Ruby and the Fair Play for Cuba Committee

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I have not seen the movie, but in your clip there it seems that Oliver
Stone has conflated the "midnight press conference" with Henry Wade's
press conference. And somebody did shout out at the midnight event, though
he wasn't shouting about the FPFCC. I think that person shouting might
have been Ruby, and Oswald, as well as the cops next to him, did look up
at this shouting person. Anyway I think Stone does a great disservice by
conflating these events. It just confuses the facts, whether or not these
particular facts are important. Most people probably think of the
assassination events in terms of the movie and have this burden of
conflation to overcome if they want to understand what really happened.

David Von Pein

2020-12-26 15:14:14 UTC

Thanks, John.

And here are a couple of related links concerning the NON-mystery of Ruby
knowing the name of the FPCC on 11/22/63:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-383.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-638.html#Ruby-And-The-FPCC

John Corbett

2020-12-26 16:43:25 UTC

Post by David Von Pein
Thanks, John.
And here are a couple of related links concerning the NON-mystery of Ruby
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-383.html
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-638.html#Ruby-And-The-FPCC

I wonder if conspiracy hobbyists ever ask themselves why, if Ruby was a
co-conspirator, he would have drawn attention to himself by correcting
Wade regarding the FPCC. For that matter why would he even be at the
presser in the first place?

Steve M. Galbraith

2020-12-26 21:09:26 UTC

Ruby had to silence this guy:
Loading Image...

Those round things in front of Oswald's face are microphones. That big
thing on the right is a live TV camera. Yes, "they" had to silence Oswald
so they let him do things like this. And talk to his wife, his brother,
his mother, make phone calls. Why would they let him do these things if
they were worried about him exposing their conspiracy? The conspiracy
response to this question is always good. Just wait.

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-01 21:16:43 UTC

Post by Steve M. Galbraith

Ruby had to silence

First of all, having a cop kill him while he was in police custody would
hve been rather obvious, even to WC defenders.

Second, why do you ASSuME that Oswald knew about the conspiracy?

Post by Steve M. Galbraith
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/ba/20/30/ba20301fc647e6f1aa5265bb4d1cead0--dealey-plaza-kennedy-assassination.jpg
Those round things in front of Oswald's face are microphones. That big
thing on the right is a live TV camera. Yes, "they" had to silence Oswald
so they let him do things like this. And talk to his wife, his brother,
his mother, make phone calls. Why would they let him do these things if
they were worried about him exposing their conspiracy? The conspiracy
response to this question is always good. Just wait.

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-01 21:16:40 UTC

I don't think anyone said that Ruby was a co-cpnspirator. That is a straw
man argument.

John Corbett

2021-01-02 01:10:08 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh

I don't think anyone said that Ruby was a co-cpnspirator. That is a straw
man argument.

If he wasn't a co-conspirator, then that means when he killed Oswald he
was acting on his own.

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-03 17:51:59 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh

I don't think anyone said that Ruby was a co-cpnspirator. That is a straw
man argument.

If he wasn't a co-conspirator, then that means when he killed Oswald he
was acting on his own.

No. not a coconspirator in the JFK assassination.
Just chosen to clean up the messs.

John Corbett

2020-12-26 16:43:19 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

The link didn't work for me. It might be a temporary server problem as
I am unable to link to your home page as well.

I have been able to connect to DVP's new articles so it appears the
problem is on your end.

Got this message if it means anything to you. It doesn't to me.

DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN

John McAdams

2020-12-26 21:01:16 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

The link didn't work for me. It might be a temporary server problem as
I am unable to link to your home page as well.
I have been able to connect to DVP's new articles so it appears the
problem is on your end.
Got this message if it means anything to you. It doesn't to me.
DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN

That's interesting, since I can get the page, both from my home and
from an NYC ISP where I have a shell account.

I can't get Reitzes' site, for some reason.

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

John Corbett

2020-12-27 02:54:21 UTC

Post by John McAdams

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

The link didn't work for me. It might be a temporary server problem as
I am unable to link to your home page as well.
I have been able to connect to DVP's new articles so it appears the
problem is on your end.
Got this message if it means anything to you. It doesn't to me.
DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN

That's interesting, since I can get the page, both from my home and
from an NYC ISP where I have a shell account.
I can't get Reitzes' site, for some reason.

Must have been a temporary glitch because I can link to it now.
Occasionally servers get taken down for routine maintenance, usually on
weekends. A holiday weekend would seem like a convenient time for such.

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-01 21:16:46 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

The link didn't work for me. It might be a temporary server problem as
I am unable to link to your home page as well.
I have been able to connect to DVP's new articles so it appears the
problem is on your end.
Got this message if it means anything to you. It doesn't to me.
DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN

Some of the problem may be Javascript errors.
You may have to momentarily trust a javascript.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2020-12-27 19:53:05 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

As I have pointed out in the past, I was glued to the television that
afternoon after being let out of school and I shouted out the correction
as well as if it were a game show, and beat Ruby to the correct answer by
about a second or two.

Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
Zircon):

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ

Anyone watching TV that afternoon and evening and paying attention what
was broadcast knew the correct answer. Wade, as the District Attorney of
Dallas, was obviously too busy with other issues to spend much time
watching TV, heard it once, and remembered it incorrectly, getting it
wrong.

Hank

19efppp

2020-12-28 17:36:39 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

"Recollections 15 years after the fact aren't worth doodly-squat," unless
they are Hank's recollections. Hank's 57-year-old memories are more
reliable than Boris Tarasoff's 15-year-old memories, apparently.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2020-12-29 05:31:49 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.

Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?

How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?

I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.

Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.

== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
Zircon):

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==

The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.

What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
given these facts:
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?

Hank

19efppp

2020-12-29 11:43:02 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

Tarasoff's recollections are disputed by your interpretation of his notes,
not by the notes themselves. It is his recollections which clarify the
notes. But the Nutter cannot use reason, let alone critical reasoning. To
the Nutter, everything which confirms his bias is reliable, and everything
which does not is "doodly-squat." Therefore, the Nutter vividly remembers
some TV show he thinks he saw as a child 57 years ago, but Boris Tarasoff,
and his wife, who also remembers the same, are full of "doodly-squat,"
when they remember transcribing the English conversation of Oswald 15
years before, because their recollections do not confirm the Nutter Bias.

John Corbett

2020-12-29 17:48:33 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I confess to being biased because I know the truth of the assassination
and I have never seen anything that would cause me to doubt that. I know
that Oswald was the assassin. Is it possible he had one or more
accomplices? Theoretically, yes, but from a practical standpoint no. There
has been zero evidence produced in 57 years of any accomplices and it
seems extremely unlikely any ever will surface. If you ever find such
evidence, I can assure you that I would be very interested and if it was
compelling it would cause me to reassess my firm belief that Oswald acted
alone. Nothing I have seen in this and other discussion groups over the
past thirty years would constitute that kind of compelling evidence.
You're welcome to keep trying though.

19efppp

2020-12-30 01:22:45 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

John Corbett

2020-12-30 19:36:14 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

There is only one truth but I am not happy with it. The truth is that
Oswald killed Kennedy. I wish that hadn't happened but it is the truth and
we are stuck with it. None of us can invent an alternate truth although
many of you keep trying.

19efppp

2020-12-31 18:34:09 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.

"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2020-12-31 23:24:54 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.
"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

How many truths do CTs believe in?

A different one for each CT.

It only happened one way.

Hank

19efppp

2021-01-01 00:56:33 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.
"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

How many truths do CTs believe in?
A different one for each CT.
It only happened one way.
Hank

Why are you trying to socialize truth? You are showing your communistic
tendencies again. Why should I have to agree with anybody for something to
be true? Only Nutters need agree on truth because they have their truth
handed down to them from on high. They must bow before their orthodoxy.
That's why they agree. Free people rarely agree on anything.

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-01 23:00:58 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.
"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

How many truths do CTs believe in?
A different one for each CT.
It only happened one way.
Hank

Why are you trying to socialize truth? You are showing your communistic

Why are you trying to Nazify information, telling people what they must
believe?

Post by 19efppp
tendencies again. Why should I have to agree with anybody for something to
be true? Only Nutters need agree on truth because they have their truth
handed down to them from on high. They must bow before their orthodoxy.
That's why they agree. Free people rarely agree on anything.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2021-01-02 01:09:56 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.
"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

How many truths do CTs believe in?
A different one for each CT.
It only happened one way.
Hank

Why are you trying to socialize truth?

Straw man argument. You think it happened multiple different ways?

Post by 19efppp
You are showing your communistic
tendencies again.

Walk me through your argument here, slowly.

Post by 19efppp
Why should I have to agree with anybody for something to
be true?

Straw man argument. Not what I said.

Post by 19efppp
Only Nutters need agree on truth because they have their truth
handed down to them from on high.

A logical fallacy of a begged question. I was a conspiracy theorist until
I purchased the 26 Warren Commission volumes and the 12 HSCA volumes and
read through all 38 volumes - twice. I then saw what the conspiracy
authors were hiding from me by taking some claims out of context, quoting
selectively from the record, ignoring contrary evidence -- basically, they
were doing everything they accused the Warren Commission of doing, and
worse.

I didn't read the Warren Report and decide they were right because they
said so. That's your bogus argument and your pretense.

Post by 19efppp
They must bow before their orthodoxy. That's why they agree.

Nonsense, and I explained how I reached my conclusions... by reading all
the testimony and looking at all the evidence -- the same evidence the
conspiracy authors supposedly used to reach their conspiracy conclusions,
but I saw first hand how terribly they treated that evidence. I don't
agree with all the Warren Commission conclusions. But based on my own
first hand experience with the testimony and evidence, I agree with the
bulk of them. But I didn't simply accept what the Warren Commission said.
It's important to remember I came to the 26 volumes (and the 12 HSCA
volumes) as a conspiracy theorist, and I departed believing Oswald
committed the assassination.

Post by 19efppp
Free people rarely agree on anything.

Asserted but not proven.

19efppp

2021-01-02 02:25:19 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.
"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

How many truths do CTs believe in?
A different one for each CT.
It only happened one way.
Hank

Why are you trying to socialize truth?

Straw man argument. You think it happened multiple different ways?

Post by 19efppp
You are showing your communistic
tendencies again.

Walk me through your argument here, slowly.

Post by 19efppp
Why should I have to agree with anybody for something to
be true?

Straw man argument. Not what I said.

Post by 19efppp
Only Nutters need agree on truth because they have their truth
handed down to them from on high.

A logical fallacy of a begged question. I was a conspiracy theorist until
I purchased the 26 Warren Commission volumes and the 12 HSCA volumes and
read through all 38 volumes - twice. I then saw what the conspiracy
authors were hiding from me by taking some claims out of context, quoting
selectively from the record, ignoring contrary evidence -- basically, they
were doing everything they accused the Warren Commission of doing, and
worse.
I didn't read the Warren Report and decide they were right because they
said so. That's your bogus argument and your pretense.

Post by 19efppp
They must bow before their orthodoxy. That's why they agree.

Post by 19efppp
Free people rarely agree on anything.

Asserted but not proven.

Asserted but not proven. Your turn.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2021-01-03 02:51:14 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.
"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

How many truths do CTs believe in?
A different one for each CT.
It only happened one way.
Hank

Why are you trying to socialize truth?

Straw man argument. You think it happened multiple different ways?

Post by 19efppp
You are showing your communistic
tendencies again.

Walk me through your argument here, slowly.

Post by 19efppp
Why should I have to agree with anybody for something to
be true?

Straw man argument. Not what I said.

Post by 19efppp
Only Nutters need agree on truth because they have their truth
handed down to them from on high.

A logical fallacy of a begged question. I was a conspiracy theorist until
I purchased the 26 Warren Commission volumes and the 12 HSCA volumes and
read through all 38 volumes - twice. I then saw what the conspiracy
authors were hiding from me by taking some claims out of context, quoting
selectively from the record, ignoring contrary evidence -- basically, they
were doing everything they accused the Warren Commission of doing, and
worse.
I didn't read the Warren Report and decide they were right because they
said so. That's your bogus argument and your pretense.

Post by 19efppp
They must bow before their orthodoxy. That's why they agree.

Post by 19efppp
Free people rarely agree on anything.

Asserted but not proven.

Asserted but not proven. Your turn.

Why can't conspiracy theorists argue the case any more? We see inane
comments from Marsh and "19efppp" daily, and no attempt to cite evidence,
make a reasoned argument, and reach a reasonable conclusion they are
willing to defend.

Hank

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2021-01-03 17:52:14 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.
"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

How many truths do CTs believe in?
A different one for each CT.
It only happened one way.
Hank

Why are you trying to socialize truth?

Straw man argument. You think it happened multiple different ways?

IGNORED BY YOU.

Post by 19efppp
You are showing your communistic
tendencies again.

Walk me through your argument here, slowly.

IGNORED BY YOU.

Post by 19efppp
Why should I have to agree with anybody for something to
be true?

Straw man argument. Not what I said.

IGNORED BY YOU.

Post by 19efppp
Only Nutters need agree on truth because they have their truth
handed down to them from on high.

A logical fallacy of a begged question. I was a conspiracy theorist until
I purchased the 26 Warren Commission volumes and the 12 HSCA volumes and
read through all 38 volumes - twice. I then saw what the conspiracy
authors were hiding from me by taking some claims out of context, quoting
selectively from the record, ignoring contrary evidence -- basically, they
were doing everything they accused the Warren Commission of doing, and
worse.
I didn't read the Warren Report and decide they were right because they
said so. That's your bogus argument and your pretense.

Post by 19efppp
They must bow before their orthodoxy. That's why they agree.

IGNORED BY YOU.

Post by 19efppp
Free people rarely agree on anything.

Asserted but not proven.

Asserted but not proven. Your turn.

Appeal to ridicule. I posted a number of points and you ignored them all
except the last, and there you asserted something you have yet to prove.
All I did was point out your failure to prove your claim. Your failure to
establish your claim is self-evident from the exchange.

Hank

19efppp

2021-01-03 23:05:20 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.
"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

How many truths do CTs believe in?
A different one for each CT.
It only happened one way.
Hank

Why are you trying to socialize truth?

Straw man argument. You think it happened multiple different ways?

IGNORED BY YOU.

Post by 19efppp
You are showing your communistic
tendencies again.

Walk me through your argument here, slowly.

IGNORED BY YOU.

Post by 19efppp
Why should I have to agree with anybody for something to
be true?

Straw man argument. Not what I said.

IGNORED BY YOU.

Post by 19efppp
Only Nutters need agree on truth because they have their truth
handed down to them from on high.

A logical fallacy of a begged question. I was a conspiracy theorist until
I purchased the 26 Warren Commission volumes and the 12 HSCA volumes and
read through all 38 volumes - twice. I then saw what the conspiracy
authors were hiding from me by taking some claims out of context, quoting
selectively from the record, ignoring contrary evidence -- basically, they
were doing everything they accused the Warren Commission of doing, and
worse.
I didn't read the Warren Report and decide they were right because they
said so. That's your bogus argument and your pretense.

Post by 19efppp
They must bow before their orthodoxy. That's why they agree.

IGNORED BY YOU.

Post by 19efppp
Free people rarely agree on anything.

Asserted but not proven.

Asserted but not proven. Your turn.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon) <---- IGNORED BY ME

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-01 21:16:53 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.
"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

How many truths do CTs believe in?
A different one for each CT.

No silly. You have no right to tell others what they think.

Post by Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)
It only happened one way.
Hank

John Corbett

2021-01-01 00:56:22 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.
"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

BINGO!!!

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-01 23:01:01 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.
"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

BINGO!!!

There is only one truth: That you killed the truth.

John Corbett

2021-01-02 01:10:12 UTC

Post by Anthony Marsh

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

I'm not trying to convince you of anything at all. I hope that you and
your truth are very happy together.

The Nutter credo.
"There is only one truth: the truth that Oswald killed Kennedy"

BINGO!!!

There is only one truth: That you killed the truth.

Another in a long line of your inane comments.

Anthony Marsh

2021-01-01 21:16:50 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

Naughty, naughty. You not allowed to even think of that possibililty.

You must only think what the government tells you to think.

Post by John Corbett
has been zero evidence produced in 57 years of any accomplices and it
seems extremely unlikely any ever will surface. If you ever find such
evidence, I can assure you that I would be very interested and if it was
compelling it would cause me to reassess my firm belief that Oswald acted
alone. Nothing I have seen in this and other discussion groups over the
past thirty years would constitute that kind of compelling evidence.
You're welcome to keep trying though.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2020-12-30 01:22:36 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

Tarasoff's recollections are disputed by your interpretation of his notes,
not by the notes themselves. It is his recollections which clarify the
notes.

You appear to have forgotten the exchange we had already.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/-h-Zr8BHPZc/m/X7wEsE8GAQAJ

His recollections contradict his own notes, they don't clarify them.

Post by 19efppp
But the Nutter cannot use reason, let alone critical reasoning.

Asserted but not established.

Post by 19efppp
To
the Nutter, everything which confirms his bias is reliable, and everything
which does not is "doodly-squat."

Straw man argument. That's not what I said.

Post by 19efppp
Therefore, the Nutter vividly remembers
some TV show he thinks he saw as a child 57 years ago,

That's not what I said either. Another straw man.

Post by 19efppp
but Boris Tarasoff,
and his wife, who also remembers the same, are full of "doodly-squat,"
when they remember transcribing the English conversation of Oswald 15
years before, because their recollections do not confirm the Nutter Bias.

That's not what his contemporaneous notes say. His notes don't confirm his
recollections, and in fact, contradict them.

Hank

19efppp

2020-12-30 03:09:17 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Obviously, not all recollections are wrong. But where the recollection
disagrees with the contemporaneous evidence, there is strong reason to
dispute it. Where it agrees, there is strong reason to accept it.
Do you dispute that Oswald's FPCC membership was announced shortly after
his name was announced to the press? Do you dispute it was mentioned
frequently throughout the evening and over the next two days on the
television and radio and in the papers?
How old are you, roughly? Were you of the age of reason on 11/22/63?
I was, and I wasn't living under a rock.
Here's something you snipped. You apparently felt it was unimportant. It's
not.
== QUOTE ==
Here's my response to "Walt" [Cakebread?] back in 2002 (posting as Joe
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/8qzO_HP_qlw/m/xygFOXAbrqkJ
== UNQUOTE ==
The difference between my recollections and Tarasoff's is his
recollections are disputed by his own contemporaneous notes (and we
covered that in detail in a different thread) and my recollections are
confirmed by the contemporaneous evidence. I don't trust all my own
recollections, I understand I am as human as the next guy, and just as
prone to false memories as anyone else, which is one of the reasons I
typically check the testimony and post a quote instead of just shooting
from the hip.
What specific reason(s) do you have to dispute my recollection, exactly,
(1) the evidence indicates Oswald's FPCC membership was repeated frequently
during the evening of 11/22/63, and
(2) My recollection has not changed in at least the past 18 years (since I
posted here on the subject as Joe Zircon in 2002)?
Hank

Tarasoff's recollections are disputed by your interpretation of his notes,
not by the notes themselves. It is his recollections which clarify the
notes.

You appear to have forgotten the exchange we had already.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/-h-Zr8BHPZc/m/X7wEsE8GAQAJ
His recollections contradict his own notes, they don't clarify them.

Post by 19efppp
But the Nutter cannot use reason, let alone critical reasoning.

Asserted but not established.

Post by 19efppp
To
the Nutter, everything which confirms his bias is reliable, and everything
which does not is "doodly-squat."

Straw man argument. That's not what I said.

Post by 19efppp
Therefore, the Nutter vividly remembers
some TV show he thinks he saw as a child 57 years ago,

That's not what I said either. Another straw man.

That's not what his contemporaneous notes say. His notes don't confirm his
recollections, and in fact, contradict them.
Hank

It's that doodly-squat reasoning again, I assert. And since you prove it
yourself with every post you make, why should I waste my time.

Hank Sienzant (AKA Joe Zircon)

2020-12-30 19:36:17 UTC

Post by John McAdams
https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/Ruby_FPCC.htm
.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I just read something about the Lindbergh case that has more than a little
application here about the arguments we sometimes see about "How could
Ruby know about the Fair Play for Cuba Committee" that your new page
attempts to answer.

Bill James, in his book here: _Popular Crime: Reflections on the
Celebration of Violence_
https://www.amazon.com/Popular-Crime-Reflections-Celebration-Violence/dp/141655274X
makes an excellent point about some of the books that came out in the 1970s
or thereafter arguing for Hauptmann's innocence.

== QUOTE ==

These books started to come out in the 1970s, in large part, because they
couldn't come out until the people who remembered the case had died and
been replaced by a public that was unfamiliar with the time and the facts
of the case, thus could be told tall tales without spotting the obvious
fallacies. A couple of simple examples: Hauptmann quit his job the day the
ransom money was handed over. Hauptman tried to explain this by claiming
that he quit the job in a dispute or disagreement over how much he was to
be paid. Well, it was 1932. People were standing in breadlines. Carpenters
didn't quit jobs because of little disputes and live off their
investments. People in 1935, at the time of the trial, understood that,
and they reacted to Hauptmann's claim with deep skepticism. People in the
1970s didn't quite catch it. He didn't like what he was being paid; he
quit the job, so what?

Of course, even if we assume that he did have a dispute over the money,
it's still quite a coincidence, but it plays different if you understand
the context. He quit his job, and incidentally, never worked again.

== UNQUOTE ==

I see the same thing is happening with those who didn't live through the
assassination and don't understand the finer points of the argument. They
lack the knowledge of the times, and arguments that make no sense to
anyone who lived through the event appear to be accepted at face value by
those who weren't born until after the event or were too young to remember
it.

Hank

John Corbett

2020-12-30 22:47:26 UTC