Discussion:
CT politics
(too old to reply)
claviger
2018-02-22 02:13:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.

By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.

However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.

On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.

So here are some questions:

How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?

Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?

Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?


Conservative CTs

Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura

Liberals LNs

Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
mainframetech
2018-02-23 01:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
So you claim us to be a "multitude".
Post by claviger
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
Sadly, the so-called conservative LNs completely ignore or dismiss any
and all evidence that points to what they have invested themselves in for
years, and that is obvious conspiracy. It's probably from reading al
those kook LN websites.
Post by claviger
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
Of course, we will have to realize that CTs are mostly open minded and
trying to solve an obvious crime of conspiracy, and many theories will
come from that intelligent thinking. For the LNs, simply believing the
'official' line in the WCR when it has to use 'theories' to give a picture
of the crime is silly, but that's their choice.
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
Actually, evidence has ben produced, but as noted above, the LNs ignore
it, as proven by the previous statements.
Post by claviger
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Some people don't want to bother with having to consider that their
leaders might lie to them, it makes for a lot of work and responsibility.
Others are curious or angry that a murder of a POTUSS can be let to go by
with no real response.
Post by claviger
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Given the real evidence, and the actions and statements of the major
names in the case, and the results of the civil trial, where a specific
person was found guilty of the murder, with governmental help, there
should be no debate, but folks might not know about those things, so they
keep on arguing.
Post by claviger
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
There were no conspiracies in those cases. The guilty parties were
clear.
Post by claviger
Conservative CTs
Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura, et al
Liberals LNs
Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
Chris
bigdog
2018-02-27 03:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
So you claim us to be a "multitude".
Yes, there are lots of silly people in this world.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
Sadly, the so-called conservative LNs completely ignore or dismiss any
and all evidence that points to what they have invested themselves in for
years, and that is obvious conspiracy. It's probably from reading al
those kook LN websites.
Irony duly noted.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
Of course, we will have to realize that CTs are mostly open minded
A person with a hole in his head is open minded.
Post by mainframetech
and
trying to solve an obvious crime of conspiracy, and many theories will
come from that intelligent thinking.
It must really be intelligent when there is only one truth and lots of
theories.
Post by mainframetech
For the LNs, simply believing the
'official' line in the WCR when it has to use 'theories' to give a picture
of the crime is silly, but that's their choice.
Yes, we limit ourselves to what hard evidence tells us truth is and it's
pretty boring.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
Actually, evidence has ben produced, but as noted above, the LNs ignore
it, as proven by the previous statements.
The LNs laugh at what you consider to be evidence.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Some people don't want to bother with having to consider that their
leaders might lie to them, it makes for a lot of work and responsibility.
Others are curious or angry that a murder of a POTUSS can be let to go by
with no real response.
I know the government lies to me. They just don't do it all the time. They
do it when it is in the interest of those in power to do so.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Given the real evidence, and the actions and statements of the major
names in the case, and the results of the civil trial, where a specific
person was found guilty of the murder, with governmental help, there
should be no debate, but folks might not know about those things, so they
keep on arguing.
Civil trials don't determine guilt or innocence. The determine liability
and have a much lower burden of proof.
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
There were no conspiracies in those cases. The guilty parties were
clear.
That hasn't stopped conspiracy theorists in other assassinations.
claviger
2018-02-23 02:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
mainframetech
2018-02-24 21:36:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
You apparently didn't find out that Craig Roberts who did a lot sniper
work in Vietnam said that he would never have chosen the TSBD 6th floor,
but he would have picked the GK behind the fence as the perfect place to
fire from and get away.

Chris
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-26 04:49:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
You apparently didn't find out that Craig Roberts who did a lot sniper
work in Vietnam said that he would never have chosen the TSBD 6th floor,
but he would have picked the GK behind the fence as the perfect place to
fire from and get away.
Yeah, I am not impressed. Apples and oranges.
Were the many 7 story buildings in the jungles of Vietnam?
Post by mainframetech
Chris
claviger
2018-02-26 16:10:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
You apparently didn't find out that Craig Roberts who did a lot sniper
work in Vietnam said that he would never have chosen the TSBD 6th floor,
but he would have picked the GK behind the fence as the perfect place to
fire from and get away.
Chris
He actually responded to someone on this newsgroup. I asked him a
question but he never answered and we never heard from him again. In
Vietnam he had jungle to hide in on a mission. No evidence he ever made a
shot at a target in an urban setting. A sniper needs to do two things:
make a shot from a position that provides cover and then leave the area
unseen. The wooden fence provides the first but not the second.
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the man with
a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away from the crowd
that descended on the parking lot?
claviger
2018-02-27 03:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
You apparently didn't find out that Craig Roberts who did a lot sniper
work in Vietnam said that he would never have chosen the TSBD 6th floor,
but he would have picked the GK behind the fence as the perfect place to
fire from and get away.
Chris
He actually responded to someone on this newsgroup. I asked him a
question but he never answered and we never heard from him again. In
Vietnam he had jungle to hide in on a mission. No evidence he ever made a
shot at a target in an urban setting.
No evidence he ever made a shot at a target in an urban setting, as a
military sniper. He might have been a SWAT sniper in a city, a totally
different kind of situation.
Post by claviger
make a shot from a position that provides cover and then leave the area
unseen. The wooden fence provides the first but not the second.
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the man with
a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away from the crowd
that descended on the parking lot?
Stealth and escape are essential for a combat sniper or urban sniper hired
by organized crime.
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-27 16:00:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
You apparently didn't find out that Craig Roberts who did a lot sniper
work in Vietnam said that he would never have chosen the TSBD 6th floor,
but he would have picked the GK behind the fence as the perfect place to
fire from and get away.
Chris
He actually responded to someone on this newsgroup. I asked him a
question but he never answered and we never heard from him again. In
Vietnam he had jungle to hide in on a mission. No evidence he ever made a
make a shot from a position that provides cover and then leave the area
unseen. The wooden fence provides the first but not the second.
False. The men that Bowers saw on the grassy knoll left unseen.
And if you're CIA you have a get out of jail free card.
Post by claviger
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the man with
a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away from the crowd
that descended on the parking lot?
He could not see the rifle from his angle.
The sniper did not get away from the cop. The cop let him go.
claviger
2018-02-28 02:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
You apparently didn't find out that Craig Roberts who did a lot sniper
work in Vietnam said that he would never have chosen the TSBD 6th floor,
but he would have picked the GK behind the fence as the perfect place to
fire from and get away.
Chris
He actually responded to someone on this newsgroup. I asked him a
question but he never answered and we never heard from him again. In
Vietnam he had jungle to hide in on a mission. No evidence he ever made a
make a shot from a position that provides cover and then leave the area
unseen. The wooden fence provides the first but not the second.
False. The men that Bowers saw on the grassy knoll left unseen.
And if you're CIA you have a get out of jail free card.
How could they leave unseen? Are you talking about Hudson and Mudd?
The third guy hung around the patio after shots were fired.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the man with
a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away from the crowd
that descended on the parking lot?
He could not see the rifle from his angle.
Bowers could see the back of the fence where nobody was standing.
Where was the rifle located he could not see?
Post by Anthony Marsh
The sniper did not get away from the cop. The cop let him go.
What happened to the rifle?
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-01 03:48:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
You apparently didn't find out that Craig Roberts who did a lot sniper
work in Vietnam said that he would never have chosen the TSBD 6th floor,
but he would have picked the GK behind the fence as the perfect place to
fire from and get away.
Chris
He actually responded to someone on this newsgroup. I asked him a
question but he never answered and we never heard from him again. In
Vietnam he had jungle to hide in on a mission. No evidence he ever made a
make a shot from a position that provides cover and then leave the area
unseen. The wooden fence provides the first but not the second.
False. The men that Bowers saw on the grassy knoll left unseen.
And if you're CIA you have a get out of jail free card.
How could they leave unseen? Are you talking about Hudson and Mudd?
The third guy hung around the patio after shots were fired.
Are you talking about Zapruder and Sitzman? They WERE seen on film and
photos. But the fake SS agent and Smith confronting him were not seen on
film or photos we have ever been allowed to see. Maybe they are on some
outtakes.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the man with
a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away from the crowd
that descended on the parking lot?
He could not see the rifle from his angle.
Bowers could see the back of the fence where nobody was standing.
Where was the rifle located he could not see?
Hidden by the trees.
YOU can't even see him on the Moorman photo. You say he's a bush.
As far as I know it wasn't George or Jeb.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
The sniper did not get away from the cop. The cop let him go.
What happened to the rifle?
Handed off to his spotter.
claviger
2018-03-01 23:55:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The men that Bowers saw on the grassy knoll left unseen.
And if you're CIA you have a get out of jail free card.
How could they leave unseen? Are you talking about Hudson and Mudd?
The third guy hung around the patio after shots were fired.
Are you talking about Zapruder and Sitzman?
No, I'm talking about Hudson, Mudd, and Sweater Guy.
Post by Anthony Marsh
They WERE seen on film and photos.
Yes they were.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But the fake SS agent and Smith confronting him were not seen on
film or photos we have ever been allowed to see. Maybe they are
on some outtakes.
You forget there was a third witness to that confrontation.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the
man with a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away
from the crowd that descended on the parking lot?
He could not see the rifle from his angle.
He could see if a man was standing in that area. Bowers said there was
no person behind the fence.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Bowers could see the back of the fence where nobody was standing.
Where was the rifle located he could not see?
Hidden by the trees.
Bowers said nobody was behind the fence at the time of the shooting,
with or without a rifle.
Post by Anthony Marsh
YOU can't even see him on the Moorman photo. You say he's a bush.
As far as I know it wasn't George or Jeb.
So the sniper was wearing a bush on his head? Very clever but might
attract attention walking through the parking lot. Smith did not mention
the guy he approached had a bush on his head.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
The sniper did not get away from the cop. The cop let him go.
What happened to the rifle?
Handed off to his spotter.
Did the spotter a have bush on his head too or maybe a bird nest with
eggs? These guys are very clever with urban camouflage.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-03 16:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The men that Bowers saw on the grassy knoll left unseen.
And if you're CIA you have a get out of jail free card.
How could they leave unseen? Are you talking about Hudson and Mudd?
The third guy hung around the patio after shots were fired.
Are you talking about Zapruder and Sitzman?
No, I'm talking about Hudson, Mudd, and Sweater Guy.
You're talking kook nonsense now. Making up your own names for imaginary
people. Did you mean Young Fellow and Bigfoot?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
They WERE seen on film and photos.
Yes they were.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But the fake SS agent and Smith confronting him were not seen on
film or photos we have ever been allowed to see. Maybe they are
on some outtakes.
You forget there was a third witness to that confrontation.
Who?
Weitzman?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the
man with a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away
from the crowd that descended on the parking lot?
He could not see the rifle from his angle.
He could see if a man was standing in that area. Bowers said there was
no person behind the fence.
He said he lost sight of one man. We've been over this thousands of
times and when I cite Bowers testimony to prove the point, he objects to
the long text. So I'll just post the important sentence and see if you
remember it:

Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not
say.
The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The
white shirt, yes; I think he was.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Bowers could see the back of the fence where nobody was standing.
Where was the rifle located he could not see?
Hidden by the trees.
Bowers said nobody was behind the fence at the time of the shooting,
with or without a rifle.
He could not see the one man in the suit.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
YOU can't even see him on the Moorman photo. You say he's a bush.
As far as I know it wasn't George or Jeb.
So the sniper was wearing a bush on his head? Very clever but might
No, some WC defender moron said it was a bush not a man.
Post by claviger
attract attention walking through the parking lot. Smith did not mention
the guy he approached had a bush on his head.
What is the name of that trick? Straw Man? Or Bush Man?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
The sniper did not get away from the cop. The cop let him go.
What happened to the rifle?
Handed off to his spotter.
Did the spotter a have bush on his head too or maybe a bird nest with
eggs? These guys are very clever with urban camouflage.
You are being ridiculous only to prove that you are a WC defender.
You can never admit any fact.
claviger
2018-03-04 14:09:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The men that Bowers saw on the grassy knoll left unseen.
And if you're CIA you have a get out of jail free card.
How could they leave unseen? Are you talking about Hudson and Mudd?
The third guy hung around the patio after shots were fired.
Are you talking about Zapruder and Sitzman?
No, I'm talking about Hudson, Mudd, and Sweater Guy.
You're talking kook nonsense now. Making up your own names for imaginary
people. Did you mean Young Fellow and Bigfoot?
Hudson we know, Mudd was the man in red, and the well dressed
man was with the mother and child.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
They WERE seen on film and photos.
Yes they were.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But the fake SS agent and Smith confronting him were not seen on
film or photos we have ever been allowed to see. Maybe they are
on some outtakes.
You forget there was a third witness to that confrontation.
Who?
Weitzman?
DPD Smith said he was a Deputy Sheriff. If true that rules out
the alleged SSA being a sniper.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the
man with a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away
from the crowd that descended on the parking lot?
He could not see the rifle from his angle.
He could see if a man was standing in that area. Bowers said there was
no person behind the fence.
He said he lost sight of one man. We've been over this thousands of
times and when I cite Bowers testimony to prove the point, he objects
to the long text.
Who is "he" that objects to long text?
Post by Anthony Marsh
So I'll just post the important sentence and see if you
Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not
say.
The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The
white shirt, yes; I think he was.
If walking or running he would get somebody's attention, especially
someone sitting on the second floor of a 14 ft tower.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Bowers could see the back of the fence where nobody was standing.
Where was the rifle located he could not see?
Hidden by the trees.
Bowers said nobody was behind the fence at the time of the shooting,
with or without a rifle.
He could not see the one man in the suit.
Why not? Where was the man in the suit standing? What kind of suit was
he wearing?
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
YOU can't even see him on the Moorman photo. You say he's a bush.
As far as I know it wasn't George or Jeb.
So the sniper was wearing a bush on his head? Very clever but might
No, some WC defender moron said it was a bush not a man.
A sniper in camouflage standing still looks like a bush, until he starts
walking. A man in a suit with a rifle would get everybody's attention.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
attract attention walking through the parking lot. Smith did not mention
the guy he approached had a bush on his head.
What is the name of that trick? Straw Man? Or Bush Man?
One of these outfits? :

Straw Man sniper
Loading Image...

Straw Woman sniper
Loading Image...

Bush Man sniper
Loading Image...

Shrub Man sniper
Loading Image...

Leaf Man Sniper
Loading Image...

Suit Man sniper
Loading Image...

Suit Man sniper with radio
Loading Image...
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
The sniper did not get away from the cop. The cop let him go.
What happened to the rifle?
Handed off to his spotter.
Did the spotter a have bush on his head too or maybe a bird nest with
eggs? These guys are very clever with urban camouflage.
You are being ridiculous only to prove that you are a WC defender.
You can never admit any fact.
You are allergic to facts. You break out in hives when a plate full of
facts is set on the table for your consumption.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-05 01:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The men that Bowers saw on the grassy knoll left unseen.
And if you're CIA you have a get out of jail free card.
How could they leave unseen? Are you talking about Hudson and Mudd?
The third guy hung around the patio after shots were fired.
Are you talking about Zapruder and Sitzman?
No, I'm talking about Hudson, Mudd, and Sweater Guy.
You're talking kook nonsense now. Making up your own names for imaginary
people. Did you mean Young Fellow and Bigfoot?
Hudson we know, Mudd was the man in red, and the well dressed
man was with the mother and child.
Mudd was not even there. Don't fall for hoaxes.
You are making stuff from your imagination.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
They WERE seen on film and photos.
Yes they were.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But the fake SS agent and Smith confronting him were not seen on
film or photos we have ever been allowed to see. Maybe they are
on some outtakes.
You forget there was a third witness to that confrontation.
Who?
Weitzman?
DPD Smith said he was a Deputy Sheriff. If true that rules out
the alleged SSA being a sniper.
No. That was AFTER the confrontation with Joe Smith.
And later Weitzman got there and helped search the cars.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the
man with a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away
from the crowd that descended on the parking lot?
He could not see the rifle from his angle.
He could see if a man was standing in that area. Bowers said there was
no person behind the fence.
He said he lost sight of one man. We've been over this thousands of
times and when I cite Bowers testimony to prove the point, he objects
to the long text.
Who is "he" that objects to long text?
McAdams just did.
Maybe you never bother to read ALL the messages.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
So I'll just post the important sentence and see if you
Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not
say.
The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The
white shirt, yes; I think he was.
If walking or running he would get somebody's attention, especially
someone sitting on the second floor of a 14 ft tower.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Bowers could see the back of the fence where nobody was standing.
Where was the rifle located he could not see?
Hidden by the trees.
Bowers said nobody was behind the fence at the time of the shooting,
with or without a rifle.
He could not see the one man in the suit.
Why not? Where was the man in the suit standing? What kind of suit was
he wearing?
Dark suit. He would have been standing in the parking lot on the east
side near the fence.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
YOU can't even see him on the Moorman photo. You say he's a bush.
As far as I know it wasn't George or Jeb.
So the sniper was wearing a bush on his head? Very clever but might
No, some WC defender moron said it was a bush not a man.
A sniper in camouflage standing still looks like a bush, until he starts
walking. A man in a suit with a rifle would get everybody's attention.
Not the sniper I am talking about. He was wearing a suit.
Maybe someone else has a sniper dressed up as Bigfoot.
Why didn't the shooter in the TSBD get everybody's attention?
Some people assumed he was a Secret Service agent.
The cops wouldn't allow someone else with a rifle to be there, right?
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
attract attention walking through the parking lot. Smith did not mention
the guy he approached had a bush on his head.
What is the name of that trick? Straw Man? Or Bush Man?
Straw Man sniper
https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1Ey_zHVXXXXcYXXXXq6xXFXXXg/1-conjunto-de-ca-a-ao-ar-livre-palhas-feito-m-o-roupas-Set-bras-o.jpg_50x50.jpg
Straw Woman sniper
http://harmlesscreatures.com/Images/Project%20images/Wizard%20of%20Oz/ScareCrowFull002.jpg
Bush Man sniper
https://www.ghilliesuits.org/images/P/336-480907%20copy.jpg
Shrub Man sniper
https://img00.deviantart.net/b4a8/i/2013/323/1/c/the_shrub_man_by_fehfeh13-d6uvs4w.jpg
Leaf Man Sniper
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1123/2496/products/hunting-camo-3d-leaf-ghillie-suit-hunting-camo-1_1024x1024.jpg?v=1491834521
Suit Man sniper
https://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/483265/269000351/stock-photo-man-in-suit-with-sniper-rifle-isolated-on-white-269000351.jpg
Suit Man sniper with radio
https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-a-soldier-with-a-gun-isolated-on-white-119400817.jpg
Must be Silly Season. Halloween is over.
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
The sniper did not get away from the cop. The cop let him go.
What happened to the rifle?
Handed off to his spotter.
Did the spotter a have bush on his head too or maybe a bird nest with
eggs? These guys are very clever with urban camouflage.
You are being ridiculous only to prove that you are a WC defender.
You can never admit any fact.
You are allergic to facts. You break out in hives when a plate full of
facts is set on the table for your consumption.
And you say that to the man who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. Oh, the irony!
What did YOU ever prove? Can you even prove that you are a real person?
claviger
2018-03-06 02:49:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
False. The men that Bowers saw on the grassy knoll left unseen.
And if you're CIA you have a get out of jail free card.
How could they leave unseen? Are you talking about Hudson and Mudd?
The third guy hung around the patio after shots were fired.
Are you talking about Zapruder and Sitzman?
No, I'm talking about Hudson, Mudd, and Sweater Guy.
You're talking kook nonsense now. Making up your own names for imaginary
people. Did you mean Young Fellow and Bigfoot?
Hudson we know, Mudd was the man in red, and the well dressed
man was with the mother and child.
Mudd was not even there. Don't fall for hoaxes.
I don't fall for your hoaxes which are so easy to disprove.
Post by Anthony Marsh
You are making stuff from your imagination.
That is your technique, not mine.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Commission Exhibit No. 2108
Date: 1/28/64

Mr. F. LEE MUDD, Route 1, Box 109, Keithville, Louisiana; advised as follows:

On November 22, 1963, he was in Dallas, Texas, on a business trip to purchase clothing for his store. He operates the Southside Ranch, 8066 Mansfield Road, Shreveport, Louisiana, a western store. While in Dallas he decided to watch the parade for President KENNEDY. At about noon he was watching the parade from a position on the north side of Elm Street and some 75 to 100 feet west of a building, which he later learned was the Texas School Book Depository. He saw the President's car approaching from the east on Elm Street in the parade, and he recognized President KENNEDY and saw him waving to the crowd. When the President's car was some 50 or more feet away from him, he heard what sounded to him like two gunshots, and he saw the President slump. Immediately thereafter, he observed the President's car pull out of the line of the parade and continue west on Elm Street toward the underpass. When the President's car came abreast of MUDD, he could see the President slumped down toward his wife, who was leaning over him. He recalled seeing another man in the car, whom he did not recognize at the time but whom he later learned was Governor CONNALLY and this man appeared to be holding one arm to his side. However, he did not notice this man much because his attention was focused on the President.

Mr. MUDD stated he definitely recalls hearing two shots, probably less than a second apart. He said there may have been a third shot fired, but he could not be sure of this. He stated that immediately after the shots were fired, some of the spectators along the side of the street dropped to the ground, and he did so himself, inasmuch as the shots alarmed him and he did not know what had happened or where the shots had come from. He looked around him, and he recalled that in looking toward the building nearby, he noticed several broken windows on about the fourth floor, and the thought occurred to him that possibly the shots had been fired through these broken windows. However, he did not observe any smoke, nor did he see anyone at the windows, nor did he notice any motion within the building. He said the building appeared to be abandoned. Subsequent to the shooting, he did not notice anyone enter or leave the building. Mr. MUDD stated that when the shots were fired, they sounded as if they came from the direction of the building.

Mr. MUDD stated that he remained in the vicinity for possibly three or four minutes, after which he walked back toward the main part of town, where he had parked his car. He did not remain to talk to police or Secret Service men because be did not feel he had seen anything that would be of assistance to them.

Mr. MUDD said he was not with anyone else at the time this occurred. He said he later made another trip to Dallas, accompanied by his wife, and he showed her the place where the assassination occurred, and he observed the Texas School Book Depository building, and he is confident this is the same building he was standing near at the time of the assassination. Mr. MUDD said he could furnish no further information regarding this matter.

http://www.jfk-online.com/mudd.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
They WERE seen on film and photos.
Yes they were.
Post by Anthony Marsh
But the fake SS agent and Smith confronting him were not seen on
film or photos we have ever been allowed to see. Maybe they are
on some outtakes.
You forget there was a third witness to that confrontation.
Who?
Weitzman?
DPD Smith said he was a Deputy Sheriff. If true that rules out
the alleged SSA being a sniper.
No. That was AFTER the confrontation with Joe Smith.
And later Weitzman got there and helped search the cars.
Mr. SMITH. Yes, sir; I checked all the cars. I looked into all the cars and checked around the bushes. Of course, I wasn't alone. There was some deputy sheriff with me, and I believe one Secret Service man when I got there.
I got to make this statement, too. I felt awfully silly, but after the shot and this woman, I pulled my pistol from my holster, and I thought, this is silly, I don't know who I am looking for, and I put it back. Just as I did, he showed me that he was a Secret Service agent.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you accost this man?
Mr. SMITH. Well, he saw me coming with my pistol and right away he showed me who he was.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the
man with a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away
from the crowd that descended on the parking lot?
He could not see the rifle from his angle.
He could see if a man was standing in that area. Bowers said there was
no person behind the fence.
He said he lost sight of one man. We've been over this thousands of
times and when I cite Bowers testimony to prove the point, he objects
to the long text.
Who is "he" that objects to long text?
McAdams just did.
Maybe you never bother to read ALL the messages.
Sometimes you paste a "War and Peace" type message that
few people bother reading.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
So I'll just post the important sentence and see if you
Mr. BALL - Were the two men there at the time?
Mr. BOWERS - I--as far as I know, one of them was. The other I could not
say.
The darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees. The
white shirt, yes; I think he was.
If walking or running he would get somebody's attention, especially
someone sitting on the second floor of a 14 ft tower.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Bowers could see the back of the fence where nobody was standing.
Where was the rifle located he could not see?
Hidden by the trees.
Bowers said nobody was behind the fence at the time of the shooting,
with or without a rifle.
He could not see the one man in the suit.
Why not? Where was the man in the suit standing? What kind of suit was
he wearing?
Dark suit. He would have been standing in the parking lot on the east
side near the fence.
Nowhere does DPD Smith mention a dark suit. You made that up.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
YOU can't even see him on the Moorman photo. You say he's a bush.
As far as I know it wasn't George or Jeb.
So the sniper was wearing a bush on his head? Very clever but might
No, some WC defender moron said it was a bush not a man.
A sniper in camouflage standing still looks like a bush, until he starts
walking. A man in a suit with a rifle would get everybody's attention.
Not the sniper I am talking about. He was wearing a suit.
Quote:
Officer Smith was also interviewed by journalist and author, Anthony Summers. According to Summers, Smith described the “Secret Service” agent he encountered as follows:
“He looked like an auto mechanic. He had on a sports shirt and sports pants. But he had dirty fingernails, it looked like, and hands that looked like an auto mechanic's hands. And afterwards it didn't ring true for the Secret Service. At the time we were so pressed for time, and we were searching. And he had produced correct identification, and we just overlooked the thing. I should have checked that man closer, but at the time I didn't snap on it.”
http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2012/10/fake-secret-service-agents-in-dealey.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
Maybe someone else has a sniper dressed up as Bigfoot.
Bigfoot was a fake witness named Gordon Arnold. He was a Bigmouthl phony.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Why didn't the shooter in the TSBD get everybody's attention?
He did, over 200 witnesses heard the shots he fired.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Some people assumed he was a Secret Service agent.
Only one traffic cop made that mistake.
Post by Anthony Marsh
The cops wouldn't allow someone else with a rifle to be there, right?
I hope not, or the Deputy Sheriff standing next to DPD Smith.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
attract attention walking through the parking lot. Smith did not mention
the guy he approached had a bush on his head.
What is the name of that trick? Straw Man? Or Bush Man?
Straw Man sniper
https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1Ey_zHVXXXXcYXXXXq6xXFXXXg/1-conjunto-de-ca-a-ao-ar-livre-palhas-feito-m-o-roupas-Set-bras-o.jpg_50x50.jpg
Straw Woman sniper
http://harmlesscreatures.com/Images/Project%20images/Wizard%20of%20Oz/ScareCrowFull002.jpg
Bush Man sniper
https://www.ghilliesuits.org/images/P/336-480907%20copy.jpg
Shrub Man sniper
https://img00.deviantart.net/b4a8/i/2013/323/1/c/the_shrub_man_by_fehfeh13-d6uvs4w.jpg
Leaf Man Sniper
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1123/2496/products/hunting-camo-3d-leaf-ghillie-suit-hunting-camo-1_1024x1024.jpg?v=1491834521
Suit Man sniper
https://thumb7.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/483265/269000351/stock-photo-man-in-suit-with-sniper-rifle-isolated-on-white-269000351.jpg
Suit Man sniper with radio
https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-photo-a-soldier-with-a-gun-isolated-on-white-119400817.jpg
Must be Silly Season. Halloween is over.
Always is when CTs dress up known facts in costumes, thinking we won't notice.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by Anthony Marsh
The sniper did not get away from the cop. The cop let him go.
What happened to the rifle?
Handed off to his spotter.
Did the spotter a have bush on his head too or maybe a bird nest with
eggs? These guys are very clever with urban camouflage.
You are being ridiculous only to prove that you are a WC defender.
You can never admit any fact.
You are allergic to facts. You break out in hives when a plate full of
facts is set on the table for your consumption.
And you say that to the man who proved that the Zapruder film is
authentic. Oh, the irony!
Only a few extreme CTs say the Z-film was a fake. Nobody takes them seriously.
Post by Anthony Marsh
What did YOU ever prove? Can you even prove that you are a real person?
In this one post I proved you play fast and loose with the facts.
mainframetech
2018-02-27 19:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
You apparently didn't find out that Craig Roberts who did a lot sniper
work in Vietnam said that he would never have chosen the TSBD 6th floor,
but he would have picked the GK behind the fence as the perfect place to
fire from and get away.
Chris
He actually responded to someone on this newsgroup. I asked him a
question but he never answered and we never heard from him again. In
Vietnam he had jungle to hide in on a mission. No evidence he ever made a
make a shot from a position that provides cover and then leave the area
unseen. The wooden fence provides the first but not the second.
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the man with
a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away from the crowd
that descended on the parking lot?
You apparently know little of these things. Roberts stated in one of
his books "Kill Zone" that after looking over Dealey Plaza, he would never
have picked the TSBD 6th floor window, but he would have picked behind the
fence on the GK. And BTW, he had experience AFTER Vietnam on a SWAT group
among other tasks.

By being behind the fence, when he made his last shot, people were still
ducking down on the street and curb, and there was plenty of time to get
in to a car and drive away.

Chris
bigdog
2018-03-01 02:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
You apparently didn't find out that Craig Roberts who did a lot sniper
work in Vietnam said that he would never have chosen the TSBD 6th floor,
but he would have picked the GK behind the fence as the perfect place to
fire from and get away.
Chris
He actually responded to someone on this newsgroup. I asked him a
question but he never answered and we never heard from him again. In
Vietnam he had jungle to hide in on a mission. No evidence he ever made a
make a shot from a position that provides cover and then leave the area
unseen. The wooden fence provides the first but not the second.
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the man with
a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away from the crowd
that descended on the parking lot?
You apparently know little of these things. Roberts stated in one of
his books "Kill Zone" that after looking over Dealey Plaza, he would never
have picked the TSBD 6th floor window, but he would have picked behind the
fence on the GK. And BTW, he had experience AFTER Vietnam on a SWAT group
among other tasks.
Oswald was not an experienced sniper. In fact he had screwed up his only
previous attempt. Oswald's choices of location was limited. How could he
possibly hope to find a location outside the TSBD where he wouldn't be
spotted before the motorcade arrived? Why would he? Oswald played the hand
that was dealt him. Since he apparently succeeded at what he was trying to
do, I wouldn't second guess his choice.
Post by mainframetech
By being behind the fence, when he made his last shot, people were still
ducking down on the street and curb, and there was plenty of time to get
in to a car and drive away.
Why would he risk being spotted with a rifle before the motorcade arrived?
It's not as if the area behind the fence was well hidden. At the very
least Bowers would have seen him. He also would need to reassemble the
rifle before the motorcade arrived which would mean he would have to
remove it from the bag which would be a dead giveaway as to his
intentions. It would have been really stupid of Oswald to try to find a
location outside the TSBD and risk exposure. As I said, given his success,
it seems silly to second guess him.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-02 01:44:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
You apparently didn't find out that Craig Roberts who did a lot sniper
work in Vietnam said that he would never have chosen the TSBD 6th floor,
but he would have picked the GK behind the fence as the perfect place to
fire from and get away.
Chris
He actually responded to someone on this newsgroup. I asked him a
question but he never answered and we never heard from him again. In
Vietnam he had jungle to hide in on a mission. No evidence he ever made a
make a shot from a position that provides cover and then leave the area
unseen. The wooden fence provides the first but not the second.
Assuming Bowers was an ordinary citizen he could have spotted the man with
a rifle and called police. How would any sniper get away from the crowd
that descended on the parking lot?
You apparently know little of these things. Roberts stated in one of
his books "Kill Zone" that after looking over Dealey Plaza, he would never
have picked the TSBD 6th floor window, but he would have picked behind the
fence on the GK. And BTW, he had experience AFTER Vietnam on a SWAT group
among other tasks.
Oswald was not an experienced sniper. In fact he had screwed up his only
previous attempt. Oswald's choices of location was limited. How could he
Exactly. And for the Walker attempt he chose the best position, behind the
fence. And it was only 120 feet away. A very easy shot. So how did he
miss? He had never used a scope before. The spot that you see in the
crosshairs is not necessarily where the bullet goes. It flies ABOVE the
point of aim.
Post by bigdog
possibly hope to find a location outside the TSBD where he wouldn't be
spotted before the motorcade arrived? Why would he? Oswald played the hand
that was dealt him. Since he apparently succeeded at what he was trying to
do, I wouldn't second guess his choice.
Post by mainframetech
By being behind the fence, when he made his last shot, people were still
ducking down on the street and curb, and there was plenty of time to get
in to a car and drive away.
Why would he risk being spotted with a rifle before the motorcade arrived?
Someone was spotted with a rifle before the motorcade arrived, but by the
time the police arrived there was no one there. Bowers saw a couple of
cars coming in to check out the area. Not stopped by the police. The
police were on the overpass.
Post by bigdog
It's not as if the area behind the fence was well hidden. At the very
least Bowers would have seen him. He also would need to reassemble the
Bowers did see him and lost track of him under the trees.
Post by bigdog
rifle before the motorcade arrived which would mean he would have to
remove it from the bag which would be a dead giveaway as to his
intentions. It would have been really stupid of Oswald to try to find a
location outside the TSBD and risk exposure. As I said, given his success,
it seems silly to second guess him.
Maybe the witnesses thought he was a Secret Service as some on the
sidewalk thought about the man in the window with a rifle.
deke
2018-02-28 00:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
You apparently didn't find out that Craig Roberts who did a lot sniper
work in Vietnam said that he would never have chosen the TSBD 6th floor,
but he would have picked the GK behind the fence as the perfect place to
fire from and get away.
Chris
I read a book by Craig Roberts some years ago. He was basically a LN until
he looked out a sixth floor window next to the "sniper's" nest and thought
"you gotta be kidding me!"
claviger
2018-03-01 01:52:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by deke
Post by mainframetech
Post by claviger
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a
former military serviceman trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able
to hit a target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
has ever been proved and highly unlikely based on close witnesses in the
area.
The Dal-Tex Building was the best location for a professional sniper with
cover to set up, shoot, and leave unseen. The wooden fence on the GK was
the worst location to fire a shot and leave unseen. No professional
sniper would choose that location. Only a suicide sniper would use this
position and that did not happen.
You apparently didn't find out that Craig Roberts who did a lot sniper
work in Vietnam said that he would never have chosen the TSBD 6th floor,
but he would have picked the GK behind the fence as the perfect place to
fire from and get away.
Chris
I read a book by Craig Roberts some years ago. He was basically a LN until
he looked out a sixth floor window next to the "sniper's" nest and thought
"you gotta be kidding me!"
Craig Roberts was trying to promote his CT. Evidently LHO made shots
he couldn't make. Roberts was wrong, so what?
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-23 23:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
Then why don't you even the playing field by making up a conspiracy
theory that JFK was assassinated by the Liberals because he was a
conservative? Do I have to do everything for you? Need someone to tie
your shoelaces?
Post by claviger
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
The JBS loved to promote conspiracy theories, and Alex Jones and company.
Trump says Ted Cruz's father did it. The CIA love to blame it on Castro.
Post by claviger
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
Hey, YOU said that, not I. McAdams beat up on HIM this time, not me.
Post by claviger
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
I doubt that. You just want a conspiracy which reflects your paranoid
beliefs.
Post by claviger
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
Yes, but we get no help from you. I have to battle all the kooks all by
myself.
Post by claviger
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
That presumes the existence of evidence which We don't yet have because
the government has covered it up. YOUR job is to say that it did for our
own good.
Post by claviger
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
OMG! You mean ever worse than conspiracy believers and the cover-up
enablers?
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
How come you WC defenders never have rabid arguments about whose SBT is
better? Could it be that you just don't care about the facts?
Post by claviger
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
No, it's ridiculous. Apples and oranges.
Post by claviger
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Such as?
Post by claviger
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Maybe there are, but you would never know about them. Most of our
conferences were about various assassinations. If we tried to talk abou
them here McAdams would block them as being off-topic.
Post by claviger
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
We have discussed the Reagan attempt here before and I have added some
unique details, but the main question is solved by watching Hinckley on
film.
Post by claviger
Conservative CTs
Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura
Liberals LNs
Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
You are pointing to the professional cover-up. Just say that they did it
for the good of the country.
Bill Clarke
2018-02-27 03:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
Then why don't you even the playing field by making up a conspiracy
theory that JFK was assassinated by the Liberals because he was a
conservative? Do I have to do everything for you? Need someone to tie
your shoelaces?
Post by claviger
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
The JBS loved to promote conspiracy theories, and Alex Jones and company.
Trump says Ted Cruz's father did it. The CIA love to blame it on Castro.
Marsh, I just finished reading Max Boot's new book on the life of Edward
Landsdale. He mentioned that some blame Landsdale as the man in the CIA
that formed the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Boot calls this theory so
many horse apples but I'd like to know your position on this. Since I
don't float around the conspiracy folks I'd never heard of this claim that
Landsdale did it.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
Hey, YOU said that, not I. McAdams beat up on HIM this time, not me.
Post by claviger
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
I doubt that. You just want a conspiracy which reflects your paranoid
beliefs.
Post by claviger
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
Yes, but we get no help from you. I have to battle all the kooks all by
myself.
Post by claviger
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
That presumes the existence of evidence which We don't yet have because
the government has covered it up. YOUR job is to say that it did for our
own good.
Post by claviger
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
OMG! You mean ever worse than conspiracy believers and the cover-up
enablers?
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
How come you WC defenders never have rabid arguments about whose SBT is
better? Could it be that you just don't care about the facts?
Post by claviger
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
No, it's ridiculous. Apples and oranges.
Post by claviger
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Such as?
Post by claviger
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Maybe there are, but you would never know about them. Most of our
conferences were about various assassinations. If we tried to talk abou
them here McAdams would block them as being off-topic.
Post by claviger
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
We have discussed the Reagan attempt here before and I have added some
unique details, but the main question is solved by watching Hinckley on
film.
Post by claviger
Conservative CTs
Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura
Liberals LNs
Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
You are pointing to the professional cover-up. Just say that they did it
for the good of the country.
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-28 21:17:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
Then why don't you even the playing field by making up a conspiracy
theory that JFK was assassinated by the Liberals because he was a
conservative? Do I have to do everything for you? Need someone to tie
your shoelaces?
Post by claviger
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
The JBS loved to promote conspiracy theories, and Alex Jones and company.
Trump says Ted Cruz's father did it. The CIA love to blame it on Castro.
Marsh, I just finished reading Max Boot's new book on the life of Edward
Landsdale. He mentioned that some blame Landsdale as the man in the CIA
that formed the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Boot calls this theory so
So what? I never agreed with that their either.
Post by Bill Clarke
many horse apples but I'd like to know your position on this. Since I
don't float around the conspiracy folks I'd never heard of this claim that
Landsdale did it.
I had heard it before, especially as relates to getting rid of JFK to
escalate the Vietnam War.
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
Hey, YOU said that, not I. McAdams beat up on HIM this time, not me.
Post by claviger
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
I doubt that. You just want a conspiracy which reflects your paranoid
beliefs.
Post by claviger
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
Yes, but we get no help from you. I have to battle all the kooks all by
myself.
Post by claviger
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
That presumes the existence of evidence which We don't yet have because
the government has covered it up. YOUR job is to say that it did for our
own good.
Post by claviger
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
OMG! You mean ever worse than conspiracy believers and the cover-up
enablers?
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
How come you WC defenders never have rabid arguments about whose SBT is
better? Could it be that you just don't care about the facts?
Post by claviger
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
No, it's ridiculous. Apples and oranges.
Post by claviger
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Such as?
Post by claviger
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Maybe there are, but you would never know about them. Most of our
conferences were about various assassinations. If we tried to talk abou
them here McAdams would block them as being off-topic.
Post by claviger
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
We have discussed the Reagan attempt here before and I have added some
unique details, but the main question is solved by watching Hinckley on
film.
Post by claviger
Conservative CTs
Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura
Liberals LNs
Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
You are pointing to the professional cover-up. Just say that they did it
for the good of the country.
Bill Clarke
2018-03-01 23:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
Then why don't you even the playing field by making up a conspiracy
theory that JFK was assassinated by the Liberals because he was a
conservative? Do I have to do everything for you? Need someone to tie
your shoelaces?
Post by claviger
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
The JBS loved to promote conspiracy theories, and Alex Jones and company.
Trump says Ted Cruz's father did it. The CIA love to blame it on Castro.
Marsh, I just finished reading Max Boot's new book on the life of Edward
Landsdale. He mentioned that some blame Landsdale as the man in the CIA
that formed the conspiracy to assassinate JFK. Boot calls this theory so
So what? I never agreed with that their either.
Good. I'm proud of you.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
many horse apples but I'd like to know your position on this. Since I
don't float around the conspiracy folks I'd never heard of this claim that
Landsdale did it.
I had heard it before, especially as relates to getting rid of JFK to
escalate the Vietnam War.
Thanks for your opinion. But Landsdale didn't want to escalate the war in
Vietnam; he was a hearts and minds warrior. That is why McNamara (I spit)
swept him into the dust band and the CIA history isn't kind to Landsdale.
He was a maverick but a maverick with the right answers.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Bill Clarke
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
Hey, YOU said that, not I. McAdams beat up on HIM this time, not me.
Post by claviger
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
I doubt that. You just want a conspiracy which reflects your paranoid
beliefs.
Post by claviger
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
Yes, but we get no help from you. I have to battle all the kooks all by
myself.
Post by claviger
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
That presumes the existence of evidence which We don't yet have because
the government has covered it up. YOUR job is to say that it did for our
own good.
Post by claviger
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
OMG! You mean ever worse than conspiracy believers and the cover-up
enablers?
Post by claviger
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
How come you WC defenders never have rabid arguments about whose SBT is
better? Could it be that you just don't care about the facts?
Post by claviger
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
No, it's ridiculous. Apples and oranges.
Post by claviger
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Such as?
Post by claviger
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Maybe there are, but you would never know about them. Most of our
conferences were about various assassinations. If we tried to talk abou
them here McAdams would block them as being off-topic.
Post by claviger
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
We have discussed the Reagan attempt here before and I have added some
unique details, but the main question is solved by watching Hinckley on
film.
Post by claviger
Conservative CTs
Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura
Liberals LNs
Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
You are pointing to the professional cover-up. Just say that they did it
for the good of the country.
bigdog
2018-02-27 01:09:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
Conservative CTs
Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura
Liberals LNs
Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
You left out the most ardent liberal LN of all. Vincent Bugliosi.

Jesse Ventura has described himself as a centrist. He is conservative on
fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. That leans toward the
libertarian viewpoint but he is not a pure libertarian either. Centrist is
probably as good a definition as any for him.

There is anecdotal evidence that CTs are more inclined to be liberal and
LNs are more inclined to be conservative but at most that is a tendency
and not a hard, fast rule. There are plenty of exceptions to that. I
wonder if any polling has been done to get an accurate reflection of the
percentage of liberals and conservatives among the two camps.
John McAdams
2018-02-27 01:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
Conservative CTs
Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura
Liberals LNs
Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
You left out the most ardent liberal LN of all. Vincent Bugliosi.
Jesse Ventura has described himself as a centrist. He is conservative on
fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. That leans toward the
libertarian viewpoint but he is not a pure libertarian either. Centrist is
probably as good a definition as any for him.
There is anecdotal evidence that CTs are more inclined to be liberal and
LNs are more inclined to be conservative but at most that is a tendency
and not a hard, fast rule. There are plenty of exceptions to that. I
wonder if any polling has been done to get an accurate reflection of the
percentage of liberals and conservatives among the two camps.
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf#page=8

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf#page=13

A lot of interesting data there.

Some of the questions aren't the best. For example, do you believe
aliens exist. I certainly do, they come to the U.S. from all over the
world.

And did Bush mislead people won WMDs. He clearly did, but the issue
is whether he *intentionally* did. The CIA clearly told him Saddam
had WMDs.

Some conspiracy theories are clearly ideologically loaded, but others
aren't.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-02-27 03:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:23:54 -0600, John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by bigdog
There is anecdotal evidence that CTs are more inclined to be liberal and
LNs are more inclined to be conservative but at most that is a tendency
and not a hard, fast rule. There are plenty of exceptions to that. I
wonder if any polling has been done to get an accurate reflection of the
percentage of liberals and conservatives among the two camps.
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf#page=8
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf#page=13
A lot of interesting data there.
Some of the questions aren't the best. For example, do you believe
aliens exist. I certainly do, they come to the U.S. from all over the
world.
And did Bush mislead people won WMDs. He clearly did, but the issue
is whether he *intentionally* did. The CIA clearly told him Saddam
had WMDs.
Just read the full version of the question, and it does say
"intentionally," as it should.

https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf#page=2

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-28 21:15:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 19:23:54 -0600, John McAdams
Post by John McAdams
Post by bigdog
There is anecdotal evidence that CTs are more inclined to be liberal and
LNs are more inclined to be conservative but at most that is a tendency
and not a hard, fast rule. There are plenty of exceptions to that. I
wonder if any polling has been done to get an accurate reflection of the
percentage of liberals and conservatives among the two camps.
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf#page=8
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf#page=13
A lot of interesting data there.
Some of the questions aren't the best. For example, do you believe
aliens exist. I certainly do, they come to the U.S. from all over the
world.
And did Bush mislead people won WMDs. He clearly did, but the issue
is whether he *intentionally* did. The CIA clearly told him Saddam
had WMDs.
Just read the full version of the question, and it does say
"intentionally," as it should.
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that Bush intentionally mislead
people ABOUT Hussein having WMDs? Maybe about the type and how many, but
he didn't mislead anyone about the fact that Saddam Hussein had some
WMDs. But we know he did because we gave them to him and we saw him use
them on civilians. It's true that he did not have a Cobalt Bomb.
Post by John McAdams
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf#page=2
That page didn't load for me. Must be a conspiracy! Maybe not against
me, just against Windows 10.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
2018-02-28 02:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf#page=13
A lot of interesting data there.
Some of the questions aren't the best. For example, do you believe
aliens exist. I certainly do, they come to the U.S. from all over the
world.
And did Bush mislead people won WMDs. He clearly did, but the issue
is whether he *intentionally* did. The CIA clearly told him Saddam
had WMDs.
Good point. French, German, and Israeli Intel thought so too. Hussein
did have poison gas and used them against the Iranians and Kurds. The
SCUD missiles in Iraq could be fitted with tactical nuclear warheads.
Several were missing from Russian inventory. When the CIA put all this
info together, a possibility Iraq had the potential to launch poison gas
or nuclear warheads against Israel.


WMD:
The U.S. military refers to WMD as: chemical, biological, radiological, or
nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass
casualties.
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-01 03:38:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by John McAdams
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf#page=13
A lot of interesting data there.
Some of the questions aren't the best. For example, do you believe
aliens exist. I certainly do, they come to the U.S. from all over the
world.
And did Bush mislead people won WMDs. He clearly did, but the issue
is whether he *intentionally* did. The CIA clearly told him Saddam
had WMDs.
Good point. French, German, and Israeli Intel thought so too. Hussein
did have poison gas and used them against the Iranians and Kurds. The
SCUD missiles in Iraq could be fitted with tactical nuclear warheads.
Several were missing from Russian inventory. When the CIA put all this
info together, a possibility Iraq had the potential to launch poison gas
or nuclear warheads against Israel.
Again, you miss the point. WE knew he had all that stuff because we had
given it to him. WE were not too concerned about him killing his own
people. But WE needed to scare the public to justify OUR invading Iraq. So
the President and his minions started the hoax that Iraq had nuclear
weapons and could use them against US. Look at how many people voted to
authorize the war. And many were also Democrats. Even Hillary.

IF Saddam actually had nuclear weapons even I would have authorized the
attack. I had warned that there was secret nuclear bomb research being
done in a lab inside a mountain, protected against any conventional
attack. And at the time I knew someone who worked in a company that could
pass along that warning.
Post by claviger
The U.S. military refers to WMD as: chemical, biological, radiological, or
nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass
casualties.
But McAdams doesn't understand that. He dances around the issue of whether
Saddam actually had nuclear weapons or not. Just the possibility that he
did is enough for him to support the war.

Well, neither will he admit that Israel HAS nuclear weapons and he would
never authorize an attack on Israel. The point is not about having nuclear
weapons or not. It is only about regime change.
John McAdams
2018-03-01 03:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 28 Feb 2018 22:38:55 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The U.S. military refers to WMD as: chemical, biological, radiological, or
nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass
casualties.
But McAdams doesn't understand that. He dances around the issue of whether
Saddam actually had nuclear weapons or not. Just the possibility that he
did is enough for him to support the war.
You need to quit lying about what I said.

You claimed that Bush said that Saddam had nukes, and I pointed out
that Bush said no such thing. He did say that Saddam was on track to
get them, which was the CIA assessment.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-02 00:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2018 22:38:55 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The U.S. military refers to WMD as: chemical, biological, radiological, or
nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass
casualties.
But McAdams doesn't understand that. He dances around the issue of whether
Saddam actually had nuclear weapons or not. Just the possibility that he
did is enough for him to support the war.
You need to quit lying about what I said.
Obey the rules here or change them. You are not allowed to say that I am
lying. I am just reciting your position.
Post by John McAdams
You claimed that Bush said that Saddam had nukes, and I pointed out
that Bush said no such thing. He did say that Saddam was on track to
get them, which was the CIA assessment.
I knew that, but Bush and his spokespeople when further and said that the
reason we had to attack now was because Saddam had nuclear weapons which
he might us on the US. That was what the hunt for for. Nuclear Weapons.
Then they accidentally found billions of dollars which magically
disappeared.

And you approved of that too.
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-03-02 01:40:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 1 Mar 2018 19:08:24 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2018 22:38:55 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
But McAdams doesn't understand that. He dances around the issue of whether
Saddam actually had nuclear weapons or not. Just the possibility that he
did is enough for him to support the war.
You need to quit lying about what I said.
Obey the rules here or change them. You are not allowed to say that I am
lying. I am just reciting your position.
Post by John McAdams
You claimed that Bush said that Saddam had nukes, and I pointed out
that Bush said no such thing. He did say that Saddam was on track to
get them, which was the CIA assessment.
I knew that, but Bush and his spokespeople when further and said that the
reason we had to attack now was because Saddam had nuclear weapons which
he might us on the US.
Bush certainly didn't say that. And I'm pretty sure nobody in his
administration did either.

If you disagree, then post your source.

And *don't* post some massive pile of text, that doesn't show what you
claim it does.

Post a link to support your contention.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-02 22:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 1 Mar 2018 19:08:24 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2018 22:38:55 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
But McAdams doesn't understand that. He dances around the issue of whether
Saddam actually had nuclear weapons or not. Just the possibility that he
did is enough for him to support the war.
You need to quit lying about what I said.
Obey the rules here or change them. You are not allowed to say that I am
lying. I am just reciting your position.
Post by John McAdams
You claimed that Bush said that Saddam had nukes, and I pointed out
that Bush said no such thing. He did say that Saddam was on track to
get them, which was the CIA assessment.
I knew that, but Bush and his spokespeople when further and said that the
reason we had to attack now was because Saddam had nuclear weapons which
he might us on the US.
Bush certainly didn't say that. And I'm pretty sure nobody in his
administration did either.
Cheney did.
Post by John McAdams
If you disagree, then post your source.
I can't. You won't allow me to post the article and when I post the URL
you refuse to click on it.
Post by John McAdams
And *don't* post some massive pile of text, that doesn't show what you
claim it does.
Well, some moron here, not you, challenged me to document my claims.
Post by John McAdams
Post a link to support your contention.
I post links all the time and WC defenders refuse to click on them.


https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war/

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/iraq-war-wmds-donald-rumsfeld-new-report-213530


http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2018-03-03 22:09:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 2 Mar 2018 17:36:25 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 1 Mar 2018 19:08:24 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2018 22:38:55 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
But McAdams doesn't understand that. He dances around the issue of whether
Saddam actually had nuclear weapons or not. Just the possibility that he
did is enough for him to support the war.
You need to quit lying about what I said.
Obey the rules here or change them. You are not allowed to say that I am
lying. I am just reciting your position.
Post by John McAdams
You claimed that Bush said that Saddam had nukes, and I pointed out
that Bush said no such thing. He did say that Saddam was on track to
get them, which was the CIA assessment.
I knew that, but Bush and his spokespeople when further and said that the
reason we had to attack now was because Saddam had nuclear weapons which
he might us on the US.
Bush certainly didn't say that. And I'm pretty sure nobody in his
administration did either.
Cheney did.
Post by John McAdams
If you disagree, then post your source.
I can't. You won't allow me to post the article and when I post the URL
you refuse to click on it.
Post by John McAdams
And *don't* post some massive pile of text, that doesn't show what you
claim it does.
Well, some moron here, not you, challenged me to document my claims.
Post by John McAdams
Post a link to support your contention.
I post links all the time and WC defenders refuse to click on them.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war/
The closest you can get is this:

<quote on>

Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in
2003: “We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to
trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact,
reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

<end quote>

Given that nobody else in the Bush administration said Saddam had
nuclear weapons, Cheney probably meant that Saddam had "reconstituted"
his program. You don't "reconstitute" nuclear weapons. You build
them.
Post by Anthony Marsh
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/iraq-war-wmds-donald-rumsfeld-new-report-213530
This doesn't quote anybody saying Saddam has nuclear weapons. That he
is trying to get them, yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html
Doesn't quote anybody saying Saddam *has* nuclear weapons. Badly
mischaracterized the National Intelligence Estimate:

<quote on>

. . . this new document roared with certitude that Saddam not only
possessed chemical and biological weapons but could make a nuclear
bomb in a matter of months.

<end quote>

That's not what the report said. You have quoted an unreliable source.
Post by Anthony Marsh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Does not quote any Bush administration official saying that Saddam had
nuclear weapons.

Your problem, Tony, is that you'll believe anything about people whom
you hate for political reasons.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
2018-03-04 20:52:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 2 Mar 2018 17:36:25 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 1 Mar 2018 19:08:24 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2018 22:38:55 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
But McAdams doesn't understand that. He dances around the issue of whether
Saddam actually had nuclear weapons or not. Just the possibility that he
did is enough for him to support the war.
You need to quit lying about what I said.
Obey the rules here or change them. You are not allowed to say that I am
lying. I am just reciting your position.
Post by John McAdams
You claimed that Bush said that Saddam had nukes, and I pointed out
that Bush said no such thing. He did say that Saddam was on track to
get them, which was the CIA assessment.
I knew that, but Bush and his spokespeople when further and said that the
reason we had to attack now was because Saddam had nuclear weapons which
he might us on the US.
Bush certainly didn't say that. And I'm pretty sure nobody in his
administration did either.
Cheney did.
Post by John McAdams
If you disagree, then post your source.
I can't. You won't allow me to post the article and when I post the URL
you refuse to click on it.
Post by John McAdams
And *don't* post some massive pile of text, that doesn't show what you
claim it does.
Well, some moron here, not you, challenged me to document my claims.
Post by John McAdams
Post a link to support your contention.
I post links all the time and WC defenders refuse to click on them.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war/
<quote on>
Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in
2003: “We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to
trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact,
reconstituted nuclear weapons.”
<end quote>
Given that nobody else in the Bush administration said Saddam had
nuclear weapons, Cheney probably meant that Saddam had "reconstituted"
his program. You don't "reconstitute" nuclear weapons. You build
them.
Post by Anthony Marsh
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/iraq-war-wmds-donald-rumsfeld-new-report-213530
This doesn't quote anybody saying Saddam has nuclear weapons. That he
is trying to get them, yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html
Doesn't quote anybody saying Saddam *has* nuclear weapons. Badly
<quote on>
. . . this new document roared with certitude that Saddam not only
possessed chemical and biological weapons but could make a nuclear
bomb in a matter of months.
<end quote>
That's not what the report said. You have quoted an unreliable source.
Post by Anthony Marsh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Does not quote any Bush administration official saying that Saddam had
nuclear weapons.
Your problem, Tony, is that you'll believe anything about people whom
you hate for political reasons.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Osiraq - Iraq Special Weapons Facilities
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-05 16:46:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Post by John McAdams
On 2 Mar 2018 17:36:25 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 1 Mar 2018 19:08:24 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2018 22:38:55 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
But McAdams doesn't understand that. He dances around the issue of whether
Saddam actually had nuclear weapons or not. Just the possibility that he
did is enough for him to support the war.
You need to quit lying about what I said.
Obey the rules here or change them. You are not allowed to say that I am
lying. I am just reciting your position.
Post by John McAdams
You claimed that Bush said that Saddam had nukes, and I pointed out
that Bush said no such thing. He did say that Saddam was on track to
get them, which was the CIA assessment.
I knew that, but Bush and his spokespeople when further and said that the
reason we had to attack now was because Saddam had nuclear weapons which
he might us on the US.
Bush certainly didn't say that. And I'm pretty sure nobody in his
administration did either.
Cheney did.
Post by John McAdams
If you disagree, then post your source.
I can't. You won't allow me to post the article and when I post the URL
you refuse to click on it.
Post by John McAdams
And *don't* post some massive pile of text, that doesn't show what you
claim it does.
Well, some moron here, not you, challenged me to document my claims.
Post by John McAdams
Post a link to support your contention.
I post links all the time and WC defenders refuse to click on them.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war/
<quote on>
Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in
2003: ???We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to
trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact,
reconstituted nuclear weapons.???
<end quote>
Given that nobody else in the Bush administration said Saddam had
nuclear weapons, Cheney probably meant that Saddam had "reconstituted"
his program. You don't "reconstitute" nuclear weapons. You build
them.
Post by Anthony Marsh
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/iraq-war-wmds-donald-rumsfeld-new-report-213530
This doesn't quote anybody saying Saddam has nuclear weapons. That he
is trying to get them, yes.
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html
Doesn't quote anybody saying Saddam *has* nuclear weapons. Badly
<quote on>
. . . this new document roared with certitude that Saddam not only
possessed chemical and biological weapons but could make a nuclear
bomb in a matter of months.
<end quote>
That's not what the report said. You have quoted an unreliable source.
Post by Anthony Marsh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Does not quote any Bush administration official saying that Saddam had
nuclear weapons.
Your problem, Tony, is that you'll believe anything about people whom
you hate for political reasons.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Osiraq - Iraq Special Weapons Facilities
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm
Yes, but nuclear facility does not have to mean nuclear weapons. Should
we invade Iceland because it has nulcear faciilties?
John McAdams
2018-03-07 02:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 5 Mar 2018 11:46:27 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Post by John McAdams
On 2 Mar 2018 17:36:25 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Osiraq - Iraq Special Weapons Facilities
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm
Yes, but nuclear facility does not have to mean nuclear weapons. Should
we invade Iceland because it has nulcear faciilties?
In Saddam's hands, nuclear facilities meant an *attempt* to get
nuclear weapons.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
claviger
2018-03-09 01:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
Osiraq - Iraq Special Weapons Facilities
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/facility/osiraq.htm
Yes, but nuclear facility does not have to mean nuclear weapons.
In the Muslim world it does.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Should we invade Iceland because it has nulcear faciilties?
No need to invade, an outpost will do. When the Marines see how
beautiful the Iceland girls are there will be a long line of volunteers
to fill that observation post!
Loading Image...

Even the police! Gives the word frisked a whole new meaning.
https://www.facebook.com/129872567096582/photos/806707656079733/

Yes there is safe sex in Iceland. See below:
Loading Image...
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-05 16:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
On 2 Mar 2018 17:36:25 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 1 Mar 2018 19:08:24 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2018 22:38:55 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
But McAdams doesn't understand that. He dances around the issue of whether
Saddam actually had nuclear weapons or not. Just the possibility that he
did is enough for him to support the war.
You need to quit lying about what I said.
Obey the rules here or change them. You are not allowed to say that I am
lying. I am just reciting your position.
Post by John McAdams
You claimed that Bush said that Saddam had nukes, and I pointed out
that Bush said no such thing. He did say that Saddam was on track to
get them, which was the CIA assessment.
I knew that, but Bush and his spokespeople when further and said that the
reason we had to attack now was because Saddam had nuclear weapons which
he might us on the US.
Bush certainly didn't say that. And I'm pretty sure nobody in his
administration did either.
Cheney did.
Post by John McAdams
If you disagree, then post your source.
I can't. You won't allow me to post the article and when I post the URL
you refuse to click on it.
Post by John McAdams
And *don't* post some massive pile of text, that doesn't show what you
claim it does.
Well, some moron here, not you, challenged me to document my claims.
Post by John McAdams
Post a link to support your contention.
I post links all the time and WC defenders refuse to click on them.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war/
<quote on>
Host Chris Matthews asked Morell about a statement Cheney made in
2003: ???We know he [Saddam Hussein] has been absolutely devoted to
trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact,
reconstituted nuclear weapons.???
<end quote>
Given that nobody else in the Bush administration said Saddam had
nuclear weapons, Cheney probably meant that Saddam had "reconstituted"
his program. You don't "reconstitute" nuclear weapons. You build
them.
Is that the best confession you could come up with? What about the
Mushroom clouds? Can't you say those are conventional weapons?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/iraq-war-wmds-donald-rumsfeld-new-report-213530
This doesn't quote anybody saying Saddam has nuclear weapons. That he
is trying to get them, yes.
I said that long before they did.

But I also know that Saddam bragged that he HAD nuclear weapons to BLUFF
Iran. I don't care about THAT. I only care about the LIES that the Bush
admiinitration told to justify going to war. Remeber in the old days when
wee would only go to war is we were attacked?
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html
Doesn't quote anybody saying Saddam *has* nuclear weapons. Badly
<quote on>
. . . this new document roared with certitude that Saddam not only
possessed chemical and biological weapons but could make a nuclear
bomb in a matter of months.
<end quote>
That's not what the report said. You have quoted an unreliable source.
I am pointing out that the Hawks misrepresented the NIE. The neocons had
written a letter to Bush urging him to invade Iraq years earlier.
Post by John McAdams
Post by Anthony Marsh
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Does not quote any Bush administration official saying that Saddam had
nuclear weapons.
Your problem, Tony, is that you'll believe anything about people whom
you hate for political reasons.
And what is that political reason? You Mean like starting wars for money?
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
c***@gmail.com
2018-03-15 14:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 1 Mar 2018 19:08:24 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2018 22:38:55 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
But McAdams doesn't understand that. He dances around the issue of whether
Saddam actually had nuclear weapons or not. Just the possibility that he
did is enough for him to support the war.
You need to quit lying about what I said.
Obey the rules here or change them. You are not allowed to say that I am
lying. I am just reciting your position.
Post by John McAdams
You claimed that Bush said that Saddam had nukes, and I pointed out
that Bush said no such thing. He did say that Saddam was on track to
get them, which was the CIA assessment.
I knew that, but Bush and his spokespeople when further and said that the
reason we had to attack now was because Saddam had nuclear weapons which
he might us on the US.
Bush certainly didn't say that. And I'm pretty sure nobody in his
administration did either.
Cheney did.
Post by John McAdams
If you disagree, then post your source.
I can't. You won't allow me to post the article and when I post the URL
you refuse to click on it.
Post by John McAdams
And *don't* post some massive pile of text, that doesn't show what you
claim it does.
Well, some moron here, not you, challenged me to document my claims.
Post by John McAdams
Post a link to support your contention.
I post links all the time and WC defenders refuse to click on them.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war/
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/iraq-war-wmds-donald-rumsfeld-new-report-213530
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Post by John McAdams
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
-- President Bill Clinton (State of the Union Address), Jan. 27, 1998

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators.""Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."
-- Sen. John Edwards (D, NC) Feb. 24, 2002

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." "
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D, MA) Sep. 27, 2002

"Now let me be clear -- I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him."
-- State Senator Barack Obama (Democrat, Illinois) Oct. 2, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction."
-- Senator John Edwards (D, NC), Oct. 7, 2002

"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."
-- Sen. Harry Reid (D. NV) Oct. 9, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."
-- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D. CA) Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."
-- Ex President Bill Clinton, Jul. 22, 2003 (Interview with CNN Larry King)

I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening.
-- Rep. Richard Gephardt (D, MT) Nov. 2, 2003
OHLeeRedux
2018-03-02 22:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 28 Feb 2018 22:38:55 -0500, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by claviger
The U.S. military refers to WMD as: chemical, biological, radiological, or
nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass
casualties.
But McAdams doesn't understand that. He dances around the issue of whether
Saddam actually had nuclear weapons or not. Just the possibility that he
did is enough for him to support the war.
You need to quit lying about what I said.
Obey the rules here or change them. You are not allowed to say that I am
lying. I am just reciting your position.
I've told you before, if you don't want to be called a duck, then stop
quacking.
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-28 21:18:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by John McAdams
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
Conservative CTs
Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura
Liberals LNs
Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
You left out the most ardent liberal LN of all. Vincent Bugliosi.
Jesse Ventura has described himself as a centrist. He is conservative on
fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. That leans toward the
libertarian viewpoint but he is not a pure libertarian either. Centrist is
probably as good a definition as any for him.
There is anecdotal evidence that CTs are more inclined to be liberal and
LNs are more inclined to be conservative but at most that is a tendency
and not a hard, fast rule. There are plenty of exceptions to that. I
wonder if any polling has been done to get an accurate reflection of the
percentage of liberals and conservatives among the two camps.
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf#page=8
https://www.publicpolicypolling.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf#page=13
A lot of interesting data there.
Some of the questions aren't the best. For example, do you believe
aliens exist. I certainly do, they come to the U.S. from all over the
world.
No, you're just paranoid. You see illegal aliens everywhere, even under
your bed.
Post by John McAdams
And did Bush mislead people won WMDs. He clearly did, but the issue
is whether he *intentionally* did. The CIA clearly told him Saddam
had WMDs.
And he did. How did we know? Because we gave them to him and saw him use
them on his own people. Are you going to deny what you saw with your own
eyes?
Post by John McAdams
Some conspiracy theories are clearly ideologically loaded, but others
aren't.
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Steve M. Galbraith
2018-02-27 21:23:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
Conservative CTs
Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura
Liberals LNs
Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
You left out the most ardent liberal LN of all. Vincent Bugliosi.
Jesse Ventura has described himself as a centrist. He is conservative on
fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. That leans toward the
libertarian viewpoint but he is not a pure libertarian either. Centrist is
probably as good a definition as any for him.
There is anecdotal evidence that CTs are more inclined to be liberal and
LNs are more inclined to be conservative but at most that is a tendency
and not a hard, fast rule. There are plenty of exceptions to that. I
wonder if any polling has been done to get an accurate reflection of the
percentage of liberals and conservatives among the two camps.
Ironically, Bugliosi was himself a big conspiracy advocate. He believed
the Supreme Court (i.e., those five justices who decided the case)
conspired to break the law when then ruled in Bush v. Gore to stop the
recount.

And he later said that Bush conspired with others to lie us into Iraq by
falsifying pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs. For that he should
have been tried to first degree murder.

Yeah, he was bit of a crank.
bigdog
2018-03-01 02:32:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Steve M. Galbraith
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
Conservative CTs
Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura
Liberals LNs
Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
You left out the most ardent liberal LN of all. Vincent Bugliosi.
Jesse Ventura has described himself as a centrist. He is conservative on
fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. That leans toward the
libertarian viewpoint but he is not a pure libertarian either. Centrist is
probably as good a definition as any for him.
There is anecdotal evidence that CTs are more inclined to be liberal and
LNs are more inclined to be conservative but at most that is a tendency
and not a hard, fast rule. There are plenty of exceptions to that. I
wonder if any polling has been done to get an accurate reflection of the
percentage of liberals and conservatives among the two camps.
Ironically, Bugliosi was himself a big conspiracy advocate. He believed
the Supreme Court (i.e., those five justices who decided the case)
conspired to break the law when then ruled in Bush v. Gore to stop the
recount.
And he later said that Bush conspired with others to lie us into Iraq by
falsifying pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD programs. For that he should
have been tried to first degree murder.
Yeah, he was bit of a crank.
Even more ironic is that he apparently strongly believed there was a
conspiracy to kill RFK. I would love to have seen him layout as thorough a
case for an RFK conspiracy as he did for the sole guilt of Oswald.
Anthony Marsh
2018-02-28 21:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bigdog
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
Conservative CTs
Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura
Liberals LNs
Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
You left out the most ardent liberal LN of all. Vincent Bugliosi.
Jesse Ventura has described himself as a centrist. He is conservative on
fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. That leans toward the
libertarian viewpoint but he is not a pure libertarian either. Centrist is
probably as good a definition as any for him.
There is anecdotal evidence that CTs are more inclined to be liberal and
LNs are more inclined to be conservative but at most that is a tendency
and not a hard, fast rule. There are plenty of exceptions to that. I
wonder if any polling has been done to get an accurate reflection of the
percentage of liberals and conservatives among the two camps.
Maybe it depends on which assassination you are talking about.
I think in general that Liberals are more interested in the
assassination of Liberals than of conservatives and vice versa.
Robert Harris
2018-02-28 02:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies.
Why do you care what people you identify as idiots, believe?

Have you considered looking at the evidence instead of adversaries??

1. Carlos Marcello confessed, to his attorney and to an FBI informant that
he ordered the assassination.

2. Jack Ruby was Marello's "money man" in Dallas. As Marcello himself
said, he financed his nightclub and funded his bribery of some DPD
officers.

3. Ruby met with Marcello lieutenant, Joseph Campisi the night before the
assassination and a few days after.

4. Johnny Roselli was murdered, shortly after telling the Washington Post
that the mob ordered Ruy to kill Oswald.

5. Sam Giancana was murdered 5 days prior to testifying before the Church
committee.

6. Charles Nicolletti was murdered within 24 HOURS, after HSCA
investigators started calling around, trying to locate him.

7. Jim Braden had connections to Marcello as well, and lied repeatedly to
authorities who question him about his presence in the Daltex building,
during the assassination.

You should read this article by Pulitzer prize nominee and editor of
Rolling Stone, Howard Kohn,

http://jfkhistory.com/mobsters/Nicoletti.html
Post by claviger
It is obvious CTs are emotionally
It gets tiresome listening to the endless blather of people attacking each
other, while stubbornly refusing to consider the evidence.


Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh
2018-03-01 03:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robert Harris
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies.
Why do you care what people you identify as idiots, believe?
Where have all the Grammar Nazis gone when we desperately need them???
Post by Robert Harris
Have you considered looking at the evidence instead of adversaries??
1. Carlos Marcello confessed, to his attorney and to an FBI informant that
he ordered the assassination.
2. Jack Ruby was Marello's "money man" in Dallas. As Marcello himself
said, he financed his nightclub and funded his bribery of some DPD
officers.
3. Ruby met with Marcello lieutenant, Joseph Campisi the night before the
assassination and a few days after.
4. Johnny Roselli was murdered, shortly after telling the Washington Post
that the mob ordered Ruy to kill Oswald.
5. Sam Giancana was murdered 5 days prior to testifying before the Church
committee.
6. Charles Nicolletti was murdered within 24 HOURS, after HSCA
investigators started calling around, trying to locate him.
7. Jim Braden had connections to Marcello as well, and lied repeatedly to
authorities who question him about his presence in the Daltex building,
during the assassination.
You should read this article by Pulitzer prize nominee and editor of
Rolling Stone, Howard Kohn,
http://jfkhistory.com/mobsters/Nicoletti.html
Post by claviger
It is obvious CTs are emotionally
It gets tiresome listening to the endless blather of people attacking each
other, while stubbornly refusing to consider the evidence.
Circumstantial.
Hearsay.
Post by Robert Harris
Robert Harris
Amy Joyce
2018-03-28 15:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
It's tiring to regularly see "CT's" labeled as a people that as a rule
always look for and theorize a conspiracy. It's insulting to have it
followed with blatant flaming and inaccurate descriptions, such as stating
that there is a "complete lack of evidence" for that position.

For starters, regarding JFK a "CT" is simply a person that believes at
least one other person was involved in the assassination. That's all.
It's not complicated. This is a fact that every LN should at least be
aware of. So why the constant generalizing and attacks? It could easily
go both ways you know, but I'd personally consider that stooping,
childish, and a deterrent from engaging in actual discussion - as the
topic if this forum suggests occurs here. I am surely just one of many
that has political affiliations others are unaware of, as well as a person
that has done nothing more than occasionally question the status quo and
hasn't regularly come to any conspiratorial conclusions. Terms such as
"conspiracy advocate" and "conspiracy hobbyist" are simply derogatory when
applied to all persons that have done nothing more than question and
ultimately conclude differently than the WC and LN has. Simply changing
the expression to "some CT's" or to the "CT extremists" (and otherwise
defining those terms) might help. Instead it seems that too many have
developed an intolerant attitude toward others that simply disagree with
them.
Post by claviger
By contrast LN skeptics appear to be mostly Moderate or Conservative in
the political spectrum. Some CT hyper critics accuse LNs of disbelieving
such a thing as conspiracies even exist. This is not the case at all.
LNs simply maintain there is no valid proof of a conspiracy in this case,
period. If any actual proof can be uncovered they are willing to
reconsider their opinion. This Moderate response to CT mania about the
case appears to be very frustrating to many conspiracy advocates.
However, CTs have some house cleaning to do with over 60 conspiracy
theories to choose from. If the Conspiracy Movement can ever coalesce
around one CT it would be helpful to their cause. I don't see that
happening after 50 years of raucous debate. Disagreements within the CT
camp have been acrimonious on some forums.
On the LN side of the debate the myriad of CT speculation without
supporting evidence is unconvincing. The simple explanation that a former
military servicemen trained to hit targets at 300 yards was able to hit a
target inside 100 yards is a reasonable explanation. No crossfire
alternative has ever been proved and is highly unlikely based on close
witnesses in the area.
How much does political persuasion play in this ongoing debate?
Why similar debates on the assassination of Dr M L King?
Why no analogous debates about the assassination attempts on
President Reagan or Governor Wallace?
Conservative CTs
Michael T Griffith
Governor Jesse Ventura
Liberals LNs
Sandy McCroskey
Earl Warren, et al
claviger
2018-04-08 02:20:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Amy Joyce
Post by claviger
Based on the fact Professor McAdams has been lenient about political
discourse on this Newsgroup, a recurring pattern has emerged that Liberal
members take an adamant position that President Kennedy was assassinated
by a conspiracy of political enemies. It is obvious CTs are emotionally
invested in proving this theory despite a complete lack of evidence. It
should be noted there are Conservatives who believe in conspiracy as well,
but appear to be a minority subset within the multitudinous CT movement.
It's tiring to regularly see "CT's" labeled as a people that as a rule
always look for and theorize a conspiracy.
CT stands for a Conspiracy Theorist: a simple appellation for conspiracy
believers, advocates, promoters, authors, debaters, amateur detectives.
What would you call them?
Post by Amy Joyce
It's insulting to have it followed with blatant flaming and inaccurate
descriptions, such as stating that there is a "complete lack of evidence"
for that position.
If there was complete evidence proving there was a conspiracy then no need
for this newsgroup.
Post by Amy Joyce
For starters, regarding JFK a "CT" is simply a person that believes at
least one other person was involved in the assassination. That's all.
Involved in what way? Some might say Marina, Ruth Paine, and BWF were
involved.
Post by Amy Joyce
It's not complicated. This is a fact that every LN should at least be
aware of.
What is a fact? The Legal complication is there must be convincing
evidence, not just suspicion and accusations.
Post by Amy Joyce
So why the constant generalizing and attacks?
You need to ask that question to some of the more vociferous conspiracy
advocates.
Post by Amy Joyce
It could easily go both ways you know, . . .
Yes it does go both ways. Haven't you noticed?
Post by Amy Joyce
. . . but I'd personally consider that stooping, childish, and a
deterrent from engaging in actual discussion - as the topic
if this forum suggests occurs here.
Everyone has their own style. If you seek a more intellectual academic
approach then join in conversation with one of the best researchers on
this newsgroup, Jean Davison.

Jean Davison
alt.assassination.jfk ›
Where's Bob Harris?
33 posts by 12 authors
Post by Amy Joyce
I am surely just one of many that has political affiliations others
are unaware of, as well as a person that has done nothing more
than occasionally question the status quo and hasn't regularly
come to any conspiratorial conclusions.
Do you reject the WCR in favor of the HSCA conclusion?
Post by Amy Joyce
Terms such as "conspiracy advocate" and "conspiracy hobbyist" are simply
derogatory when applied to all persons that have done nothing more than
question and ultimately conclude differently than the WC and LN has.
Both are accurate descriptions. Many a "conspiracy advocate" have written
books about this case. Those who follow this case and join in the
numerous debates but derive no income for doing so are amateurs who do it
as a hobby. Another term for hobbyist is a buff - "a person who is
enthusiastically interested in and very knowledgeable about a particular
subject."

A few participants refer to those who believe the WCR got it right
the first time as "Nutters". I'm sure you get the double entendre.
Post by Amy Joyce
Simply changing the expression to "some CT's" or to the "CT extremists"
(and otherwise defining those terms) might help. Instead it seems that
too many have developed an intolerant attitude toward others that simply
disagree with them.
Not all those who believe in conspiracy get along with each other. The
reason being there are over 60 different conspiracy theories in play.
LNs tend to have less friction on their side of the fence.

68 names and counting!
http://dperry1943.com/rashomon.html

Loading...