Ah! So you admit that Putin had the power to manipulate our elections!
And so that explains how Trump got into office. I'm glad that's all
solved.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't
know that it was done in the 2016 election.
I thought you had this all figured out.
I wasn't present when certain people made an effort to manipulate
our election. But what was pointed out about the work done on Facebook
tells it all. Particularly the psychological methods used.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his
silly tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin
directly. Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has
been insisting on there being no aides in the room when they get
together. Most everything Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Both believe in successful economic power.
Trump believes in doing what Putin wants to keep his dark past from
catching up with him.
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in the Middle East
when Obama took office and both were severely abused during his
presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US elections for the
last 10 years and still in control? If so, what do they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
Chris
Think about what the Russians must have had on Bill Clinton. The problem
is Liberals could care less about sexual harassment if a Democrat does it.
There's a difference. In Clinton's case I was very put out that
Clinton allowed himself to get involved with Monica Lewinsky, but it
didn't seem to lead to manipulation like with Trump. Clinton wasn't
bending over backward to please Putin and to talk with him without anyone
listening in.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-07 13:00:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it is
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't know
that it was done in the 2016 election.
If the vote totals don't match the exit polls, it is the exit polls which
are FUBAR. According to the exit polls, both Al Gore and John Kerry were
elected President.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his silly
tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
My guess is that in the short term it is going to cause products to become
more expensive. It amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on
consumers. They are the ones who are going to pay these tariffs, not the
foreign companies that export goods to the US. Corporations don't pay
taxes. They collect taxes. Eventually the governments of the world are
going to realize nobody wins a trade war and trade agreements will be
renegotiated in terms that are a little fairer to the US.
Post by mainframetech
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin directly.
It's almost as if you imagine everything you believe.
Post by mainframetech
Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has been insisting on
there being no aides in the room when they get together. Most everything
Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Hardly.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
You mean the phony dossier that was put together under the guise of
"opposition research".
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-07 22:32:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it is
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't know
that it was done in the 2016 election.
If the vote totals don't match the exit polls, it is the exit polls which
are FUBAR. According to the exit polls, both Al Gore and John Kerry were
elected President.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his silly
tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
My guess is that in the short term it is going to cause products to become
more expensive. It amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on
consumers. They are the ones who are going to pay these tariffs, not the
foreign companies that export goods to the US. Corporations don't pay
taxes. They collect taxes. Eventually the governments of the world are
going to realize nobody wins a trade war and trade agreements will be
renegotiated in terms that are a little fairer to the US.
Post by mainframetech
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin directly.
It's almost as if you imagine everything you believe.
Post by mainframetech
Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has been insisting on
there being no aides in the room when they get together. Most everything
Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Hardly.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
You mean the phony dossier that was put together under the guise of
"opposition research".
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.


Collusion is the wrong word. Trump did not meet with the Russians to
collude, he used cutouts.
Trump did not have to take any action. The correct term is conspiracy.
Trump agreed to lift the sanctions if the Russians hacked the Democrats,
just like Watergate. Nixon did not pick the lock himself, he hired
specialists to do the job. At the time that Trump did all this Russia
was still our enemy and under sanctions.
So the charge is Treason.
Conspiring with an enemy.
claviger
2018-07-08 16:40:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Collusion is the wrong word. Trump did not meet with the Russians to
collude, he used cutouts.
Trump did not have to take any action. The correct term is conspiracy.
Trump agreed to lift the sanctions if the Russians hacked the Democrats,
just like Watergate. Nixon did not pick the lock himself, he hired
specialists to do the job. At the time that Trump did all this Russia
was still our enemy and under sanctions.
So the charge is Treason.
Conspiring with an enemy.
US Attorney General Robert F Kennedy and the former First Lady
Jacqueline Kennedy did the same thing after the assassination.
They communicated directly with the Russians bypassing proper
diplomatic protocol through the US State Department. So there
is a precedent from the Kennedy family to deal with.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-09 14:58:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Collusion is the wrong word. Trump did not meet with the Russians to
collude, he used cutouts.
Trump did not have to take any action. The correct term is conspiracy.
Trump agreed to lift the sanctions if the Russians hacked the Democrats,
just like Watergate. Nixon did not pick the lock himself, he hired
specialists to do the job. At the time that Trump did all this Russia
was still our enemy and under sanctions.
So the charge is Treason.
Conspiring with an enemy.
US Attorney General Robert F Kennedy and the former First Lady
Jacqueline Kennedy did the same thing after the assassination.
They communicated directly with the Russians bypassing proper
diplomatic protocol through the US State Department. So there
is a precedent from the Kennedy family to deal with.
Not really.
So yo don't know what a cutout is? Go-between?
claviger
2018-07-10 04:04:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Collusion is the wrong word. Trump did not meet with the Russians to
collude, he used cutouts.
Trump did not have to take any action. The correct term is conspiracy.
Trump agreed to lift the sanctions if the Russians hacked the Democrats,
just like Watergate. Nixon did not pick the lock himself, he hired
specialists to do the job. At the time that Trump did all this Russia
was still our enemy and under sanctions.
So the charge is Treason.
Conspiring with an enemy.
US Attorney General Robert F Kennedy and the former First Lady
Jacqueline Kennedy did the same thing after the assassination.
They communicated directly with the Russians bypassing proper
diplomatic protocol through the US State Department. So there
is a precedent from the Kennedy family to deal with.
Not really.
So yo don't know what a cutout is? Go-between?
Yes really. I was stunned Robert and Jackie would do something like that.
At the time there was no evidence to exclude direct or indirect
culpability by the Soviets or Cubans. That situation has not changed.
However, we have Freedom of Speech in the USA so if it protects the
Kennedy family it also protects the Trump family.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-12 02:05:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Collusion is the wrong word. Trump did not meet with the Russians to
collude, he used cutouts.
Trump did not have to take any action. The correct term is conspiracy.
Trump agreed to lift the sanctions if the Russians hacked the Democrats,
just like Watergate. Nixon did not pick the lock himself, he hired
specialists to do the job. At the time that Trump did all this Russia
was still our enemy and under sanctions.
So the charge is Treason.
Conspiring with an enemy.
US Attorney General Robert F Kennedy and the former First Lady
Jacqueline Kennedy did the same thing after the assassination.
They communicated directly with the Russians bypassing proper
diplomatic protocol through the US State Department. So there
is a precedent from the Kennedy family to deal with.
Not really.
So yo don't know what a cutout is? Go-between?
Yes really. I was stunned Robert and Jackie would do something like that.
At the time there was no evidence to exclude direct or indirect
culpability by the Soviets or Cubans. That situation has not changed.
However, we have Freedom of Speech in the USA so if it protects the
Kennedy family it also protects the Trump family.
WTF are you mumbling about? THat absence of proof proves something to you?
The situation HAS changed. We have more documents now and people have
talked.
Jason Burke
2018-07-08 16:42:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks.?? Every CT thinks his/her theory is the
real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy.
Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th
floor.?? Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs.?? He was very
lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors.?? No group of strangers were seen in the
building
before the parade.?? Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
??From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset.
They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang.?? Especially not after so much
time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
?????? Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible.?? If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office??? If they did, why?
?????????? Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
???????? As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a
really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public.?? The test for
it is
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals.?? I don't
know
that it was done in the 2016 election.
If the vote totals don't match the exit polls, it is the exit polls which
are FUBAR. According to the exit polls, both Al Gore and John Kerry were
elected President.
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did.?? Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
?????? Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his silly
tariff war.?? Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
My guess is that in the short term it is going to cause products to become
more expensive. It amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on
consumers. They are the ones who are going to pay these tariffs, not the
foreign companies that export goods to the US.?? Corporations don't pay
taxes. They collect taxes. Eventually the governments of the world are
going to realize nobody wins a trade war and trade agreements will be
renegotiated in terms that are a little fairer to the US.
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin directly.
It's almost as if you imagine everything you believe.
Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has been insisting on
there being no aides in the room when they get together.?? Most
everything
Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Hardly.
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore.?? What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President.?? So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival.?? He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency.?? Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control??? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
?????? They've been getting everything they could want from Trump.?? Hard
not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly.?? Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
You mean the phony dossier that was put together under the guise of
"opposition research".
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.
Collusion is the wrong word. Trump did not meet with the Russians to
collude, he used cutouts.
Trump did not have to take any action. The correct term is conspiracy.
Trump agreed to lift the sanctions if the Russians hacked the Democrats,
just like Watergate. Nixon did not pick the lock himself, he hired
specialists to do the job. At the time that Trump did all this Russia
was still our enemy and under sanctions.
So the charge is Treason.
Conspiring with an enemy.
Ya pretty much nailed Obama's and Hillary's reason for living right
there, Anthony Anthony.
claviger
2018-07-08 16:42:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it is
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't know
that it was done in the 2016 election.
If the vote totals don't match the exit polls, it is the exit polls which
are FUBAR. According to the exit polls, both Al Gore and John Kerry were
elected President.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his silly
tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
My guess is that in the short term it is going to cause products to become
more expensive. It amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on
consumers. They are the ones who are going to pay these tariffs, not the
foreign companies that export goods to the US. Corporations don't pay
taxes. They collect taxes. Eventually the governments of the world are
going to realize nobody wins a trade war and trade agreements will be
renegotiated in terms that are a little fairer to the US.
Post by mainframetech
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin directly.
It's almost as if you imagine everything you believe.
Post by mainframetech
Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has been insisting on
there being no aides in the room when they get together. Most everything
Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Hardly.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
You mean the phony dossier that was put together under the guise of
"opposition research".
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.
Collusion is the wrong word. Trump did not meet with the Russians to
collude, he used cutouts.
Trump did not have to take any action. The correct term is conspiracy.
Trump agreed to lift the sanctions if the Russians hacked the Democrats,
just like Watergate. Nixon did not pick the lock himself, he hired
specialists to do the job. At the time that Trump did all this Russia
was still our enemy and under sanctions.
So the charge is Treason.
Conspiring with an enemy.
Yes, as we can see Democrats and Republicans don't like the idea that any
American citizen can run for president. We feel your pain, because you
have nothing to gain. Basic dualistic control of the US Government is now
at risk. Neither party likes the concept of a true open government such
as real democracy.
bigdog
2018-07-09 14:57:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it is
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't know
that it was done in the 2016 election.
If the vote totals don't match the exit polls, it is the exit polls which
are FUBAR. According to the exit polls, both Al Gore and John Kerry were
elected President.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his silly
tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
My guess is that in the short term it is going to cause products to become
more expensive. It amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on
consumers. They are the ones who are going to pay these tariffs, not the
foreign companies that export goods to the US. Corporations don't pay
taxes. They collect taxes. Eventually the governments of the world are
going to realize nobody wins a trade war and trade agreements will be
renegotiated in terms that are a little fairer to the US.
Post by mainframetech
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin directly.
It's almost as if you imagine everything you believe.
Post by mainframetech
Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has been insisting on
there being no aides in the room when they get together. Most everything
Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Hardly.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
You mean the phony dossier that was put together under the guise of
"opposition research".
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.
Collusion is the wrong word. Trump did not meet with the Russians to
collude, he used cutouts.
Trump did not have to take any action. The correct term is conspiracy.
Trump agreed to lift the sanctions if the Russians hacked the Democrats,
just like Watergate. Nixon did not pick the lock himself, he hired
specialists to do the job. At the time that Trump did all this Russia
was still our enemy and under sanctions.
So the charge is Treason.
Conspiring with an enemy.
Yes, as we can see Democrats and Republicans don't like the idea that any
American citizen can run for president. We feel your pain, because you
have nothing to gain. Basic dualistic control of the US Government is now
at risk. Neither party likes the concept of a true open government such
as real democracy.
Establishment Republicans resented Trump as much as establishment
Democrats. Rank and file from both parties gravitated to him. Trump was
essentially a third party candidate who realized he couldn't win running
that way so he saw an opening to hijack the Republican Party, much to the
consternation of the leadership. Even though they wouldn't say so
publicly, I'm sure a lot of them were secretly hoping Hillary would win.
As long as the Republicans and Democrats had a duopoly and could take
turns controlling Congress and the White House, there were plenty of jobs
for both but neither of them liked the idea of an outsider crashing the
party. I left the Republican Party over 20 years ago because I figured out
they really didn't mean the things they campaigned on. It's easy to talk
about smaller government but it takes real courage to get in there and do
it. The GOP gained power in 1994 but it soon became obvious to me they had
no stomach for cutting or eliminating programs. Government continues to
expand no matter which party has control of either end of Pennsylvania
Avenue.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-10 19:41:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it is
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't know
that it was done in the 2016 election.
If the vote totals don't match the exit polls, it is the exit polls which
are FUBAR. According to the exit polls, both Al Gore and John Kerry were
elected President.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his silly
tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
My guess is that in the short term it is going to cause products to become
more expensive. It amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on
consumers. They are the ones who are going to pay these tariffs, not the
foreign companies that export goods to the US. Corporations don't pay
taxes. They collect taxes. Eventually the governments of the world are
going to realize nobody wins a trade war and trade agreements will be
renegotiated in terms that are a little fairer to the US.
Post by mainframetech
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin directly.
It's almost as if you imagine everything you believe.
Post by mainframetech
Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has been insisting on
there being no aides in the room when they get together. Most everything
Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Hardly.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
You mean the phony dossier that was put together under the guise of
"opposition research".
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.
Collusion is the wrong word. Trump did not meet with the Russians to
collude, he used cutouts.
Trump did not have to take any action. The correct term is conspiracy.
Trump agreed to lift the sanctions if the Russians hacked the Democrats,
just like Watergate. Nixon did not pick the lock himself, he hired
specialists to do the job. At the time that Trump did all this Russia
was still our enemy and under sanctions.
So the charge is Treason.
Conspiring with an enemy.
Yes, as we can see Democrats and Republicans don't like the idea that any
American citizen can run for president. We feel your pain, because you
have nothing to gain. Basic dualistic control of the US Government is now
at risk. Neither party likes the concept of a true open government such
as real democracy.
Establishment Republicans resented Trump as much as establishment
Democrats. Rank and file from both parties gravitated to him. Trump was
Yes, his only support was from the low information voters.
Post by bigdog
essentially a third party candidate who realized he couldn't win running
that way so he saw an opening to hijack the Republican Party, much to the
consternation of the leadership. Even though they wouldn't say so
Yes, that's what he was paid to do.
Post by bigdog
publicly, I'm sure a lot of them were secretly hoping Hillary would win.
As long as the Republicans and Democrats had a duopoly and could take
turns controlling Congress and the White House, there were plenty of jobs
for both but neither of them liked the idea of an outsider crashing the
party. I left the Republican Party over 20 years ago because I figured out
they really didn't mean the things they campaigned on. It's easy to talk
about smaller government but it takes real courage to get in there and do
it. The GOP gained power in 1994 but it soon became obvious to me they had
no stomach for cutting or eliminating programs. Government continues to
expand no matter which party has control of either end of Pennsylvania
Avenue.
bpete1969
2018-07-09 14:37:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.
False. The democrats hired Fusion GPS in April of 2016 immediately after
the Free Beacon ended their contract. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in
June. The convention wasn't until July.

The Democrats and Clinton paid for the dossier. They were responsible for
it being created.

Your statement is untrue in every aspect.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-10 19:43:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.
False. The democrats hired Fusion GPS in April of 2016 immediately after
the Free Beacon ended their contract. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in
June. The convention wasn't until July.
WHat do you mean False? That's exactly what I said. The Republicans paid
for the dossier first and then the Democrats paid for it later. Clinton
did not hire Fusion GPS.
Post by bpete1969
The Democrats and Clinton paid for the dossier. They were responsible for
it being created.
False. It started even before Clinton.
Post by bpete1969
Your statement is untrue in every aspect.
You just confirmed that I am right. Fusion GPS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier
bpete1969
2018-07-11 12:17:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.
False. The democrats hired Fusion GPS in April of 2016 immediately after
the Free Beacon ended their contract. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in
June. The convention wasn't until July.
WHat do you mean False? That's exactly what I said. The Republicans paid
for the dossier first and then the Democrats paid for it later. Clinton
did not hire Fusion GPS.
Post by bpete1969
The Democrats and Clinton paid for the dossier. They were responsible for
it being created.
False. It started even before Clinton.
Post by bpete1969
Your statement is untrue in every aspect.
You just confirmed that I am right. Fusion GPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier
False...your own link proves you wrong ...

"written from June to December 2016[2] by Christopher Steele,"

"Fusion GPS, a private investigative firm, provided political opposition
research against Trump in two distinct phases, with completely separate
funders. Fusion GPS was first contracted by a conservative political
website, The Washington Free Beacon, and Steele was not involved in that
research. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The
Free Beacon stopped their backing. Separately, in April 2016, attorney
Marc Elias hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump on behalf of Hillary
Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). In June
2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele to research and compile the dossier;
senior Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS
had subcontracted with Steele, and Steele was not told the Clinton
campaign was the ultimate recipient of his research."


Your link proves that I was correct and you don't have any damn idea of
that which you write.

Admit you're wrong Marsh...it will help you sleep at night.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-12 12:58:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.
False. The democrats hired Fusion GPS in April of 2016 immediately after
the Free Beacon ended their contract. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in
June. The convention wasn't until July.
WHat do you mean False? That's exactly what I said. The Republicans paid
for the dossier first and then the Democrats paid for it later. Clinton
did not hire Fusion GPS.
Post by bpete1969
The Democrats and Clinton paid for the dossier. They were responsible for
it being created.
False. It started even before Clinton.
Post by bpete1969
Your statement is untrue in every aspect.
You just confirmed that I am right. Fusion GPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier
False...your own link proves you wrong ...
"written from June to December 2016[2] by Christopher Steele,"
"Fusion GPS, a private investigative firm, provided political opposition
research against Trump in two distinct phases, with completely separate
funders. Fusion GPS was first contracted by a conservative political
website, The Washington Free Beacon, and Steele was not involved in that
research. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The
Free Beacon stopped their backing. Separately, in April 2016, attorney
Marc Elias hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump on behalf of Hillary
Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). In June
2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele to research and compile the dossier;
senior Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS
had subcontracted with Steele, and Steele was not told the Clinton
campaign was the ultimate recipient of his research."
Your link proves that I was correct and you don't have any damn idea of
that which you write.
Admit you're wrong Marsh...it will help you sleep at night.
The Democrats were not the first to hire Steele and he did not CREATE his
dosssier for the Democrats. It started before the Democrats bought it.
bpete1969
2018-07-13 14:49:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.
False. The democrats hired Fusion GPS in April of 2016 immediately after
the Free Beacon ended their contract. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in
June. The convention wasn't until July.
WHat do you mean False? That's exactly what I said. The Republicans paid
for the dossier first and then the Democrats paid for it later. Clinton
did not hire Fusion GPS.
Post by bpete1969
The Democrats and Clinton paid for the dossier. They were responsible for
it being created.
False. It started even before Clinton.
Post by bpete1969
Your statement is untrue in every aspect.
You just confirmed that I am right. Fusion GPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier
False...your own link proves you wrong ...
"written from June to December 2016[2] by Christopher Steele,"
"Fusion GPS, a private investigative firm, provided political opposition
research against Trump in two distinct phases, with completely separate
funders. Fusion GPS was first contracted by a conservative political
website, The Washington Free Beacon, and Steele was not involved in that
research. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The
Free Beacon stopped their backing. Separately, in April 2016, attorney
Marc Elias hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump on behalf of Hillary
Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). In June
2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele to research and compile the dossier;
senior Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS
had subcontracted with Steele, and Steele was not told the Clinton
campaign was the ultimate recipient of his research."
Your link proves that I was correct and you don't have any damn idea of
that which you write.
Admit you're wrong Marsh...it will help you sleep at night.
The Democrats were not the first to hire Steele and he did not CREATE his
dosssier for the Democrats. It started before the Democrats bought it.
Still wrong Marsh. You really need to re-read your own link.

Fusion GPS hired Steele to do the work the Democrats and Clinton paid to
have done.

Now how long until you admit you were wrong and your initial statement on
the matter was completely false?
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-14 03:50:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.
False. The democrats hired Fusion GPS in April of 2016 immediately after
the Free Beacon ended their contract. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in
June. The convention wasn't until July.
WHat do you mean False? That's exactly what I said. The Republicans paid
for the dossier first and then the Democrats paid for it later. Clinton
did not hire Fusion GPS.
Post by bpete1969
The Democrats and Clinton paid for the dossier. They were responsible for
it being created.
False. It started even before Clinton.
Post by bpete1969
Your statement is untrue in every aspect.
You just confirmed that I am right. Fusion GPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier
False...your own link proves you wrong ...
"written from June to December 2016[2] by Christopher Steele,"
"Fusion GPS, a private investigative firm, provided political opposition
research against Trump in two distinct phases, with completely separate
funders. Fusion GPS was first contracted by a conservative political
website, The Washington Free Beacon, and Steele was not involved in that
research. When Trump became the presumptive nominee on May 3, 2016, The
Free Beacon stopped their backing. Separately, in April 2016, attorney
Marc Elias hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump on behalf of Hillary
Clinton's campaign and the Democratic National Committee (DNC). In June
2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele to research and compile the dossier;
senior Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS
had subcontracted with Steele, and Steele was not told the Clinton
campaign was the ultimate recipient of his research."
Your link proves that I was correct and you don't have any damn idea of
that which you write.
Admit you're wrong Marsh...it will help you sleep at night.
The Democrats were not the first to hire Steele and he did not CREATE his
dosssier for the Democrats. It started before the Democrats bought it.
Still wrong Marsh. You really need to re-read your own link.
Fusion GPS hired Steele to do the work the Democrats and Clinton paid to
have done.
AFTER he had already done it for the rightwing Republicans opposed to
Trump.
Post by bpete1969
Now how long until you admit you were wrong and your initial statement on
the matter was completely false?
I was right and you know it. Call Wikipedia wrong. Go ahead. Call it
fake news. Show off to Trump.

claviger
2018-07-12 02:21:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.
False. The democrats hired Fusion GPS in April of 2016 immediately after
the Free Beacon ended their contract. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in
June. The convention wasn't until July.
WHat do you mean False? That's exactly what I said. The Republicans paid
for the dossier first and then the Democrats paid for it later. Clinton
did not hire Fusion GPS.
Post by bpete1969
The Democrats and Clinton paid for the dossier. They were responsible for
it being created.
False. It started even before Clinton.
Post by bpete1969
Your statement is untrue in every aspect.
You just confirmed that I am right. Fusion GPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier
So what? All you proved Democrats and Republicans don't want
to share power with Third Party Candidates. Sneaky Democrats
successfully snuffed out any chance for Sanders to close the gap
and make their convention exciting with a huge national audience.

Republicans tried to use Fox News Megyn Kelly as a catspaw to
derail Trump, but that embarrassing episode backfired big time.
The obvious dirty tricks ended careers for Schultz and Kelly.

Fox News made a huge blunder to put the Kelly franchise at risk
because she was a rising star with flourishing audience ratings.
After the debacle of the Republican debate Kelly's career peaked.
This awkwardly uncomfortable and poorly staged debate flopped.
Kelly could not replenish her Pixie Dust and her up, up, and away
career dissolved into rather bizarre behavior.

Her All-American Prom Date partner for the debate realized halfway
through things were not going well and did his best to right the boat,
but his date kept dancing to the wrong tune. This unmitigated fiasco
damaged the stellar Fox News image and it hasn't fully recovered yet.
bigdog
2018-07-12 20:29:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by bpete1969
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The Steele Dossier was put together for a Republican to see if
there was any dirt on Donald Trump. After Trump was nominated, then the
Democrats bought a copy.
No new dirt was added.
False. The democrats hired Fusion GPS in April of 2016 immediately after
the Free Beacon ended their contract. Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in
June. The convention wasn't until July.
WHat do you mean False? That's exactly what I said. The Republicans paid
for the dossier first and then the Democrats paid for it later. Clinton
did not hire Fusion GPS.
Post by bpete1969
The Democrats and Clinton paid for the dossier. They were responsible for
it being created.
False. It started even before Clinton.
Post by bpete1969
Your statement is untrue in every aspect.
You just confirmed that I am right. Fusion GPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier
So what? All you proved Democrats and Republicans don't want
to share power with Third Party Candidates. Sneaky Democrats
successfully snuffed out any chance for Sanders to close the gap
and make their convention exciting with a huge national audience.
Republicans tried to use Fox News Megyn Kelly as a catspaw to
derail Trump, but that embarrassing episode backfired big time.
The obvious dirty tricks ended careers for Schultz and Kelly.
Fox News made a huge blunder to put the Kelly franchise at risk
because she was a rising star with flourishing audience ratings.
After the debacle of the Republican debate Kelly's career peaked.
This awkwardly uncomfortable and poorly staged debate flopped.
Kelly could not replenish her Pixie Dust and her up, up, and away
career dissolved into rather bizarre behavior.
Her All-American Prom Date partner for the debate realized halfway
through things were not going well and did his best to right the boat,
but his date kept dancing to the wrong tune. This unmitigated fiasco
damaged the stellar Fox News image and it hasn't fully recovered yet.
Kelly is doing quite well. She left Fox when her contract expired and
joined NBC after her non-compete agreement with Fox expired in June of
2017. She hosts here own daily show as well as other projects and is
reportedly making between 15 and 20 million dollars a year. Besides she is
some fine eye candy.
claviger
2018-07-13 14:52:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Kelly is doing quite well. She left Fox when her contract expired and
joined NBC after her non-compete agreement with Fox expired in June
2017. She hosts here own daily show as well as other projects and is
of reportedly making between 15 and 20 million dollars a year. Besides
she is some fine eye candy.
Over a million dollars a month is a nice salary. A reason she gave was
the need for a daytime job to be with her family at night. I like that
thought but she could have done it at Fox too. What happened is Roger
Ailes wanted to be the King Maker and Kelly gleefully accepted to be Annie
Oakley for this big primetime ambush.

The first half of Fox News Debates for the B-Team candidates was
efficient, respectful, and well done. So I expected the A-Team debate to
be the same or better. To my shock and disappointment it was awful. I
felt bad for all the Candidates and embarrassed for Fox News. From the
beginning Kelly acted condescending to an outstanding group of people who
accomplished some important achievements in their lifetime, and one of
them might even end up being President at the end of this process, though
it seemed like a long shot at the time.

I'm used to seeing that kind of disrespect and ambush mentality from
Liberal Networks that I find repugnant. I was hoping Fox News would show
the world what a classy "fair and balanced" Debate Forum should look like,
and sound like. Instead Fox News did a "me too" imitation of all the
other networks in a typical Liberal "no class, just crass" rotten egg
throwing contest.

What it did manage to do is cure my addiction to Fox News. Several of my
friends had the same reaction. That debate was disrespectful to the large
Fox News audience. I used to watch Fox for 3 hours every night Mon-Thurs.
Now I only watch it sporadically. The Big Ambush that failed taught a lot
of people there is life after Fox News.

Here's the irony, I didn't care for Trump and he wasn't on my Top Ten List
but the misguided Fox News ambush activated a needed boost to his
campaign! Conservative voters don't like impudent bratty behavior from
Democrats or Republicans. We wanted Fox News to take the High Road but
they decided to take a left turn down the Low Road instead.

Then we get the appalling news about big time sexual harassment going on
at Fox News, running off some of my favorite outstanding female reporters.
Now that really p*ssed me off!!! The current lineup are working very hard
and doing a good job, but the awesome O'Reilly, Kelly, Hannity 1-2-3
lineup was a dynamic power punch that I do miss. The All Irish lineup that
brought Conservatives much good luck!!!

I wish Kelly well because being a mother is the most important job she
will ever have no matter what the salary. I hope she learned a valuable
lesson, don't take your fans for granted. Is CNN allowing her to be
Conservative or has she changed her political philosophy for the big
paycheck?
bigdog
2018-07-13 22:31:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Kelly is doing quite well. She left Fox when her contract expired and
joined NBC after her non-compete agreement with Fox expired in June
2017. She hosts here own daily show as well as other projects and is
of reportedly making between 15 and 20 million dollars a year. Besides
she is some fine eye candy.
Over a million dollars a month is a nice salary. A reason she gave was
the need for a daytime job to be with her family at night. I like that
thought but she could have done it at Fox too. What happened is Roger
Ailes wanted to be the King Maker and Kelly gleefully accepted to be Annie
Oakley for this big primetime ambush.
The first half of Fox News Debates for the B-Team candidates was
efficient, respectful, and well done. So I expected the A-Team debate to
be the same or better. To my shock and disappointment it was awful. I
felt bad for all the Candidates and embarrassed for Fox News. From the
beginning Kelly acted condescending to an outstanding group of people who
accomplished some important achievements in their lifetime, and one of
them might even end up being President at the end of this process, though
it seemed like a long shot at the time.
I'm used to seeing that kind of disrespect and ambush mentality from
Liberal Networks that I find repugnant. I was hoping Fox News would show
the world what a classy "fair and balanced" Debate Forum should look like,
and sound like. Instead Fox News did a "me too" imitation of all the
other networks in a typical Liberal "no class, just crass" rotten egg
throwing contest.
What it did manage to do is cure my addiction to Fox News. Several of my
friends had the same reaction. That debate was disrespectful to the large
Fox News audience. I used to watch Fox for 3 hours every night Mon-Thurs.
Now I only watch it sporadically. The Big Ambush that failed taught a lot
of people there is life after Fox News.
This is what people need to understand about Fox. They dislike Trump
almost as much as CNN and MSNBC although for different reasons. They are
an arm of the Republican establishment. Jeb Bush was their guy and Trump
upset their applecart when he hijacked their party. Trump does have
friends among the individual commentators such as Hannity, but Fox itself
is not in Trump's corner and Megan Kelly certainly was not. Karl Rove
became the voice of Fox and naturally being a Bushie he didn't care much
for Trump. It was like the three way standoff in The Good, The Bad, and
The Ugly. Instead of Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach, and Lee Van Cleef in the
three corners, it was establishment Republicans, establishment Democrats,
and the Trumpists.
Post by claviger
Here's the irony, I didn't care for Trump and he wasn't on my Top Ten List
but the misguided Fox News ambush activated a needed boost to his
campaign! Conservative voters don't like impudent bratty behavior from
Democrats or Republicans. We wanted Fox News to take the High Road but
they decided to take a left turn down the Low Road instead.
Then we get the appalling news about big time sexual harassment going on
at Fox News, running off some of my favorite outstanding female reporters.
Now that really p*ssed me off!!! The current lineup are working very hard
and doing a good job, but the awesome O'Reilly, Kelly, Hannity 1-2-3
lineup was a dynamic power punch that I do miss. The All Irish lineup that
brought Conservatives much good luck!!!
Although Fox is closer to my political leanings than CNN or MSNBC, I
recognize that they too are a propaganda mill, just spewing a different
kind of propaganda. They are no more a journalistic enterprise than CNN or
MSNBC. They put a right slant on news instead of a left slant. There are
people working at Fox whom I do respect like Tucker Carlson and some of
the members of The Five panel, but for the most part, I don't trust Fox to
inform me any more than the left wing propaganda mills.
Post by claviger
I wish Kelly well because being a mother is the most important job she
will ever have no matter what the salary. I hope she learned a valuable
lesson, don't take your fans for granted. Is CNN allowing her to be
Conservative or has she changed her political philosophy for the big
paycheck?
She works for NBC, not CNN. Her main gig is Today With Megan Kelly which
airs right after the main Today show.

https://www.today.com/megyn-kelly-today

She does other things as well. NBC and MSNBC have lots of interchangeable
parts so you might see her showing up on either outlet.
bigdog
2018-07-13 22:32:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Kelly is doing quite well. She left Fox when her contract expired and
joined NBC after her non-compete agreement with Fox expired in June
2017. She hosts here own daily show as well as other projects and is
of reportedly making between 15 and 20 million dollars a year. Besides
she is some fine eye candy.
Over a million dollars a month is a nice salary. A reason she gave was
the need for a daytime job to be with her family at night. I like that
thought but she could have done it at Fox too. What happened is Roger
Ailes wanted to be the King Maker and Kelly gleefully accepted to be Annie
Oakley for this big primetime ambush.
The first half of Fox News Debates for the B-Team candidates was
efficient, respectful, and well done. So I expected the A-Team debate to
be the same or better. To my shock and disappointment it was awful. I
felt bad for all the Candidates and embarrassed for Fox News. From the
beginning Kelly acted condescending to an outstanding group of people who
accomplished some important achievements in their lifetime, and one of
them might even end up being President at the end of this process, though
it seemed like a long shot at the time.
I'm used to seeing that kind of disrespect and ambush mentality from
Liberal Networks that I find repugnant. I was hoping Fox News would show
the world what a classy "fair and balanced" Debate Forum should look like,
and sound like. Instead Fox News did a "me too" imitation of all the
other networks in a typical Liberal "no class, just crass" rotten egg
throwing contest.
What it did manage to do is cure my addiction to Fox News. Several of my
friends had the same reaction. That debate was disrespectful to the large
Fox News audience. I used to watch Fox for 3 hours every night Mon-Thurs.
Now I only watch it sporadically. The Big Ambush that failed taught a lot
of people there is life after Fox News.
Here's the irony, I didn't care for Trump and he wasn't on my Top Ten List
but the misguided Fox News ambush activated a needed boost to his
campaign! Conservative voters don't like impudent bratty behavior from
Democrats or Republicans. We wanted Fox News to take the High Road but
they decided to take a left turn down the Low Road instead.
Then we get the appalling news about big time sexual harassment going on
at Fox News, running off some of my favorite outstanding female reporters.
Now that really p*ssed me off!!! The current lineup are working very hard
and doing a good job, but the awesome O'Reilly, Kelly, Hannity 1-2-3
lineup was a dynamic power punch that I do miss. The All Irish lineup that
brought Conservatives much good luck!!!
I wish Kelly well because being a mother is the most important job she
will ever have no matter what the salary. I hope she learned a valuable
lesson, don't take your fans for granted. Is CNN allowing her to be
Conservative or has she changed her political philosophy for the big
paycheck?
After getting the link to Megan Kelly's program at NBC, I came across this
web page of a roundtable discussion she had held discussing the nomination
of Brett Kavanaugh to SCOTUS. It was her and 3 NBC/MSNBC leftists which is
more balance than you normally see from that network. Usually they only
use turncoat Republicans whose job it is to bash their former party. She
did an admirable job of speaking in support of Kavanaugh. It is typical of
the work she is doing, I'd say she is doing quite well. And she looks
awesome doing it.
bigdog
2018-07-13 22:32:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by bigdog
Kelly is doing quite well. She left Fox when her contract expired and
joined NBC after her non-compete agreement with Fox expired in June
2017. She hosts here own daily show as well as other projects and is
of reportedly making between 15 and 20 million dollars a year. Besides
she is some fine eye candy.
Over a million dollars a month is a nice salary. A reason she gave was
the need for a daytime job to be with her family at night. I like that
thought but she could have done it at Fox too. What happened is Roger
Ailes wanted to be the King Maker and Kelly gleefully accepted to be Annie
Oakley for this big primetime ambush.
The first half of Fox News Debates for the B-Team candidates was
efficient, respectful, and well done. So I expected the A-Team debate to
be the same or better. To my shock and disappointment it was awful. I
felt bad for all the Candidates and embarrassed for Fox News. From the
beginning Kelly acted condescending to an outstanding group of people who
accomplished some important achievements in their lifetime, and one of
them might even end up being President at the end of this process, though
it seemed like a long shot at the time.
I'm used to seeing that kind of disrespect and ambush mentality from
Liberal Networks that I find repugnant. I was hoping Fox News would show
the world what a classy "fair and balanced" Debate Forum should look like,
and sound like. Instead Fox News did a "me too" imitation of all the
other networks in a typical Liberal "no class, just crass" rotten egg
throwing contest.
What it did manage to do is cure my addiction to Fox News. Several of my
friends had the same reaction. That debate was disrespectful to the large
Fox News audience. I used to watch Fox for 3 hours every night Mon-Thurs.
Now I only watch it sporadically. The Big Ambush that failed taught a lot
of people there is life after Fox News.
Here's the irony, I didn't care for Trump and he wasn't on my Top Ten List
but the misguided Fox News ambush activated a needed boost to his
campaign! Conservative voters don't like impudent bratty behavior from
Democrats or Republicans. We wanted Fox News to take the High Road but
they decided to take a left turn down the Low Road instead.
Then we get the appalling news about big time sexual harassment going on
at Fox News, running off some of my favorite outstanding female reporters.
Now that really p*ssed me off!!! The current lineup are working very hard
and doing a good job, but the awesome O'Reilly, Kelly, Hannity 1-2-3
lineup was a dynamic power punch that I do miss. The All Irish lineup that
brought Conservatives much good luck!!!
I wish Kelly well because being a mother is the most important job she
will ever have no matter what the salary. I hope she learned a valuable
lesson, don't take your fans for granted. Is CNN allowing her to be
Conservative or has she changed her political philosophy for the big
paycheck?
I think I forgot to include the link to the Megan Kelly roundtable
discussion. Here it is:

https://www.today.com/news/megyn-kelly-roundtable-brett-kavanaugh-trump-s-supreme-court-pick-t132827
mainframetech
2018-07-09 13:53:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it is
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't know
that it was done in the 2016 election.
If the vote totals don't match the exit polls, it is the exit polls which
are FUBAR. According to the exit polls, both Al Gore and John Kerry were
elected President.
The difference has to be considerable. I don't know the difference
in those 2 elections. And it is illogical to think that ONLY the exit
polls could be wrong and not the vote count. Since it is possible that it
could be either. And many experts at hacking say that, not just me.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his silly
tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
My guess is that in the short term it is going to cause products to become
more expensive. It amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on
consumers.
"Nothing more"? Do you realize you've just thrown most Americans under
the bus along with out best allies and everyone but our adversaries?
Tariff wars will raise OUR prices and lose OUR jobs as well as damage our
allies. What will they think about us after that? Putin will be in
ecstasy at the break up of us and our allies. He doesn't like NATO which
is against him, so Trump agitates at NATO, he doesn't like the world all
getting together on Global Warming so he's happy that Trump has backed out
of the Paris accords and given up the leadership role as one of only 2
countries of the whole world that backed out!


Putin wants the democrats and the Republicans to be at each other's
throats, and he's happy about that, because it's divide and conquer. And
congress can't get anything done because of it. With a Trump at the helm
of the Republican party, it will stay that way, because the opposition
will not compromise. And Putin wants Trump to make a mess out of the
politics of the USA so that we will do crazy things, and not do sane
things that we need to do. Putin is in his word, and Trump wants to make
a gift of it to him.
Post by bigdog
They are the ones who are going to pay these tariffs, not the
foreign companies that export goods to the US. Corporations don't pay
taxes. They collect taxes. Eventually the governments of the world are
going to realize nobody wins a trade war and trade agreements will be
renegotiated in terms that are a little fairer to the US.
No one blinked when Trump put on the tariffs. Why would they? They
will simply hold out until Trump backs down, and then they might back
down. They aren't going to go soft because a fool like Trump got involved
in something he doesn't understand.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin directly.
It's almost as if you imagine everything you believe.
Post by mainframetech
Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has been insisting on
there being no aides in the room when they get together. Most everything
Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Hardly.
Oh? Were you going to mention sanctions that Trump put on Russia?
That Trump fought to avoid and ignored them? Then when they went on, they
were not going to hurt Russia much at all. And Trump's off again on his I
love Russia blat again. Trump says he's hard on Russia, and everyone lays
down and snoozes happily because Trump said all was OK. Lordee! Jyst
like he said there's no problem with nuclear war with N. Korea. The great
negotiator!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
You mean the phony dossier that was put together under the guise of
"opposition research".
I have even more news for you. Not a single thing has been proven
wrong from the Dossier yet. And a number of things were either already
known to be true, or have been proven to be true since it came out.
You've been listening to 'fake news' from Trump who tells you how honest
he is, and what liars the media are.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-10 04:03:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it is
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't know
that it was done in the 2016 election.
If the vote totals don't match the exit polls, it is the exit polls which
are FUBAR. According to the exit polls, both Al Gore and John Kerry were
elected President.
The difference has to be considerable. I don't know the difference
in those 2 elections. And it is illogical to think that ONLY the exit
polls could be wrong and not the vote count. Since it is possible that it
could be either. And many experts at hacking say that, not just me.
The vote count totals every vote cast. Exit polls are just like
pre-election polls in that they are only a sampling of the vote. They only
sample a small percentage of all precincts and they don't ask everyone in
those precincts whom they voted for. Polls are only accurate if the sample
actually reflects the make up of the electorate. If they over sample or
under sample any of the various demographics, the accuracy of the poll
will suffer. It is ludicrous to believe if there is a discrepancy between
a sampling of the vote and the actual vote count, it is the vote count
that is in error.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his silly
tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
My guess is that in the short term it is going to cause products to become
more expensive. It amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on
consumers.
"Nothing more"? Do you realize you've just thrown most Americans under
the bus along with out best allies and everyone but our adversaries?
Tariff wars will raise OUR prices and lose OUR jobs as well as damage our
allies.
Trade wars will effect every country on both sides which is why ultimately
they will be resolved because nobody is going to win a trade war. Trump is
betting that eventually new trade deals can be negotiated which will be
more favorable to the US and level the playing field so that we can sell
our products in other countries as easily as they have been able sell
theirs in our country. It the short term everyone will suffer through
higher prices but if that means we are able to sell more goods overseas
than in the long run it will be beneficial.
Post by mainframetech
What will they think about us after that? Putin will be in
ecstasy at the break up of us and our allies. He doesn't like NATO which
is against him, so Trump agitates at NATO, he doesn't like the world all
getting together on Global Warming so he's happy that Trump has backed out
of the Paris accords and given up the leadership role as one of only 2
countries of the whole world that backed out!
I really don't care what other countries think of us. They need us more
than we need them. When it comes to foreign policy, we don't have friends,
we have interests. FDR dealt with Stalin because at the time it was in our
interest to do so. Our so called "friends" have been taking advantage of
our generosity for years, freely selling their products in our country
while slapping tariffs on our products in their country. Trump wants us to
be able to play by the same rules that they do.
Post by mainframetech
Putin wants the democrats and the Republicans to be at each other's
throats, and he's happy about that, because it's divide and conquer.
Democrat and Republican leaders are allies in a duopoly which all but
guarantees that those two parties will get all the elected offices while
keeping outsiders out of the game. Leader in both of them were appalled
that an outsider like Trump succeeding in hijacking the Republican Party
and winning the White House. It wasn't supposed to be like that. It was
supposed to be an establishment candidate succeeding Obama. Either Hillary
or Jeb Bush. It was their turn. They didn't want Trump and they didn't
want Bernie. They wanted one of their own. Most of the leaders in both
parties would rather it had been Hillary or Jeb rather than The Don.
Post by mainframetech
And congress can't get anything done because of it.
That's good news. The less those assholes do, the less of my money they
will spend.
Post by mainframetech
With a Trump at the helm
of the Republican party, it will stay that way, because the opposition
will not compromise.
Outstanding.
Post by mainframetech
And Putin wants Trump to make a mess out of the
politics of the USA so that we will do crazy things, and not do sane
things that we need to do. Putin is in his word, and Trump wants to make
a gift of it to him.
Now that's funny.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They are the ones who are going to pay these tariffs, not the
foreign companies that export goods to the US. Corporations don't pay
taxes. They collect taxes. Eventually the governments of the world are
going to realize nobody wins a trade war and trade agreements will be
renegotiated in terms that are a little fairer to the US.
No one blinked when Trump put on the tariffs. Why would they? They
will simply hold out until Trump backs down, and then they might back
down. They aren't going to go soft because a fool like Trump got involved
in something he doesn't understand.
They are just posturing to strengthen their hand prior to negotiations.
They all know knew agreements are needed because everyone will suffer in a
long term trade war.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin directly.
It's almost as if you imagine everything you believe.
Post by mainframetech
Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has been insisting on
there being no aides in the room when they get together. Most everything
Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Hardly.
Oh? Were you going to mention sanctions that Trump put on Russia?
That Trump fought to avoid and ignored them? Then when they went on, they
were not going to hurt Russia much at all. And Trump's off again on his I
love Russia blat again. Trump says he's hard on Russia, and everyone lays
down and snoozes happily because Trump said all was OK. Lordee! Jyst
like he said there's no problem with nuclear war with N. Korea. The great
negotiator!
We should actually wait and see what comes from all these negotiations
with both are allies and adversaries. Right now it's all posturing.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
You mean the phony dossier that was put together under the guise of
"opposition research".
I have even more news for you. Not a single thing has been proven
wrong from the Dossier yet.
The problem is that not much has been proven right.
Post by mainframetech
And a number of things were either already
known to be true, or have been proven to be true since it came out.
You've been listening to 'fake news' from Trump who tells you how honest
he is, and what liars the media are.
One of those things is actually true.
mainframetech
2018-07-10 22:43:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it is
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't know
that it was done in the 2016 election.
If the vote totals don't match the exit polls, it is the exit polls which
are FUBAR. According to the exit polls, both Al Gore and John Kerry were
elected President.
The difference has to be considerable. I don't know the difference
in those 2 elections. And it is illogical to think that ONLY the exit
polls could be wrong and not the vote count. Since it is possible that it
could be either. And many experts at hacking say that, not just me.
The vote count totals every vote cast. Exit polls are just like
pre-election polls in that they are only a sampling of the vote.
Here you go again! Making illogical statements and pretending you
know what you're talking about. You don't. A vote count totals EVERY
vote ONLY if it has not been hacked. Which may be unknown. And exit
polls are done on EVERY person in a particular district polling place.
Some won't answer, or will lie, but that is not a large percentage. An
exit poll is more than a simple "sampling". It is a good look at ALL
votes from a particular district. It is a reliable indicator of any
skullduggery in the election.
Post by bigdog
They only
sample a small percentage of all precincts and they don't ask everyone in
those precincts whom they voted for.
WRONG! It is done on a polling place, on every vote from a particular
polling place. And EVERYONE is asked who they voted for. Only a very
small percentage won't say.
Post by bigdog
Polls are only accurate if the sample
actually reflects the make up of the electorate.
WRONG again! It is done on EVERY person voting at a particular voting
place. It has to be to be valid.
Post by bigdog
If they over sample or
under sample any of the various demographics, the accuracy of the poll
will suffer.
Sampling is not done. EVERY voter is asked from a particular voting
place and compared to EVERY vote tallied at that place.
Post by bigdog
It is ludicrous to believe if there is a discrepancy between
a sampling of the vote and the actual vote count, it is the vote count
that is in error.
It is ludicrous to think that "sampling" will get the results needed.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his silly
tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
My guess is that in the short term it is going to cause products to become
more expensive. It amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on
consumers.
"Nothing more"? Do you realize you've just thrown most Americans under
the bus along with out best allies and everyone but our adversaries?
Tariff wars will raise OUR prices and lose OUR jobs as well as damage our
allies.
Trade wars will effect every country on both sides which is why ultimately
they will be resolved because nobody is going to win a trade war. Trump is
betting that eventually new trade deals can be negotiated which will be
more favorable to the US and level the playing field so that we can sell
our products in other countries as easily as they have been able sell
theirs in our country.
That's what he tells the faithful, and they will believe it, like
sheep to the slaughter. They will even sit still while they are sheared.
Making trouble politically is usually just another way of getting paid
under the table to stop making the trouble.
Post by bigdog
It the short term everyone will suffer through
higher prices but if that means we are able to sell more goods overseas
than in the long run it will be beneficial.
"IF"! The other side of the tariff war has called Trump's bluff, so
he's not going to get a deal. He's a lousy negotiator in any event.
Look at how easily 'little rocketman' beat him on a big national deal.
And Trump got nothing from giving up things. No wonder he was bankrupted
6 times! Other billionaires don't get bankrupt at all.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What will they think about us after that? Putin will be in
ecstasy at the break up of us and our allies. He doesn't like NATO which
is against him, so Trump agitates at NATO, he doesn't like the world all
getting together on Global Warming so he's happy that Trump has backed out
of the Paris accords and given up the leadership role as one of only 2
countries of the whole world that backed out!
I really don't care what other countries think of us. They need us more
than we need them. When it comes to foreign policy, we don't have friends,
we have interests.
You just don't get it. You're so besotted by Trump that you can't see
the real world! When it comes to foreign policy, we need friends as much
or more than other nations. We even pay them for their 'friendship', and
it pays off. When we need to bomb a nasty nation, we have access to that
nation and can overfly other territories because we have friends and are
not barred from what we need. And that's just an example. Of course
foreign policy is based on need, but we have as much or more need than
many other countries, since we tend to think we can walk in anywhere and
make law and policy. You know, Geo. Bush's nation building. And now it
looks like Trump has only one ally, Putin, whom he will kiss anywhere he
says to get close to him.
Post by bigdog
FDR dealt with Stalin because at the time it was in our
interest to do so. Our so called "friends" have been taking advantage of
our generosity for years, freely selling their products in our country
while slapping tariffs on our products in their country. Trump wants us to
be able to play by the same rules that they do.
Of course he wants you to think that. And you blithely go along with
it. It will pay of for Trump bigtime, but not for you, and not for our
allies. Don't you get it? They all called Trump's bluff. He either
stops the problems he's made, or we all suffer except maybe him.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Putin wants the democrats and the Republicans to be at each other's
throats, and he's happy about that, because it's divide and conquer.
Democrat and Republican leaders are allies in a duopoly which all but
guarantees that those two parties will get all the elected offices while
keeping outsiders out of the game. Leader in both of them were appalled
that an outsider like Trump succeeding in hijacking the Republican Party
and winning the White House. It wasn't supposed to be like that. It was
supposed to be an establishment candidate succeeding Obama. Either Hillary
or Jeb Bush. It was their turn. They didn't want Trump and they didn't
want Bernie. They wanted one of their own. Most of the leaders in both
parties would rather it had been Hillary or Jeb rather than The Don.
Well, if there hadn't ben intervention, it might have gone that way.
Hillary would have made a much tougher president than ole give-it-away
Trump.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And congress can't get anything done because of it.
That's good news. The less those assholes do, the less of my money they
will spend.
So easy to say, but what is the reality behind the words? The US
can't get things done like they used to be able to. Putin smiles again!
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
With a Trump at the helm
of the Republican party, it will stay that way, because the opposition
will not compromise.
Outstanding.
Post by mainframetech
And Putin wants Trump to make a mess out of the
politics of the USA so that we will do crazy things, and not do sane
things that we need to do. Putin is in his world, and Trump wants to make
a gift of it to him.
Now that's funny.
Tell it to the Crimeans and Ukraines.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They are the ones who are going to pay these tariffs, not the
foreign companies that export goods to the US. Corporations don't pay
taxes. They collect taxes. Eventually the governments of the world are
going to realize nobody wins a trade war and trade agreements will be
renegotiated in terms that are a little fairer to the US.
No one blinked when Trump put on the tariffs. Why would they? They
will simply hold out until Trump backs down, and then they might back
down. They aren't going to go soft because a fool like Trump got involved
in something he doesn't understand.
You've been listening to FOX News again. You were told no one blinked
when Trump did his foolish tariff thing, but the rest of the media pointed
out the many people that had a terrible opinion of Trump and his
silliness.
Post by bigdog
They are just posturing to strengthen their hand prior to negotiations.
They all know knew agreements are needed because everyone will suffer in a
long term trade war.
They know that the US will suffer right along with them. Their offer
will be to go back to where we were before trump's foolishness, and all
will be forgiven. There's no plus side for the countries involved,
including us.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin directly.
It's almost as if you imagine everything you believe.
Post by mainframetech
Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has been insisting on
there being no aides in the room when they get together. Most everything
Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Hardly.
Oh? Were you going to mention sanctions that Trump put on Russia?
That Trump fought to avoid and ignored them? Then when they went on, they
were not going to hurt Russia much at all. And Trump's off again on his I
love Russia blat again. Trump says he's hard on Russia, and everyone lays
down and snoozes happily because Trump said all was OK. Lordee! Just
like he said there's no problem with nuclear war with N. Korea. The great
negotiator!
We should actually wait and see what comes from all these negotiations
with both are allies and adversaries. Right now it's all posturing.
Wow! A word that explains it all. We can all go back to sleep now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
You mean the phony dossier that was put together under the guise of
"opposition research".
I have even more news for you. Not a single thing has been proven
wrong from the Dossier yet.
The problem is that not much has been proven right.
Post by mainframetech
And a number of things were either already
known to be true, or have been proven to be true since it came out.
You've been listening to 'fake news' from Trump who tells you how honest
he is, and what liars the media are.
One of those things is actually true.
Naah.

Chris
bigdog
2018-07-12 02:18:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Agreed!
Chris
The problem is nobody has proved any massive manipulation of
voting machines took place, or if it was even possible. If so, did
the Russians put Obama in office? If they did, why?
Who decided that the Russians had the capability in Obama's time?
And weren't the Russians better off with Obama than McCain or Clinton?
McCain or Clinton would have beaten the ears off Putin if he stepped out
of line, but Obama was wanting to get along with everyone and wasn't ready
to take any action until he had seen how it all was shaping up, which was
often too late to be effective.
As to the possibility that the vote counting was manipulated, a really
good hack is done without the knowledge of the public. The test for it is
to compare the actual vote counts to the exit polls, and if they are off
by a large percentage, then someone messed with the totals. I don't know
that it was done in the 2016 election.
If the vote totals don't match the exit polls, it is the exit polls which
are FUBAR. According to the exit polls, both Al Gore and John Kerry were
elected President.
The difference has to be considerable. I don't know the difference
in those 2 elections. And it is illogical to think that ONLY the exit
polls could be wrong and not the vote count. Since it is possible that it
could be either. And many experts at hacking say that, not just me.
The vote count totals every vote cast. Exit polls are just like
pre-election polls in that they are only a sampling of the vote.
Here you go again! Making illogical statements and pretending you
know what you're talking about. You don't. A vote count totals EVERY
vote ONLY if it has not been hacked. Which may be unknown. And exit
polls are done on EVERY person in a particular district polling place.
I've already provided you with the methodology used by the primary exit
polling firm (Edison Research) in the nation that shows that is an
inaccurate statement. Since you seem to have forgotten the lesson I gave
you, I will repeat it for you. Here are several sites which explain how
exit polling is conducted.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2016-exit-polls-work/story?id=11996124

Note that ABC News use the actual vote totals to validate the exit poll
results, not the other way around as you have suggested.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/02/just-how-does-the-general-election-exit-poll-work-anyway/

Note that Edison polls about 85,000 same day voters from about 1000
polling places. That is only 85 voters per polling place. To put that in
perspective, even the rural polling place which I vote at has over 900
voters on its roles and in a presidential election, 500-600 will actually
vote. 85 voters would be about 1/6 of the number of voters who cast
ballots. So the number of polling places surveyed are just a fraction of
all polling places and the pollsters only talk to about 1/6 of those
people. The do NOT talk to every voter. Why don't you book mark these
websites so the next time this subject comes up you won't make the same
silly mistake that you just did.
Post by mainframetech
Some won't answer, or will lie, but that is not a large percentage. An
exit poll is more than a simple "sampling". It is a good look at ALL
votes from a particular district. It is a reliable indicator of any
skullduggery in the election.
Wrong. They only talk to a fraction of the voters from a fraction of the
polling places. About 140 million votes were cast in 2016 and Pew only
polled about 100,000 voters.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They only
sample a small percentage of all precincts and they don't ask everyone in
those precincts whom they voted for.
WRONG! It is done on a polling place, on every vote from a particular
polling place. And EVERYONE is asked who they voted for. Only a very
small percentage won't say.
See the Pew website I gave you the link to. Edison does not poll every
voter. Not even close.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Polls are only accurate if the sample
actually reflects the make up of the electorate.
WRONG again! It is done on EVERY person voting at a particular voting
place. It has to be to be valid.
Why do you just make things up instead of doing just a little bit of
research to find out how things are really done. Try using a search
engine. It's not that hard to do.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
If they over sample or
under sample any of the various demographics, the accuracy of the poll
will suffer.
Sampling is not done.
When only 100,000 voters are polled out of roughly 140 million votes cast,
that is a sampling.
Post by mainframetech
EVERY voter is asked from a particular voting
place and compared to EVERY vote tallied at that place.
Where do you get these goofy ideas?
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It is ludicrous to believe if there is a discrepancy between
a sampling of the vote and the actual vote count, it is the vote count
that is in error.
It is ludicrous to think that "sampling" will get the results needed.
NEWSFLASH. That is how polling has been conducted for as long as there
have been polls. They use a sampling to get an idea how the whole will
vote. A poll's accuracy depends on the accuracy of the sample selected. If
the sample reflects the electorate, the polling will be fairly accurate.
If not, you will get results like we saw in 2016 where the pollsters
missed the boat in the key battleground states. They over sampled blacks
and under sampled white working class and rural voters. SURPRISE!!!
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Think about it, Obama created a vacuum in the Middle East for
the Russians to take advantage, and they did. Putin is the new
best friend with the Egyptians that Obama dumped on. Trump
needs to do some major damage control on that situation.
Trump does major damage whether he intends to or not, like his silly
tariff war. Hurting our allies, but not really the adversaries.
My guess is that in the short term it is going to cause products to become
more expensive. It amounts to nothing more than a tax increase on
consumers.
"Nothing more"? Do you realize you've just thrown most Americans under
the bus along with out best allies and everyone but our adversaries?
Tariff wars will raise OUR prices and lose OUR jobs as well as damage our
allies.
Trade wars will effect every country on both sides which is why ultimately
they will be resolved because nobody is going to win a trade war. Trump is
betting that eventually new trade deals can be negotiated which will be
more favorable to the US and level the playing field so that we can sell
our products in other countries as easily as they have been able sell
theirs in our country.
That's what he tells the faithful, and they will believe it, like
sheep to the slaughter. They will even sit still while they are sheared.
Making trouble politically is usually just another way of getting paid
under the table to stop making the trouble.
It's a lot like a labor dispute. When their is a strike, in the short run,
both labor and management suffer. Labor isn't getting their paychecks and
companies aren't producing products to sell. Eventually the two sides will
reach an agreement because it is in the interest of both to do so.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
It the short term everyone will suffer through
higher prices but if that means we are able to sell more goods overseas
than in the long run it will be beneficial.
"IF"! The other side of the tariff war has called Trump's bluff, so
he's not going to get a deal. He's a lousy negotiator in any event.
Look at how easily 'little rocketman' beat him on a big national deal.
And Trump got nothing from giving up things. No wonder he was bankrupted
6 times! Other billionaires don't get bankrupt at all.
Trump isn't bluffing. He really did impose the tariffs. One side or the
other might blink but more than likely, both sides will come to an
agreement both can live with.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
What will they think about us after that? Putin will be in
ecstasy at the break up of us and our allies. He doesn't like NATO which
is against him, so Trump agitates at NATO, he doesn't like the world all
getting together on Global Warming so he's happy that Trump has backed out
of the Paris accords and given up the leadership role as one of only 2
countries of the whole world that backed out!
I really don't care what other countries think of us. They need us more
than we need them. When it comes to foreign policy, we don't have friends,
we have interests.
You just don't get it. You're so besotted by Trump that you can't see
the real world!
Like most liberals, you are so blinded by your hatred of Trump that you
can't think rationally. Your knee jerk reaction is to attack Trump no
matter what he does. I didn't vote for Trump and there is much I don't
like about him but I am not nearly as turned off by him as I am by the
lefties and their allies in the "news" media. I find the non-stop attacks
and the one-sided reporting to be repulsive. I defend Trump based on the
adage that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". If he runs again in 2020
I will vote for him solely to jam it up the noses of the lefties and their
propaganda arm, aka the mainstream media.
Post by mainframetech
When it comes to foreign policy, we need friends as much
or more than other nations. We even pay them for their 'friendship',
That has been one of the problems. Countries we have given aid to thumb
their noses at us. Twice we've rescued France from Germany and they
haven't shown the least bit of gratitude.
Post by mainframetech
and
it pays off. When we need to bomb a nasty nation, we have access to that
nation and can overfly other territories because we have friends and are
not barred from what we need.
Right. Like when Reagan attacked Libya and the planes that were launched
from the UK had to fly around France, Spain, and Italy because those
pinheads wouldn't allow us to use their airspace to launch the attack.

" For the Libyan raid, the United States was denied overflight rights by
France, Spain, and Italy as well as the use of European continental bases,
forcing the Air Force portion of the operation to be flown around France
and Spain, over Portugal and through the Straits of Gibraltar, adding
1,300 miles (2,100 km) each way and requiring multiple aerial refuelings."
Post by mainframetech
And that's just an example. Of course
foreign policy is based on need, but we have as much or more need than
many other countries, since we tend to think we can walk in anywhere and
make law and policy. You know, Geo. Bush's nation building. And now it
looks like Trump has only one ally, Putin, whom he will kiss anywhere he
says to get close to him.
Spare me.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
FDR dealt with Stalin because at the time it was in our
interest to do so. Our so called "friends" have been taking advantage of
our generosity for years, freely selling their products in our country
while slapping tariffs on our products in their country. Trump wants us to
be able to play by the same rules that they do.
Of course he wants you to think that. And you blithely go along with
it. It will pay of for Trump bigtime, but not for you, and not for our
allies.
Screw 'em.
Post by mainframetech
Don't you get it? They all called Trump's bluff. He either
stops the problems he's made, or we all suffer except maybe him.
It ain't a bluff.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Putin wants the democrats and the Republicans to be at each other's
throats, and he's happy about that, because it's divide and conquer.
Democrat and Republican leaders are allies in a duopoly which all but
guarantees that those two parties will get all the elected offices while
keeping outsiders out of the game. Leader in both of them were appalled
that an outsider like Trump succeeding in hijacking the Republican Party
and winning the White House. It wasn't supposed to be like that. It was
supposed to be an establishment candidate succeeding Obama. Either Hillary
or Jeb Bush. It was their turn. They didn't want Trump and they didn't
want Bernie. They wanted one of their own. Most of the leaders in both
parties would rather it had been Hillary or Jeb rather than The Don.
Well, if there hadn't ben intervention, it might have gone that way.
That seems to be your fantasy.
Post by mainframetech
Hillary would have made a much tougher president than ole give-it-away
Trump.
Nothing in her past seems to indicate that would be true. She sold
influence to foreign countries while SOS. It was the biggest pay-to-play
scheme in history. Foreign countries made huge contributions to the
Clinton Foundation hoping it would buy them favors when Hillary became
President. It turned out to be money down a rat hole.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
And congress can't get anything done because of it.
That's good news. The less those assholes do, the less of my money they
will spend.
So easy to say, but what is the reality behind the words? The US
can't get things done like they used to be able to. Putin smiles again!
More of your fantasies. Are products are desired around the world, from
our movies, music, blue jeans, cars, etc.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
With a Trump at the helm
of the Republican party, it will stay that way, because the opposition
will not compromise.
Outstanding.
Post by mainframetech
And Putin wants Trump to make a mess out of the
politics of the USA so that we will do crazy things, and not do sane
things that we need to do. Putin is in his world, and Trump wants to make
a gift of it to him.
Now that's funny.
Tell it to the Crimeans and Ukraines.
Putin annexed the Crimea on Obama's watch. It was in all the papers.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They are the ones who are going to pay these tariffs, not the
foreign companies that export goods to the US. Corporations don't pay
taxes. They collect taxes. Eventually the governments of the world are
going to realize nobody wins a trade war and trade agreements will be
renegotiated in terms that are a little fairer to the US.
No one blinked when Trump put on the tariffs. Why would they? They
will simply hold out until Trump backs down, and then they might back
down. They aren't going to go soft because a fool like Trump got involved
in something he doesn't understand.
You've been listening to FOX News again.
You are responding to your own statements again.
Post by mainframetech
You were told no one blinked
when Trump did his foolish tariff thing, but the rest of the media pointed
out the many people that had a terrible opinion of Trump and his
silliness.
I really don't care what the lefties and their media allies think of Trump.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
They are just posturing to strengthen their hand prior to negotiations.
They all know knew agreements are needed because everyone will suffer in a
long term trade war.
They know that the US will suffer right along with them.
In the short term.
Post by mainframetech
Their offer
will be to go back to where we were before trump's foolishness, and all
will be forgiven. There's no plus side for the countries involved,
including us.
Trump won't agree to that. There will be some give and take on both sides.
That's how deals are made.
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
It's almost as if he were getting his marching orders from Putin directly.
It's almost as if you imagine everything you believe.
Post by mainframetech
Like this upcoming meeting with Putin where Trump has been insisting on
there being no aides in the room when they get together. Most everything
Trump does has made Putin very happy.
Hardly.
Oh? Were you going to mention sanctions that Trump put on Russia?
That Trump fought to avoid and ignored them? Then when they went on, they
were not going to hurt Russia much at all. And Trump's off again on his I
love Russia blat again. Trump says he's hard on Russia, and everyone lays
down and snoozes happily because Trump said all was OK. Lordee! Just
like he said there's no problem with nuclear war with N. Korea. The great
negotiator!
We should actually wait and see what comes from all these negotiations
with both are allies and adversaries. Right now it's all posturing.
Wow! A word that explains it all. We can all go back to sleep now.
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
The other problem is the Russians were supportive but wary in
Syria. Not anymore. What the Russians are doing is sending a
message they are the reliable friend to have in the Middle East,
not flaky USA who are hot and cold depending on who is now
the President. So in the long run it's the Russians who stand by
their Middle East allies, not the USA.
So yes, it appears the Russians did have ulterior motives to make
sure Obama was elected President of their biggest rival. He was
able to neutralize decades of US foreign policy in the Middle East
and to make matters even worse empowered Iran to have nuclear
weapons to dump on Israel.
Think about it, Israel and Egypt were two of our strongest allies in
the Middle East when Obama took office and both were severely
abused by his presidency. Does this mean the Russians tilted US
elections for the last 10 years and still in control? If true, what do
they want from Trump?
They've been getting everything they could want from Trump. Hard not
to believe that Putin has something on him that would embarrass him
thoroughly. Like the Moscow hotel story from the Dossier.
You mean the phony dossier that was put together under the guise of
"opposition research".
I have even more news for you. Not a single thing has been proven
wrong from the Dossier yet.
The problem is that not much has been proven right.
Post by mainframetech
And a number of things were either already
known to be true, or have been proven to be true since it came out.
You've been listening to 'fake news' from Trump who tells you how honest
he is, and what liars the media are.
One of those things is actually true.
Naah.
The part that is true is that the media are liars. Their lies stem not
from what they report but what they don't report. They deal in half
truths.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-04 13:41:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
OK, so you think that winning by criminal means does not invalidate any
election. Is that what Putin taught you?
Post by Ace Kefford
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
So you think our enemies should be allowed to do whatever they wan? And
you call that Patriotism?
bigdog
2018-07-05 02:59:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by bigdog
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
I think some of them are under the delusion that if they prove the
Russians colluded to throw the election to Trump, they can have the
results invalidated and Hillary will be named President. They must think
it is like the Miss America contest where if the winner is unable to
complete her term for any reason, the first runner-up will take over.
Given his grasp on constitutional principles regarding presidential
elections, it would not surprise me if Marsh believed that.
I can't imagine there is anyone who thinks that the results of the
election would be invalidated in light of the collaboration between the
Trump campaign and the Putin gang. Especially not after so much time.
I doubt that would even happen if it was shown how the Russians
manipulated electronic voting machines and records.
Once the electoral college results have been certified by a joint session
of Congress, it's a done deal. Whether an election is won by hook or by
crook at that point, there's no undoing it. If crimes were committed,
those responsible could be prosecuted but it won't change the result. If
the sitting president were guilty of the crime, it would be grounds for
impeachment and even if convicted by the Senate, the Veep would assume the
presidency, not the loser of the election.

I'm going to steal a line the liberals used throughout the election.

HILLARY CLINTON WILL NEVER BE PRESIDENT.
Anthony Marsh
2018-06-28 19:51:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ace Kefford
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
From their early beginning in which some of them, particularly the
non-Moscow inspired ones, raised sensible questions the CT's are now
reduced to the "so you're telling me there's a chance" mindset. They
Oh, so now you're reduced to Red-baiting? But we can't accuse Russsia of
using Americans to destroy our Democracy?
Post by Ace Kefford
cling to any little thing as holding out hope that just maybe, against
what seem to be the most likely explanations, there just might have been
some conspiracy.
mainframetech
2018-06-28 01:40:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
Sounds like you've been parroting your boy bd there. And yet a number
of things have occurred to help in solving the crime and they happened in
the middle of those 50 years. You (being an LN) were unaware of them.
One main thing was the creation of the ARRB and the data and laws that
attend them. Most of the answers to the crime are in the ARRB, which is
probably why the LNs are so afraid of it.
Post by claviger
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
Hmm. It doesn't occur to you that shooting with open sights at the
POTUS and then putting the scope back on the rifle is a time waster as the
cops are pounding up to catch you?
Post by claviger
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
Another logic failure. Nor seeing people in the TSBD when everyone is
at the windows and on the stoop looking at the motorcade does NOT mean
that there was no one in the building. Simple logic.
Post by claviger
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
The thinking displayed above would have all LNs "inoperative".

Chris
claviger
2018-06-28 01:58:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
The acting Mayor of Dealey Plaza gave up on a shot from the GK
and moved his snipers to the Dal-Tex Building.
Paul
2018-07-13 01:00:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
Good point Claviger. Also let's not forget his MO in the Walker shooting.
Take your shot, hide the gun, leave on foot. This is exactly what he did
for the Kennedy shooting. He got away with it for the Walker shooting so
why not do the same think for the Kennedy shooting.
Anthony Marsh
2018-07-13 18:37:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul
Post by claviger
CTs have been throwing spaghetti against the wall for over 50 years
and none ever sticks. Every CT thinks his/her theory is the real deal
of what happened, which means the other 99% must be wrong. The
odds of any other CT being correct would be negligible.
As a LN all of them are negligible. LHO made it look easy. Fool a pal
to let him bring a heavy bag to work and hide it on the 6th floor. Put
it together 30 minutes before the parade passes by and wait for the
short range shot that can be done with open sights. Hide the rifle on
the way out and act calm on the way down stairs. He was very lucky
to barely make the lunchroom to stand in front of the drink machine.
An experienced cop would have had the doors locked before search
of the upper floors. No group of strangers were seen in the building
before the parade. Nobody standing anywhere in Dealey Plaza was
seen with a rifle before, during, or after the motorcade passed by.
This fact leaves all CTs inoperative unless there is evidence of another
shot based on trajectory and terminal ballistics.
Good point Claviger. Also let's not forget his MO in the Walker shooting.
Take your shot, hide the gun, leave on foot. This is exactly what he did
for the Kennedy shooting. He got away with it for the Walker shooting so
why not do the same think for the Kennedy shooting.
Not exactly the same. Oswald did not hide his gun at the Walker house.
He hid it in the woods and it was not found.
Paul? Are you Paul Burke or Paul Burke or Jason Burke?
Hard to tell when you keep changing your alias every day.
Loading...