Discussion:
Name the Only Two Grown Men....
(too old to reply)
John McAdams
2007-10-19 16:12:40 UTC
Permalink
who couldn't remember where they were when JFK was assassinated? Give
up?
Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Why?
That's simply not true.

You've picked up a silly factoid from Groden and Livingstone.

Nixon was in a cab in Queens when somebody (his accounts do differ as
to whether it was a man or a woman) came up to the cab crying with the
news.

I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.

Kindly post your source.
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
It is scary to think men can run a country but they can't remember
where they were on a significant day.
You've been here long enough that it ought to be dawning on you that
you've accepted a bunch of bogus factoids.

.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-20 01:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Why?
That's simply not true.
Who says, you?
Post by John McAdams
You've picked up a silly factoid from Groden and Livingstone.
Actually, I didn't read it in their book. And since when is their
stuff factoid stuff? In your opinion.
Post by John McAdams
Nixon was in a cab in Queens when somebody (his accounts do differ as
to whether it was a man or a woman) came up to the cab crying with the
news.
Wrong.
http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy.html

And numerous other ones.
Post by John McAdams
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
The FBI received a call from Bush 10 minutes after JFK was shot saying he
knew someone who was dangerous and may kill the president (Parrot). The
origin of this call was Tyler, TX. Bush denied being in Tyler and said he
was in Houston at the time of the shooting. Strange thing is when some
intelligence agents took pictures there is a photo of Bush outside the
TSBD very shortly after the shooting. Not enough time to travel from
Houston.

http://tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm
Post by John McAdams
Kindly post your source.
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
Which part. Sorry it is not wrong.
Post by John McAdams
You've been here long enough that it ought to be dawning on you that
you've accepted a bunch of bogus factoids.
.John
This from someone who has a website full of bogus factoids. How about
using some links that aren't to your website. Are you saying no one else
in this field knows anything unless they say LHO did it by himself?
That's unusual. Most researchers collaborate in their work to some degree,
but I guess it is the WC or nothing here.
John McAdams
2007-10-20 02:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Why?
That's simply not true.
Who says, you?
Post by John McAdams
You've picked up a silly factoid from Groden and Livingstone.
Actually, I didn't read it in their book. And since when is their
stuff factoid stuff? In your opinion.
They took a document in which Nixon said that "the only time he was in
Dallas in 1963 was on November 20" and interpreted that to mean that
Nixon was saying that he was *not* in Dallas the morning of Nov. 22.

In fact, Nixon was a very public figure and reporters were waiting for
him in the airport when he returned to NY about noon on Nov. 22.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Nixon was in a cab in Queens when somebody (his accounts do differ as
to whether it was a man or a woman) came up to the cab crying with the
news.
Wrong.
http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy.html
OK, here is your claim:

<quote on>

Richard Nixon claimed to remember where he was during another
momentous event -- the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November
22, 1963. Nixon said that he first heard about Kennedy's death during
a taxi ride in New York City. However, a United Press International
photo taken that day tells a different story. The photo shows a
"shocked Richard Nixon" (as the caption reads) having already learned
of Kennedy's assassination upon his arrival at New York's Idlewild
Airport -- in other words, before his alleged taxi ride.

<quote off>

The "stunned" caption was put their by the newspaper, and captions are
often clueless.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/vplimo.htm

If you don't want to accept that, you might explain *why* Nixon would
lie about this.

Remember, *you* cited the photo of him at the airport!

He was a public figure, and reporters knew where he was.
Post by r***@netscape.com
And numerous other ones.
Post by John McAdams
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
The FBI received a call from Bush 10 minutes after JFK was shot saying he
knew someone who was dangerous and may kill the president (Parrot). The
origin of this call was Tyler, TX. Bush denied being in Tyler and said he
was in Houston at the time of the shooting. Strange thing is when some
intelligence agents took pictures there is a photo of Bush outside the
TSBD very shortly after the shooting. Not enough time to travel from
Houston.
http://tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm
Oh, my!

That page has the supposed photo of Bush in front of the Depository.

And you consider it reliable?

And it has the Madeleine Brown story!

http://davesjfk.com/browns.html

But I don't see "Tyler/Houston" thing on the page.

Please point me to the specific document.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Kindly post your source.
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
Which part. Sorry it is not wrong.
Why did you delete my link?

Can't deal with it?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm

The "hoax" according to Nixon was that the left managed to blame the
assassination on the right.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
You've been here long enough that it ought to be dawning on you that
you've accepted a bunch of bogus factoids.
.John
This from someone who has a website full of bogus factoids. How about
using some links that aren't to your website. Are you saying no one else
in this field knows anything unless they say LHO did it by himself?
That's unusual. Most researchers collaborate in their work to some degree,
but I guess it is the WC or nothing here.
You have accepted a bunch of bogus factoids. You seem to believe
that, since you think there was a conspiracy, that *every* claim of
conspiracy must be true.

.John

The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-20 03:54:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
If you don't want to accept that, you might explain *why* Nixon would
lie about this.
I have no clue. That's what I'm saying, why lie? I guess because he said
he was there for a Pepsi Co. board meeting and none was scheduled. He was
also very loud about Kennedy during this trip. So when JFK was shot it
could look to some he was guilty.

NIXON, PEPISCO & THE JFK ASSASSINATION

Posted By: ShermanSkolnick <Send E-Mail>
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2002, 8:38 p.m. From: Sherman Skolnick
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: NIXON, PEPSICO AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION

In the 1970s, after giving a seminar in Fort Worth, Texas, I was several
times as a guest on WFAA- Dallas radio. One time I was on the air with a
former Director of Pepsico. He had been at their convention in Dallas with
their General Counsel at the time, Richard M. Nixon. He said that Nixon's
later statement (published in a magazine in 1973), that he left Dallas
before noon on an airflight to New York, November 22, 1963, is simply not
correct. The former Pepsico director said Nixon was at the convention all
that afternoon and was acting strange. While others stopped conducting
their business affairs, Nixon kept insisting on proceeding,
notwithstanding that everyone had heard that President Kennedy had been
assassinated shortly after noon that day.

As to Joan Crawford, that inherited her husband's large stock position at
Pepsico, she was certainly in a position to know a few things about Nixon.
At the hotel she was staying at in Dallas, she occupied the room next door
to Nixon.

By a strange series of circumstances in the 1970s, a retired "spook" I
knew, introduced me one night to the former covert operations official in
the FBI that had interviewed Nixon. The interview document is in the
Warren Commission documents. Yes, Nixon had lied about leaving Dallas that
fateful morning.
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
That page has the supposed photo of Bush in front of the Depository.
And you consider it reliable?
If you had read the paragraph next to it that says, "The image of the
elder Bush at the Texas Book Depository is authentic and can be verified
by the intelligence operatives who took the picture and would testify if
subpoenaed, according to U.S. intelligence expert Thomas Heneghan, who
provided TomFlocco.com with the photo which was leaked to several others."
then yes I think it is reliable.
Post by John McAdams
But I don't see "Tyler/Houston" thing on the page.
Please point me to the specific document.
Here it is:

http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/bush.htm
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
Which part. Sorry it is not wrong.
Why did you delete my link?
Can't deal with it?
No, I have a million links already. I've probably seen it before.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
You have accepted a bunch of bogus factoids. You seem to believe
that, since you think there was a conspiracy, that *every* claim of
conspiracy must be true.
.John
That's a big assumption from someone I don't even know. I don't believe
every conspiracy theory or supposed fact, but I certainly don't believe
one man pulled this off.

Robert
John McAdams
2007-10-20 04:04:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
If you don't want to accept that, you might explain *why* Nixon would
lie about this.
I have no clue. That's what I'm saying, why lie? I guess because he said
he was there for a Pepsi Co. board meeting and none was scheduled. He was
also very loud about Kennedy during this trip. So when JFK was shot it
could look to some he was guilty.
No, he was not "loud" about Kennedy.

And let me give you a hint: if he would have no reason to lie, that
probably means he *didn't* lie and your source are distorting
evidence.
Post by r***@netscape.com
NIXON, PEPISCO & THE JFK ASSASSINATION
Posted By: ShermanSkolnick <Send E-Mail>
Oh, my!
Post by r***@netscape.com
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2002, 8:38 p.m. From: Sherman Skolnick
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: NIXON, PEPSICO AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION
In the 1970s, after giving a seminar in Fort Worth, Texas, I was several
times as a guest on WFAA- Dallas radio. One time I was on the air with a
former Director of Pepsico. He had been at their convention in Dallas with
their General Counsel at the time, Richard M. Nixon. He said that Nixon's
later statement (published in a magazine in 1973), that he left Dallas
before noon on an airflight to New York, November 22, 1963, is simply not
correct. The former Pepsico director said Nixon was at the convention all
that afternoon and was acting strange. While others stopped conducting
their business affairs, Nixon kept insisting on proceeding,
notwithstanding that everyone had heard that President Kennedy had been
assassinated shortly after noon that day.
Rob, YOU POSTED A LINK TO A PICTURE OF NIXON IN THE AIRPORT AFTER
HAVING RETURNED FROM DALLAS.

This second-hand claim from Skolnick has no credibility.
Post by r***@netscape.com
As to Joan Crawford, that inherited her husband's large stock position at
Pepsico, she was certainly in a position to know a few things about Nixon.
At the hotel she was staying at in Dallas, she occupied the room next door
to Nixon.
By a strange series of circumstances in the 1970s, a retired "spook" I
knew, introduced me one night to the former covert operations official in
the FBI that had interviewed Nixon. The interview document is in the
Warren Commission documents. Yes, Nixon had lied about leaving Dallas that
fateful morning.
Then post a link to the *document.*
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
That page has the supposed photo of Bush in front of the Depository.
And you consider it reliable?
If you had read the paragraph next to it that says, "The image of the
elder Bush at the Texas Book Depository is authentic and can be verified
by the intelligence operatives who took the picture and would testify if
subpoenaed, according to U.S. intelligence expert Thomas Heneghan, who
provided TomFlocco.com with the photo which was leaked to several others."
then yes I think it is reliable.
You'll believe about anything, won't you?

The photo was not taken by "intelligence operatives."

You really need to post some evidence, not some wacky claim from some
wachy conspiracy web site.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
But I don't see "Tyler/Houston" thing on the page.
Please point me to the specific document.
http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/bush.htm
OK, this is the very familiar memo.

Now explain again what is sinister about it. Shortly after JFK was
shot, Bush called the FBI to report somebody who had engaged in wild
talk about shooting the President.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
Which part. Sorry it is not wrong.
The "Ruby worked for Nixon" document is a forgery.

It was suposedly written in 1948 (47? 49?), but IT HAS A ZIP CODE.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Why did you delete my link?
Can't deal with it?
No, I have a million links already. I've probably seen it before.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
You have accepted a bunch of bogus factoids. You seem to believe
that, since you think there was a conspiracy, that *every* claim of
conspiracy must be true.
.John
That's a big assumption from someone I don't even know. I don't believe
every conspiracy theory or supposed fact, but I certainly don't believe
one man pulled this off.
Are you willing to concede the Nixon "greatest hoax" thing?

.John

The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
t***@hotmail.com
2007-10-20 22:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
And let me give you a hint: if he would have no reason to lie, that
probably means he *didn't* lie and your source are distorting
evidence.
You are twisting what he said John. He didn't say he wouldn't have any
reason to lie, just that he seems he has lied so why would he lie, unless
he had something to hide?
John McAdams
2007-10-20 23:43:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by John McAdams
And let me give you a hint: if he would have no reason to lie, that
probably means he *didn't* lie and your source are distorting
evidence.
You are twisting what he said John. He didn't say he wouldn't have any
reason to lie, just that he seems he has lied so why would he lie, unless
he had something to hide?
But it's not established that he lied.

When one tried to determine whether somebody "lied," it matters a lot
whether they would have any reason to.

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-20 22:07:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
No, he was not "loud" about Kennedy.
If you say so, but read this:

Journalist Jim Marrs gives this account: "With Nixon in Dallas was
Pepsi-Cola heiress and actress Joan Crawford. Both Nixon and Crawford made
comments in the Dallas newspapers to the effect that they, unlike the
President, didn't need Secret Service protection, and they intimated that
the nation was upset with Kennedy's policies. It has been suggested that
this taunting may have been responsible for Kennedy's critical decision
not to order the Plexiglas top placed on his limousine on November 22."
[Note: The Pepsi-Cola company had a sugar plantation and factory in Cuba,
which the Cuban government nationalized in 1960.*]

Other facts linking Nixon to the JFK assassination emerged years later
during the Watergate conspiracy, some of which were revealed by Nixon's
former chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman. In his book, The Ends of Power,
Haldeman cites several conversations where Nixon expressed concern about
the Watergate affair becoming public knowledge and where this exposure
might lead. Haldeman writes:

"In fact, I was puzzled when he [Nixon] told me, 'Tell Ehrlichman this
whole group of Cubans [Watergate burglars] is tied to the Bay of Pigs.'
After a pause I said, 'The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with
this [the Watergate burglary]?' But Nixon merely said, 'Ehrlichman will
know what I mean,' and dropped the subject."

Later in his book, Haldeman appears to answer his own question when he
says, "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs,
he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination."

If Haldeman's interpretation is correct, then Nixon's instructions for him
to, "Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of [anti-Castro] Cubans is tied to
the Bay of Pigs," was Nixon's way of telling him to inform Ehrlichman that
the Watergate burglars were tied to Kennedy's murder. (It should be noted
that many Cuban exiles blamed Kennedy for the failure to overthrow Castro
at the Bay of Pigs, pointing to Kennedy's refusal to allow the American
military to launch a full-scale invasion of the island.)

You can also see:

http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardnixon,1014.htm
http://surftofind.com/nixon
Post by John McAdams
And let me give you a hint: if he would have no reason to lie, that
probably means he *didn't* lie and your source are distorting
evidence.
He was a born liar first of all and secondly, he obviously had a
reason to lie like most guilty people.
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
NIXON, PEPISCO & THE JFK ASSASSINATION
Posted By: ShermanSkolnick <Send E-Mail>
Oh, my!
Post by r***@netscape.com
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2002, 8:38 p.m. From: Sherman Skolnick
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: NIXON, PEPSICO AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION
In the 1970s, after giving a seminar in Fort Worth, Texas, I was several
times as a guest on WFAA- Dallas radio. One time I was on the air with a
former Director of Pepsico. He had been at their convention in Dallas with
their General Counsel at the time, Richard M. Nixon. He said that Nixon's
later statement (published in a magazine in 1973), that he left Dallas
before noon on an airflight to New York, November 22, 1963, is simply not
correct. The former Pepsico director said Nixon was at the convention all
that afternoon and was acting strange. While others stopped conducting
their business affairs, Nixon kept insisting on proceeding,
notwithstanding that everyone had heard that President Kennedy had been
assassinated shortly after noon that day.
Rob, YOU POSTED A LINK TO A PICTURE OF NIXON IN THE AIRPORT AFTER
HAVING RETURNED FROM DALLAS.
This second-hand claim from Skolnick has no credibility.
That is your opinion and that what makes the world go around.
Post by John McAdams
Then post a link to the *document.*
John, I'm dissappointed in you. I thought you had been researching this
topic for years, but everything that is posted by a CTer is the same "show
me the link". I would think you would have seen this stuff if you were
studying this for a long time. I mean how can you dispute things if you
haven't seen them yourself?
Post by John McAdams
OK, this is the very familiar memo.
Now explain again what is sinister about it. Shortly after JFK was
shot, Bush called the FBI to report somebody who had engaged in wild
talk about shooting the President.
Your leading the witness again. I never used the word "sinister". I said
the man claimed to be in two places other than Dallas on the day of the
assassination (Tyler and Houston), yet there is a photo taken of him
outside the TSBD shortly after the shooting. It is impossible for him to
have gotten there so fast. Why the lie? Because my guess is based on
Hoover's document he was the site rep for the CIA and he always denied
being in the outfit at that time. There could be more sinister reasons to
use your word, but I have no proof so I'll leave it at that. The funny
think is the man he was reporting ran his re- election campaign against
Clinton in 1992. Would you help someone (let alone talk to them) if they
reported you might try to kill the president?
Post by John McAdams
The "Ruby worked for Nixon" document is a forgery.
It was suposedly written in 1948 (47? 49?), but IT HAS A ZIP CODE.
It is the first time I had heard that one. So to sound like you, where's
the link? Prescott Bush ran the campaign for Ike/Nixon in 1952 and 1956.
It was written in 1947 as that is the year Nixon went to congress and
Rubenstein changed his name to Ruby in 1948.
Post by John McAdams
Are you willing to concede the Nixon "greatest hoax" thing?
.John
No. The more I read about the man the scarier it gets. He was a man that
would do anything to get ahead. There was no hoax, he lied to the FBI.
Read the link above.

Robert
John McAdams
2007-10-20 23:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
No, he was not "loud" about Kennedy.
Journalist Jim Marrs gives this account: "With Nixon in Dallas was
Pepsi-Cola heiress and actress Joan Crawford. Both Nixon and Crawford made
comments in the Dallas newspapers to the effect that they, unlike the
President, didn't need Secret Service protection, and they intimated that
the nation was upset with Kennedy's policies. It has been suggested that
this taunting may have been responsible for Kennedy's critical decision
not to order the Plexiglas top placed on his limousine on November 22."
This is nonsense. Kennedy always liked to be visible, and make
contact with the crowd.

Only continued rain could have caused the top to be up.
Post by r***@netscape.com
[Note: The Pepsi-Cola company had a sugar plantation and factory in Cuba,
which the Cuban government nationalized in 1960.*]
Other facts linking Nixon to the JFK assassination emerged years later
during the Watergate conspiracy, some of which were revealed by Nixon's
former chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman. In his book, The Ends of Power,
Haldeman cites several conversations where Nixon expressed concern about
the Watergate affair becoming public knowledge and where this exposure
"In fact, I was puzzled when he [Nixon] told me, 'Tell Ehrlichman this
whole group of Cubans [Watergate burglars] is tied to the Bay of Pigs.'
After a pause I said, 'The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with
this [the Watergate burglary]?' But Nixon merely said, 'Ehrlichman will
know what I mean,' and dropped the subject."
Later in his book, Haldeman appears to answer his own question when he
says, "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs,
he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination."
But Nixon didn't say "Kennedy assassination." He said "Bay of Pigs."

What kind of priciple of historical interpretation is this?

If somebody doesn't say what your theory requires, you just posit that
they *meant* what your theory requires.
Post by r***@netscape.com
If Haldeman's interpretation is correct, then Nixon's instructions for him
to, "Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of [anti-Castro] Cubans is tied to
the Bay of Pigs," was Nixon's way of telling him to inform Ehrlichman that
the Watergate burglars were tied to Kennedy's murder. (It should be noted
that many Cuban exiles blamed Kennedy for the failure to overthrow Castro
at the Bay of Pigs, pointing to Kennedy's refusal to allow the American
military to launch a full-scale invasion of the island.)
http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardnixon,1014.htm
http://surftofind.com/nixon
Post by John McAdams
And let me give you a hint: if he would have no reason to lie, that
probably means he *didn't* lie and your source are distorting
evidence.
He was a born liar first of all and secondly, he obviously had a
reason to lie like most guilty people.
But he wasn't guilty of anything having to do with the JFK
assassination.

Look . . . is this a metter of your hating Nixon, and so you think he
must have planned the assassination?

That's not the way to reason.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
NIXON, PEPISCO & THE JFK ASSASSINATION
Posted By: ShermanSkolnick <Send E-Mail>
Oh, my!
Post by r***@netscape.com
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2002, 8:38 p.m. From: Sherman Skolnick
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: NIXON, PEPSICO AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION
In the 1970s, after giving a seminar in Fort Worth, Texas, I was several
times as a guest on WFAA- Dallas radio. One time I was on the air with a
former Director of Pepsico. He had been at their convention in Dallas with
their General Counsel at the time, Richard M. Nixon. He said that Nixon's
later statement (published in a magazine in 1973), that he left Dallas
before noon on an airflight to New York, November 22, 1963, is simply not
correct. The former Pepsico director said Nixon was at the convention all
that afternoon and was acting strange. While others stopped conducting
their business affairs, Nixon kept insisting on proceeding,
notwithstanding that everyone had heard that President Kennedy had been
assassinated shortly after noon that day.
Rob, YOU POSTED A LINK TO A PICTURE OF NIXON IN THE AIRPORT AFTER
HAVING RETURNED FROM DALLAS.
This second-hand claim from Skolnick has no credibility.
That is your opinion and that what makes the world go around.
But you posted a link to a photo of Nixon that showed Skolnick to be
wrong.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Then post a link to the *document.*
John, I'm dissappointed in you. I thought you had been researching this
topic for years, but everything that is posted by a CTer is the same "show
me the link". I would think you would have seen this stuff if you were
studying this for a long time. I mean how can you dispute things if you
haven't seen them yourself?
Sashay(tm)!!

This is a silly bluff on your part.

There *is* no document showing what you claim.

That's why you can't post a link.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
OK, this is the very familiar memo.
Now explain again what is sinister about it. Shortly after JFK was
shot, Bush called the FBI to report somebody who had engaged in wild
talk about shooting the President.
Your leading the witness again. I never used the word "sinister". I said
the man claimed to be in two places other than Dallas on the day of the
assassination (Tyler and Houston), yet there is a photo taken of him
outside the TSBD shortly after the shooting.
That's just not true.

You even said that "intelligence agents" took the photo!
Post by r***@netscape.com
It is impossible for him to
have gotten there so fast. Why the lie? Because my guess is based on
Hoover's document he was the site rep for the CIA and he always denied
being in the outfit at that time. There could be more sinister reasons to
use your word, but I have no proof so I'll leave it at that. The funny
think is the man he was reporting ran his re- election campaign against
Clinton in 1992. Would you help someone (let alone talk to them) if they
reported you might try to kill the president?
Did the follow *know* about that memo?

Besides, what has that got to do with anything?
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
The "Ruby worked for Nixon" document is a forgery.
It was suposedly written in 1948 (47? 49?), but IT HAS A ZIP CODE.
It is the first time I had heard that one. So to sound like you, where's
the link? Prescott Bush ran the campaign for Ike/Nixon in 1952 and 1956.
It was written in 1947 as that is the year Nixon went to congress and
Rubenstein changed his name to Ruby in 1948.
I don't know it's online. But if you'll e-mail me your snail mail
address, I'll mail you a copy.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Are you willing to concede the Nixon "greatest hoax" thing?
No. The more I read about the man the scarier it gets. He was a man that
would do anything to get ahead. There was no hoax, he lied to the FBI.
Read the link above.
But the link above doesn't show that.

As for the "greatest hoax" nonsense, you keep deleting the link!

I'll just put it back.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm

And History Matters is willing to admit this.

http://www.history-matters.com/siteguide/siteguide_archivequotes.htm

So why aren't you?

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-22 23:30:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
No, he was not "loud" about Kennedy.
Journalist Jim Marrs gives this account: "With Nixon in Dallas was
Pepsi-Cola heiress and actress Joan Crawford. Both Nixon and Crawford made
comments in the Dallas newspapers to the effect that they, unlike the
President, didn't need Secret Service protection, and they intimated that
the nation was upset with Kennedy's policies. It has been suggested that
this taunting may have been responsible for Kennedy's critical decision
not to order the Plexiglas top placed on his limousine on November 22."
This is nonsense. Kennedy always liked to be visible, and make
contact with the crowd.
Only continued rain could have caused the top to be up.
Post by r***@netscape.com
[Note: The Pepsi-Cola company had a sugar plantation and factory in Cuba,
which the Cuban government nationalized in 1960.*]
Other facts linking Nixon to the JFK assassination emerged years later
during the Watergate conspiracy, some of which were revealed by Nixon's
former chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman. In his book, The Ends of Power,
Haldeman cites several conversations where Nixon expressed concern about
the Watergate affair becoming public knowledge and where this exposure
"In fact, I was puzzled when he [Nixon] told me, 'Tell Ehrlichman this
whole group of Cubans [Watergate burglars] is tied to the Bay of Pigs.'
After a pause I said, 'The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with
this [the Watergate burglary]?' But Nixon merely said, 'Ehrlichman will
know what I mean,' and dropped the subject."
Later in his book, Haldeman appears to answer his own question when he
says, "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs,
he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination."
But Nixon didn't say "Kennedy assassination." He said "Bay of Pigs."
The theory is that Helms authorized the assassination of Castro to
coincide with the Bay of Pigs invasion and that boomeranged into Castro
killing Kennedy. So Helms provoked Castro.
Post by John McAdams
What kind of priciple of historical interpretation is this?
It is what several people at the time thought the veiled reference
meant. Remember that Helms was not directly involved in the Bay of Pigs.
Post by John McAdams
If somebody doesn't say what your theory requires, you just posit that
they *meant* what your theory requires.
Post by r***@netscape.com
If Haldeman's interpretation is correct, then Nixon's instructions for him
to, "Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of [anti-Castro] Cubans is tied to
the Bay of Pigs," was Nixon's way of telling him to inform Ehrlichman that
the Watergate burglars were tied to Kennedy's murder. (It should be noted
that many Cuban exiles blamed Kennedy for the failure to overthrow Castro
at the Bay of Pigs, pointing to Kennedy's refusal to allow the American
military to launch a full-scale invasion of the island.)
http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardnixon,1014.htm
http://surftofind.com/nixon
Post by John McAdams
And let me give you a hint: if he would have no reason to lie, that
probably means he *didn't* lie and your source are distorting
evidence.
He was a born liar first of all and secondly, he obviously had a
reason to lie like most guilty people.
But he wasn't guilty of anything having to do with the JFK
assassination.
Look . . . is this a metter of your hating Nixon, and so you think he
must have planned the assassination?
That's not the way to reason.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
NIXON, PEPISCO & THE JFK ASSASSINATION
Posted By: ShermanSkolnick <Send E-Mail>
Oh, my!
Post by r***@netscape.com
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2002, 8:38 p.m. From: Sherman Skolnick
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: NIXON, PEPSICO AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION
In the 1970s, after giving a seminar in Fort Worth, Texas, I was several
times as a guest on WFAA- Dallas radio. One time I was on the air with a
former Director of Pepsico. He had been at their convention in Dallas with
their General Counsel at the time, Richard M. Nixon. He said that Nixon's
later statement (published in a magazine in 1973), that he left Dallas
before noon on an airflight to New York, November 22, 1963, is simply not
correct. The former Pepsico director said Nixon was at the convention all
that afternoon and was acting strange. While others stopped conducting
their business affairs, Nixon kept insisting on proceeding,
notwithstanding that everyone had heard that President Kennedy had been
assassinated shortly after noon that day.
Rob, YOU POSTED A LINK TO A PICTURE OF NIXON IN THE AIRPORT AFTER
HAVING RETURNED FROM DALLAS.
This second-hand claim from Skolnick has no credibility.
That is your opinion and that what makes the world go around.
But you posted a link to a photo of Nixon that showed Skolnick to be
wrong.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Then post a link to the *document.*
John, I'm dissappointed in you. I thought you had been researching this
topic for years, but everything that is posted by a CTer is the same "show
me the link". I would think you would have seen this stuff if you were
studying this for a long time. I mean how can you dispute things if you
haven't seen them yourself?
Sashay(tm)!!
This is a silly bluff on your part.
There *is* no document showing what you claim.
That's why you can't post a link.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
OK, this is the very familiar memo.
Now explain again what is sinister about it. Shortly after JFK was
shot, Bush called the FBI to report somebody who had engaged in wild
talk about shooting the President.
Your leading the witness again. I never used the word "sinister". I said
the man claimed to be in two places other than Dallas on the day of the
assassination (Tyler and Houston), yet there is a photo taken of him
outside the TSBD shortly after the shooting.
That's just not true.
You even said that "intelligence agents" took the photo!
Post by r***@netscape.com
It is impossible for him to
have gotten there so fast. Why the lie? Because my guess is based on
Hoover's document he was the site rep for the CIA and he always denied
being in the outfit at that time. There could be more sinister reasons to
use your word, but I have no proof so I'll leave it at that. The funny
think is the man he was reporting ran his re- election campaign against
Clinton in 1992. Would you help someone (let alone talk to them) if they
reported you might try to kill the president?
Did the follow *know* about that memo?
Besides, what has that got to do with anything?
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
The "Ruby worked for Nixon" document is a forgery.
It was suposedly written in 1948 (47? 49?), but IT HAS A ZIP CODE.
It is the first time I had heard that one. So to sound like you, where's
the link? Prescott Bush ran the campaign for Ike/Nixon in 1952 and 1956.
It was written in 1947 as that is the year Nixon went to congress and
Rubenstein changed his name to Ruby in 1948.
I don't know it's online. But if you'll e-mail me your snail mail
address, I'll mail you a copy.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Are you willing to concede the Nixon "greatest hoax" thing?
No. The more I read about the man the scarier it gets. He was a man that
would do anything to get ahead. There was no hoax, he lied to the FBI.
Read the link above.
But the link above doesn't show that.
As for the "greatest hoax" nonsense, you keep deleting the link!
I'll just put it back.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
And History Matters is willing to admit this.
http://www.history-matters.com/siteguide/siteguide_archivequotes.htm
So why aren't you?
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-23 03:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
No, he was not "loud" about Kennedy.
Mark Tracy's article.

http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy.html
Post by r***@netscape.com
Journalist Jim Marrs gives this account: "With Nixon in Dallas was
Journalist? No. Author.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Pepsi-Cola heiress and actress Joan Crawford. Both Nixon and Crawford made
comments in the Dallas newspapers to the effect that they, unlike the
President, didn't need Secret Service protection, and they intimated that
the nation was upset with Kennedy's policies. It has been suggested that
this taunting may have been responsible for Kennedy's critical decision
not to order the Plexiglas top placed on his limousine on November 22."
[Note: The Pepsi-Cola company had a sugar plantation and factory in Cuba,
which the Cuban government nationalized in 1960.*]
Other facts linking Nixon to the JFK assassination emerged years later
during the Watergate conspiracy, some of which were revealed by Nixon's
former chief of staff, H. R. Haldeman. In his book, The Ends of Power,
Haldeman cites several conversations where Nixon expressed concern about
the Watergate affair becoming public knowledge and where this exposure
"In fact, I was puzzled when he [Nixon] told me, 'Tell Ehrlichman this
whole group of Cubans [Watergate burglars] is tied to the Bay of Pigs.'
After a pause I said, 'The Bay of Pigs? What does that have to do with
this [the Watergate burglary]?' But Nixon merely said, 'Ehrlichman will
know what I mean,' and dropped the subject."
Later in his book, Haldeman appears to answer his own question when he
says, "It seems that in all of those Nixon references to the Bay of Pigs,
he was actually referring to the Kennedy assassination."
If Haldeman's interpretation is correct, then Nixon's instructions for him
to, "Tell Ehrlichman this whole group of [anti-Castro] Cubans is tied to
the Bay of Pigs," was Nixon's way of telling him to inform Ehrlichman that
the Watergate burglars were tied to Kennedy's murder. (It should be noted
that many Cuban exiles blamed Kennedy for the failure to overthrow Castro
at the Bay of Pigs, pointing to Kennedy's refusal to allow the American
military to launch a full-scale invasion of the island.)
http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardnixon,1014.htm
http://surftofind.com/nixon
Post by John McAdams
And let me give you a hint: if he would have no reason to lie, that
probably means he *didn't* lie and your source are distorting
evidence.
He was a born liar first of all and secondly, he obviously had a
reason to lie like most guilty people.
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
NIXON, PEPISCO & THE JFK ASSASSINATION
Posted By: ShermanSkolnick <Send E-Mail>
Oh, my!
Post by r***@netscape.com
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2002, 8:38 p.m. From: Sherman Skolnick
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: NIXON, PEPSICO AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION
In the 1970s, after giving a seminar in Fort Worth, Texas, I was several
times as a guest on WFAA- Dallas radio. One time I was on the air with a
former Director of Pepsico. He had been at their convention in Dallas with
their General Counsel at the time, Richard M. Nixon. He said that Nixon's
later statement (published in a magazine in 1973), that he left Dallas
before noon on an airflight to New York, November 22, 1963, is simply not
correct. The former Pepsico director said Nixon was at the convention all
that afternoon and was acting strange. While others stopped conducting
their business affairs, Nixon kept insisting on proceeding,
notwithstanding that everyone had heard that President Kennedy had been
assassinated shortly after noon that day.
Rob, YOU POSTED A LINK TO A PICTURE OF NIXON IN THE AIRPORT AFTER
HAVING RETURNED FROM DALLAS.
This second-hand claim from Skolnick has no credibility.
That is your opinion and that what makes the world go around.
Post by John McAdams
Then post a link to the *document.*
John, I'm dissappointed in you. I thought you had been researching this
topic for years, but everything that is posted by a CTer is the same "show
me the link". I would think you would have seen this stuff if you were
studying this for a long time. I mean how can you dispute things if you
haven't seen them yourself?
Post by John McAdams
OK, this is the very familiar memo.
Now explain again what is sinister about it. Shortly after JFK was
shot, Bush called the FBI to report somebody who had engaged in wild
talk about shooting the President.
Your leading the witness again. I never used the word "sinister". I said
the man claimed to be in two places other than Dallas on the day of the
assassination (Tyler and Houston), yet there is a photo taken of him
outside the TSBD shortly after the shooting. It is impossible for him to
have gotten there so fast. Why the lie? Because my guess is based on
Hoover's document he was the site rep for the CIA and he always denied
being in the outfit at that time. There could be more sinister reasons to
use your word, but I have no proof so I'll leave it at that. The funny
think is the man he was reporting ran his re- election campaign against
Clinton in 1992. Would you help someone (let alone talk to them) if they
reported you might try to kill the president?
Post by John McAdams
The "Ruby worked for Nixon" document is a forgery.
It was suposedly written in 1948 (47? 49?), but IT HAS A ZIP CODE.
It is the first time I had heard that one. So to sound like you, where's
the link? Prescott Bush ran the campaign for Ike/Nixon in 1952 and 1956.
It was written in 1947 as that is the year Nixon went to congress and
Rubenstein changed his name to Ruby in 1948.
Post by John McAdams
Are you willing to concede the Nixon "greatest hoax" thing?
.John
No. The more I read about the man the scarier it gets. He was a man that
would do anything to get ahead. There was no hoax, he lied to the FBI.
Read the link above.
Robert
Gerry Simone (O)
2007-10-20 23:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Dr. McAdams, you said:

OK, this is the very familiar memo.

Now explain again what is sinister about it. Shortly after JFK was shot,
Bush called the FBI to report somebody who had engaged in wild talk about
shooting the President.

<<end quote>>

I don't necessarily disagree with you in this series of posts but do you
believe that Bush called the FBI because I thought Bush denied that was
him in the FBI memo. The sinister part is that he denies it when a memo
couldn't be more clear or credible as to his identity.
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
If you don't want to accept that, you might explain *why* Nixon would
lie about this.
I have no clue. That's what I'm saying, why lie? I guess because he said
he was there for a Pepsi Co. board meeting and none was scheduled. He was
also very loud about Kennedy during this trip. So when JFK was shot it
could look to some he was guilty.
No, he was not "loud" about Kennedy.
And let me give you a hint: if he would have no reason to lie, that
probably means he *didn't* lie and your source are distorting
evidence.
Post by r***@netscape.com
NIXON, PEPISCO & THE JFK ASSASSINATION
Posted By: ShermanSkolnick <Send E-Mail>
Oh, my!
Post by r***@netscape.com
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2002, 8:38 p.m. From: Sherman Skolnick
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: NIXON, PEPSICO AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION
In the 1970s, after giving a seminar in Fort Worth, Texas, I was several
times as a guest on WFAA- Dallas radio. One time I was on the air with a
former Director of Pepsico. He had been at their convention in Dallas with
their General Counsel at the time, Richard M. Nixon. He said that Nixon's
later statement (published in a magazine in 1973), that he left Dallas
before noon on an airflight to New York, November 22, 1963, is simply not
correct. The former Pepsico director said Nixon was at the convention all
that afternoon and was acting strange. While others stopped conducting
their business affairs, Nixon kept insisting on proceeding,
notwithstanding that everyone had heard that President Kennedy had been
assassinated shortly after noon that day.
Rob, YOU POSTED A LINK TO A PICTURE OF NIXON IN THE AIRPORT AFTER
HAVING RETURNED FROM DALLAS.
This second-hand claim from Skolnick has no credibility.
Post by r***@netscape.com
As to Joan Crawford, that inherited her husband's large stock position at
Pepsico, she was certainly in a position to know a few things about Nixon.
At the hotel she was staying at in Dallas, she occupied the room next door
to Nixon.
By a strange series of circumstances in the 1970s, a retired "spook" I
knew, introduced me one night to the former covert operations official in
the FBI that had interviewed Nixon. The interview document is in the
Warren Commission documents. Yes, Nixon had lied about leaving Dallas that
fateful morning.
Then post a link to the *document.*
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
That page has the supposed photo of Bush in front of the Depository.
And you consider it reliable?
If you had read the paragraph next to it that says, "The image of the
elder Bush at the Texas Book Depository is authentic and can be verified
by the intelligence operatives who took the picture and would testify if
subpoenaed, according to U.S. intelligence expert Thomas Heneghan, who
provided TomFlocco.com with the photo which was leaked to several others."
then yes I think it is reliable.
You'll believe about anything, won't you?
The photo was not taken by "intelligence operatives."
You really need to post some evidence, not some wacky claim from some
wachy conspiracy web site.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
But I don't see "Tyler/Houston" thing on the page.
Please point me to the specific document.
http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/bush.htm
OK, this is the very familiar memo.
Now explain again what is sinister about it. Shortly after JFK was
shot, Bush called the FBI to report somebody who had engaged in wild
talk about shooting the President.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
Which part. Sorry it is not wrong.
The "Ruby worked for Nixon" document is a forgery.
It was suposedly written in 1948 (47? 49?), but IT HAS A ZIP CODE.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Why did you delete my link?
Can't deal with it?
No, I have a million links already. I've probably seen it before.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
You have accepted a bunch of bogus factoids. You seem to believe
that, since you think there was a conspiracy, that *every* claim of
conspiracy must be true.
.John
That's a big assumption from someone I don't even know. I don't believe
every conspiracy theory or supposed fact, but I certainly don't believe
one man pulled this off.
Are you willing to concede the Nixon "greatest hoax" thing?
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2007-10-20 23:55:23 UTC
Permalink
On 20 Oct 2007 19:35:34 -0400, "Gerry Simone \(O\)"
Post by John McAdams
OK, this is the very familiar memo.
Now explain again what is sinister about it. Shortly after JFK was shot,
Bush called the FBI to report somebody who had engaged in wild talk about
shooting the President.
<<end quote>>
I don't necessarily disagree with you in this series of posts but do you
believe that Bush called the FBI because I thought Bush denied that was
him in the FBI memo. The sinister part is that he denies it when a memo
couldn't be more clear or credible as to his identity.
He denied being the "George Bush of the CIA" mentioned in an FBI memo
as having gotten a briefing.

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
t***@gmail.com
2007-10-20 04:45:59 UTC
Permalink
TOP POST

Hi Robcap,

I don't think you can claim that Nixon *didn't know where he was* the day
Kennedy was assassinated. He writes about it in his 1978 memoir *RN - The
Memoirs of Richard Nixon*.

The Dallas Morning News reported on the morning of November 22 that he was
in Dallas for a Pepsi-Cola meeting and was due to fly out about two hours
before Kennedy arrived. This appears to accord with his memoirs.

Whether he was at Idlewild or in a cab in Queens doesn't seem to make a
lot of difference. He was in New York when he heard Kennedy had been shot.

I think some of the sinister speculations by some of the people you are
quoting appear exaggerated. For instance, he could hardly hide the fact he
had been in Dallas that day. It was printed in the newspaper, LOL!

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
If you don't want to accept that, you might explain *why* Nixon would
lie about this.
I have no clue. That's what I'm saying, why lie? I guess because he said
he was there for a Pepsi Co. board meeting and none was scheduled. He was
also very loud about Kennedy during this trip. So when JFK was shot it
could look to some he was guilty.
NIXON, PEPISCO & THE JFK ASSASSINATION
Posted By: ShermanSkolnick <Send E-Mail>
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2002, 8:38 p.m. From: Sherman Skolnick
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: NIXON, PEPSICO AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION
In the 1970s, after giving a seminar in Fort Worth, Texas, I was several
times as a guest on WFAA- Dallas radio. One time I was on the air with a
former Director of Pepsico. He had been at their convention in Dallas with
their General Counsel at the time, Richard M. Nixon. He said that Nixon's
later statement (published in a magazine in 1973), that he left Dallas
before noon on an airflight to New York, November 22, 1963, is simply not
correct. The former Pepsico director said Nixon was at the convention all
that afternoon and was acting strange. While others stopped conducting
their business affairs, Nixon kept insisting on proceeding,
notwithstanding that everyone had heard that President Kennedy had been
assassinated shortly after noon that day.
As to Joan Crawford, that inherited her husband's large stock position at
Pepsico, she was certainly in a position to know a few things about Nixon.
At the hotel she was staying at in Dallas, she occupied the room next door
to Nixon.
By a strange series of circumstances in the 1970s, a retired "spook" I
knew, introduced me one night to the former covert operations official in
the FBI that had interviewed Nixon. The interview document is in the
Warren Commission documents. Yes, Nixon had lied about leaving Dallas that
fateful morning.
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
That page has the supposed photo of Bush in front of the Depository.
And you consider it reliable?
If you had read the paragraph next to it that says, "The image of the
elder Bush at the Texas Book Depository is authentic and can be verified
by the intelligence operatives who took the picture and would testify if
subpoenaed, according to U.S. intelligence expert Thomas Heneghan, who
provided TomFlocco.com with the photo which was leaked to several others."
then yes I think it is reliable.
Post by John McAdams
But I don't see "Tyler/Houston" thing on the page.
Please point me to the specific document.
http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/bush.htm
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
Which part. Sorry it is not wrong.
Why did you delete my link?
Can't deal with it?
No, I have a million links already. I've probably seen it before.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
You have accepted a bunch of bogus factoids. You seem to believe
that, since you think there was a conspiracy, that *every* claim of
conspiracy must be true.
.John
That's a big assumption from someone I don't even know. I don't believe
every conspiracy theory or supposed fact, but I certainly don't believe
one man pulled this off.
Robert
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-20 23:27:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
TOP POST
Hi Robcap,
I don't think you can claim that Nixon *didn't know where he was* the day
Kennedy was assassinated. He writes about it in his 1978 memoir *RN - The
Memoirs of Richard Nixon*.
The Dallas Morning News reported on the morning of November 22 that he was
in Dallas for a Pepsi-Cola meeting and was due to fly out about two hours
before Kennedy arrived. This appears to accord with his memoirs.
Whether he was at Idlewild or in a cab in Queens doesn't seem to make a
lot of difference. He was in New York when he heard Kennedy had been shot.
I think some of the sinister speculations by some of the people you are
quoting appear exaggerated. For instance, he could hardly hide the fact he
had been in Dallas that day. It was printed in the newspaper, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
I was being sarcastic Tim, sorry. My point is that there are few days
when most grownups in the U.S. remember where they were and what they
were doing - 12/7/41, 11/22/63 and 9/11/01. Yet these two couldn't
manage to get their stories straight. I don't think these have
exaggerated as much of Nixon's comments were to the FBI.

Everyone keeps saying Nixon could be tracked (and maybe he could) but
remember in 1963 he was in private practice and a private citizen. He
was not a public official.

Robert
t***@gmail.com
2007-10-21 02:16:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
TOP POST
Hi Robcap,
I don't think you can claim that Nixon *didn't know where he was* the day
Kennedy was assassinated. He writes about it in his 1978 memoir *RN - The
Memoirs of Richard Nixon*.
The Dallas Morning News reported on the morning of November 22 that he was
in Dallas for a Pepsi-Cola meeting and was due to fly out about two hours
before Kennedy arrived. This appears to accord with his memoirs.
Whether he was at Idlewild or in a cab in Queens doesn't seem to make a
lot of difference. He was in New York when he heard Kennedy had been shot.
I think some of the sinister speculations by some of the people you are
quoting appear exaggerated. For instance, he could hardly hide the fact he
had been in Dallas that day. It was printed in the newspaper, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
I was being sarcastic Tim, sorry. My point is that there are few days
when most grownups in the U.S. remember where they were and what they
were doing - 12/7/41, 11/22/63 and 9/11/01. Yet these two couldn't
manage to get their stories straight. I don't think these have
exaggerated as much of Nixon's comments were to the FBI.
Everyone keeps saying Nixon could be tracked (and maybe he could) but
remember in 1963 he was in private practice and a private citizen. He
was not a public official.
Robert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Robert,

I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.

Jim Marrs, at that website you quote, uses parts of both clippings to
illustrate his account, but when it comes to the most inflammatory claim
he makes against Nixon that:

*Both Nixon and Crawford made comments in the Dallas newspapers to the
effect that they, unlike the President, didn't need Secret Service
protection...*

and then concludes that:

*It has been suggested that this taunting may have been responsible for
Kennedy's critical decision not to order the Plexiglas top placed on his
limousine...*

he provides no direct quote from either article to support that
contention. That's because there is no such statement by Nixon in either
article.

Now, maybe there was a further Dallas article that the FBI missed and
Marrs saw but wouldn't he quote directly from that if he had it?
Particularly to back up this nastiest slur against Nixon? He doesn't.

In fact, contrary to what Marrs concludes, in the first of the two
articles Nixon is quoted as urging *a courteous reception for President
Kennedy and Vice President Johnson Friday.*

Nixon was still a public figure and his trip to Dallas for the Pepsi Cola
meeting is documented in both articles.

Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
cdddraftsman
2007-10-21 23:13:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????

Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?

I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-22 23:23:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by cdddraftsman
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Marrs is so crazy that is why he has taught classes on the
assassination at the university level. What have you done? There are
no credits for adding links to e-mails. RC
cdddraftsman
2007-10-24 00:20:42 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 22, 4:23 pm, ***@netscape.com wrote:
. He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by cdddraftsman
( ................tl
Marrs is so crazy that is why he has taught classes on the
assassination at the university level. What have you done? There are
no credits for adding links to e-mails. RC
You have answered a very important question on why people are so stupid in
general and specifically why they come out of college and have to learn
all over again in the real world what it's like to think with their brains
. It's a fact that 1 out of every 6 American adults are illiterate and
that fully 99% have never read the WCR . Jim Fetzer also taught at the
Universary Level and is as wacky as a fruitcake . Jim Garrison served in
the National Guard , went on to become a FBI Agent , then District
Attorney of N.O. , then Appelate Court Judge ; A man who could see hidden
handed assassins hundreds of miles away behind a picket fence in Dealey
Plaza , yet didn't know and wouldn't admit to Carlos Marcellos , one of
the biggest Mafia leaders in the US , being in and having his headquarters
in the same city (N.O.) as he was Distric Attorney in ? Hmmmmm ???? And
you where wondering about something ? : -)

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/garrison.htm

If Jim Marrs has taught classes at the University Level that explains why
your so confused abut a open and shut case . So I must ask . Did you
attended every class in all the years that he taught and if you did , did
you recieve a A+++ for your dilligence in swallowing conspiracy guff .
It shows by the quality of what passes as discourse in your questions and
reply's which I must admit , are of a astoundlingy and astonishingly
pedestrian and urban legend quality . IOW & IMO you would of flunked out
big time in a class like

Prof. Kenneth Rahn's :
The Academic JFK Assassination Site
Stressing physical evidence and critical thinking
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html

Where he's worked out a tried and true method of figuring out the
assassination based upon classical and skeptical thinking skills that
you have no idea of even their existence . Cheers ! :-)
...........................tl
John McAdams
2007-10-24 00:23:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Marrs is so crazy that is why he has taught classes on the
assassination at the university level. What have you done? There are
no credits for adding links to e-mails. RC
I think you'll find it was a "adult enrichment" or "continuing
education" class. I don't think any reputable academic department
would let Marrs teach a class on the assassination.

.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
2007-10-24 03:18:46 UTC
Permalink
Then, how do you get to teach a class?
Then, How does Ken Rahn get to teach a class?
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Marrs is so crazy that is why he has taught classes on the
assassination at the university level. What have you done? There are
no credits for adding links to e-mails. RC
I think you'll find it was a "adult enrichment" or "continuing
education" class. I don't think any reputable academic department
would let Marrs teach a class on the assassination.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-25 02:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomnln
Then, how do you get to teach a class?
Then, How does Ken Rahn get to teach a class?
Rank has its privileges.
Post by tomnln
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right
............ :-
( ................tl
Marrs is so crazy that is why he has taught classes on the
assassination at the university level. What have you done? There are
no credits for adding links to e-mails. RC
I think you'll find it was a "adult enrichment" or "continuing
education" class. I don't think any reputable academic department
would let Marrs teach a class on the assassination.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-25 21:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
I think you'll find it was a "adult enrichment" or "continuing
education" class. I don't think any reputable academic department
would let Marrs teach a class on the assassination.
.John
John,

Care to comment:

The Greater Whitewash -
Warren Or Kean
Commission Report?

Rense.com Exclusive
By Douglas Herman
***@yahoo.com
3-13-6

Nowadays the Warren Report is considered less an objective historical
document than a biased archive full of omissions, distortions and
outright falsehoods. Only a few, obviously well-paid apologists like
Gerald Posner (Case Closed) and the ubiquitous "John McAdams,"
together with the usual History Channel/Discovery Channel WC
regurgitators continue to churn out the lone gunman version of
events.

Robert
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-24 02:22:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Marrs is so crazy that is why he has taught classes on the
assassination at the university level. What have you done? There are
no credits for adding links to e-mails. RC
Teaching classes on the assassination at the university level is no
guarantee of anything.
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-26 02:06:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Teaching classes on the assassination at the university level is no
guarantee of anything.
It is when most of academia spouts the official theory partyline. How
many people actively seeking tenure or at tenure are writing pro-
conspiracy books or giving lectures? Maybe there are more than I know of,
but I don't see too many.
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-27 01:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Teaching classes on the assassination at the university level is no
guarantee of anything.
It is when most of academia spouts the official theory partyline. How
many people actively seeking tenure or at tenure are writing pro-
conspiracy books or giving lectures? Maybe there are more than I know of,
but I don't see too many.
You may not be aware of some of the pro-conspiracy authors who have
given classes, and even WC defenders invite conspiracy authors to
lecture at their classes.
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-22 23:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????
And how come you don't ridicule Ronald Reagan for believing in UFOs?
Post by cdddraftsman
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
t***@gmail.com
2007-10-23 15:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Hi TL,

I couldn't help but notice that one of the websites that RobCap is
using to support his Nixon argument has a 9/11 link in it. :-)

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-24 02:21:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Hi TL,
I couldn't help but notice that one of the websites that RobCap is
using to support his Nixon argument has a 9/11 link in it. :-)
More demonizing.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
John McAdams
2007-10-24 03:37:52 UTC
Permalink
On 23 Oct 2007 22:21:15 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Hi TL,
I couldn't help but notice that one of the websites that RobCap is
using to support his Nixon argument has a 9/11 link in it. :-)
More demonizing.
Goes to credibility.

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-25 02:13:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
On 23 Oct 2007 22:21:15 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Hi TL,
I couldn't help but notice that one of the websites that RobCap is
using to support his Nixon argument has a 9/11 link in it. :-)
More demonizing.
Goes to credibility.
No, you focus on what you call credibility to discredit people. Because
you can only demonize, never debate the evidence.
Post by John McAdams
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
t***@gmail.com
2007-10-25 03:07:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 23 Oct 2007 22:21:15 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Hi TL,
I couldn't help but notice that one of the websites that RobCap is
using to support his Nixon argument has a 9/11 link in it. :-)
More demonizing.
Goes to credibility.
No, you focus on what you call credibility to discredit people. Because
you can only demonize, never debate the evidence.
Post by John McAdams
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Marsh,

Well I believe I debated the evidence with RobCap and pointed out a few
anomalies in the sources he was quoting.

If I point out that one of those sources is a website that links to a 9/11
conspiracy site, among a number of other rather dubious links in my view,
I'm only pointing out a fact as far as I can see.

The sources he is quoting don't always appear to accord with the evidence,
on close examination. They have a credibility problem. So does his
argument if he uses them to support it.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-25 04:55:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 23 Oct 2007 22:21:15 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Hi TL,
I couldn't help but notice that one of the websites that RobCap is
using to support his Nixon argument has a 9/11 link in it. :-)
More demonizing.
Goes to credibility.
No, you focus on what you call credibility to discredit people. Because
you can only demonize, never debate the evidence.
Post by John McAdams
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Marsh,
Well I believe I debated the evidence with RobCap and pointed out a few
anomalies in the sources he was quoting.
If I point out that one of those sources is a website that links to a 9/11
conspiracy site, among a number of other rather dubious links in my view,
I'm only pointing out a fact as far as I can see.
No, you are not. You are trying to tar by association.
Knock it off.
Post by t***@gmail.com
The sources he is quoting don't always appear to accord with the evidence,
on close examination. They have a credibility problem. So does his
argument if he uses them to support it.
So, you don't like their articles? Then say why.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
t***@gmail.com
2007-10-26 00:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 23 Oct 2007 22:21:15 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Hi TL,
I couldn't help but notice that one of the websites that RobCap is
using to support his Nixon argument has a 9/11 link in it. :-)
More demonizing.
Goes to credibility.
No, you focus on what you call credibility to discredit people. Because
you can only demonize, never debate the evidence.
Post by John McAdams
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Marsh,
Well I believe I debated the evidence with RobCap and pointed out a few
anomalies in the sources he was quoting.
If I point out that one of those sources is a website that links to a 9/11
conspiracy site, among a number of other rather dubious links in my view,
I'm only pointing out a fact as far as I can see.
No, you are not. You are trying to tar by association.
Knock it off.
Post by t***@gmail.com
The sources he is quoting don't always appear to accord with the evidence,
on close examination. They have a credibility problem. So does his
argument if he uses them to support it.
So, you don't like their articles? Then say why.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well stop using the term WC defenders in every second post then, Tony.

As for their articles, I already pointed out that Marrs makes a nasty
slur against Nixon but hasn't provided a source for it.

Looks like typical Oswald defender tactics to me, Marsh. :-)

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-27 01:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 23 Oct 2007 22:21:15 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Hi TL,
I couldn't help but notice that one of the websites that RobCap is
using to support his Nixon argument has a 9/11 link in it. :-)
More demonizing.
Goes to credibility.
No, you focus on what you call credibility to discredit people. Because
you can only demonize, never debate the evidence.
Post by John McAdams
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Marsh,
Well I believe I debated the evidence with RobCap and pointed out a few
anomalies in the sources he was quoting.
If I point out that one of those sources is a website that links to a 9/11
conspiracy site, among a number of other rather dubious links in my view,
I'm only pointing out a fact as far as I can see.
No, you are not. You are trying to tar by association.
Knock it off.
Post by t***@gmail.com
The sources he is quoting don't always appear to accord with the evidence,
on close examination. They have a credibility problem. So does his
argument if he uses them to support it.
So, you don't like their articles? Then say why.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well stop using the term WC defenders in every second post then, Tony.
So, you are trying to deny that you are a WC defender? Again, let me
remind you that I keep using the term WC defender because the moderators
will not let me use the correct term.
Post by t***@gmail.com
As for their articles, I already pointed out that Marrs makes a nasty
slur against Nixon but hasn't provided a source for it.
Tell me something new.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Looks like typical Oswald defender tactics to me, Marsh. :-)
Very few people who believe in conspiracy are Oswald defenders. Many of
them think Oswald was involved somehow.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
t***@gmail.com
2007-10-27 06:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 23 Oct 2007 22:21:15 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Hi TL,
I couldn't help but notice that one of the websites that RobCap is
using to support his Nixon argument has a 9/11 link in it. :-)
More demonizing.
Goes to credibility.
No, you focus on what you call credibility to discredit people. Because
you can only demonize, never debate the evidence.
Post by John McAdams
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-Hidequoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Marsh,
Well I believe I debated the evidence with RobCap and pointed out a few
anomalies in the sources he was quoting.
If I point out that one of those sources is a website that links to a 9/11
conspiracy site, among a number of other rather dubious links in my view,
I'm only pointing out a fact as far as I can see.
No, you are not. You are trying to tar by association.
Knock it off.
Post by t***@gmail.com
The sources he is quoting don't always appear to accord with the evidence,
on close examination. They have a credibility problem. So does his
argument if he uses them to support it.
So, you don't like their articles? Then say why.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well stop using the term WC defenders in every second post then, Tony.
So, you are trying to deny that you are a WC defender? Again, let me
remind you that I keep using the term WC defender because the moderators
will not let me use the correct term.
Post by t***@gmail.com
As for their articles, I already pointed out that Marrs makes a nasty
slur against Nixon but hasn't provided a source for it.
Tell me something new.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Looks like typical Oswald defender tactics to me, Marsh. :-)
Very few people who believe in conspiracy are Oswald defenders. Many of
them think Oswald was involved somehow.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Tony,

I must say that I find it amusing that you're concerned about demonizing
when you include in nearly every post some generalised attack on *WC
Defenders* and how they won't address the evidence.

Your own postion on Oswald appears to vary, depending on what scenario
you're debating at the particular time.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-28 01:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by John McAdams
On 23 Oct 2007 22:21:15 -0400, Anthony Marsh
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Hi TL,
I couldn't help but notice that one of the websites that RobCap is
using to support his Nixon argument has a 9/11 link in it. :-)
More demonizing.
Goes to credibility.
No, you focus on what you call credibility to discredit people. Because
you can only demonize, never debate the evidence.
Post by John McAdams
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-Hidequoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Marsh,
Well I believe I debated the evidence with RobCap and pointed out a few
anomalies in the sources he was quoting.
If I point out that one of those sources is a website that links to a 9/11
conspiracy site, among a number of other rather dubious links in my view,
I'm only pointing out a fact as far as I can see.
No, you are not. You are trying to tar by association.
Knock it off.
Post by t***@gmail.com
The sources he is quoting don't always appear to accord with the evidence,
on close examination. They have a credibility problem. So does his
argument if he uses them to support it.
So, you don't like their articles? Then say why.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well stop using the term WC defenders in every second post then, Tony.
So, you are trying to deny that you are a WC defender? Again, let me
remind you that I keep using the term WC defender because the moderators
will not let me use the correct term.
Post by t***@gmail.com
As for their articles, I already pointed out that Marrs makes a nasty
slur against Nixon but hasn't provided a source for it.
Tell me something new.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Looks like typical Oswald defender tactics to me, Marsh. :-)
Very few people who believe in conspiracy are Oswald defenders. Many of
them think Oswald was involved somehow.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Tony,
I must say that I find it amusing that you're concerned about demonizing
when you include in nearly every post some generalised attack on *WC
Defenders* and how they won't address the evidence.
Maybe you are new and have never read my previous messages. I have
explained several times that I only use the term WC defender as a
euphemism, because the moderators will not allow me to use the correct
term.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Your own postion on Oswald appears to vary, depending on what scenario
you're debating at the particular time.
I have always said that I leave open the possibility that Oswald was
involved somehow. I doubt he pulled a trigger that day.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-26 02:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Goes to credibility.
.John
We all know Nixon is not credible thanks to hindsight. Why would he be
honest in 1963? He promised to end the Vietnam war in the 1968 elections,
guess what, he was still promising the same thing in 1972! He was a born
liar I guess is the best answer.
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-27 01:21:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Goes to credibility.
.John
We all know Nixon is not credible thanks to hindsight. Why would he be
honest in 1963? He promised to end the Vietnam war in the 1968 elections,
guess what, he was still promising the same thing in 1972! He was a born
liar I guess is the best answer.
That's silly. Even the most dishonest person has to be telling the truth
some time. And you should not make false allegations about Nixon only
because you hate him. Nixon flew back to New York. He was photographed and
interviewed by the press. Then he took a cab. His flight got in at 12:56
so he could not have heard about the assassination before he got the cab.
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-28 02:01:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
That's silly. Even the most dishonest person has to be telling the truth
some time. And you should not make false allegations about Nixon only
because you hate him. Nixon flew back to New York. He was photographed and
interviewed by the press. Then he took a cab. His flight got in at 12:56
so he could not have heard about the assassination before he got the cab.
I'm going to say this one time and one time only to you Tony, quit making
assumptions about what I think. I am not making these allegation because
I hate Nixon (I don't like him), but because this happened. Do you only
research people you like? Do you only question those you dislike? That
is not how it works. Many people have looked at Nixon as an accomplince
in this. He was out of politics and made the statement "you won't have
Richard Nixon to kick around anymore" and went back to private practice.
Only after the deaths of JFK and RFK does he win an election. He was the
one obsessed with JFK as he mentions "The Bay of Pigs" (supposedly his
code term for JFK's assassination) alot in his tapes. Many of these are
public records now so it isn't me just saying this.

Ever hear of communication devices? Every plane has them. I'm sure it
would have been transmitted to the pilot and he would have announced it to
the crew and passengers. This was a major event. Nixon lied because he
didn't want people to know he was in Dallas on the day of the
assassination, whether he was there at the exact time or not. Don't ask
me why. He didn't and it is obvious he lied to hide this fact.

r***@netscape.com
2007-10-26 02:03:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by t***@gmail.com
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Jim Marrs .....Ahhh yes ...the jfk assassination is a
conspiracy ......UFO's
are real ........remote viewing is a
reality ...........Hmmmmmm ?????????
Wonder what he thinks about the WTC collapse ? Does he hold the same views
as his twin bedmate of disaster when it comes to logic , Jim Fetzer , who
thinks the planes were actually hollowgrams and the towers were felled by
space beams ?
I do know one thing , if the $ arraingments were right , Jim Marrs would
put on a performance that would make you think any number of things that
are impossible . He seems to have fooled robcap all right ............ :-
( ................tl
Hi TL,
I couldn't help but notice that one of the websites that RobCap is
using to support his Nixon argument has a 9/11 link in it. :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Tim,

Many of the sites that deal with the JFK assassination discuss other
assassinations (i.e. RFK, MLK, etc...) and conspiracy theories. Like it
or not 9/11 is part of that for many people, but it doesn't mean I've read
it in-depth. Even if I did, what does that have to do with JFK's death?
Stay on topic.

Robert
cdddraftsman
2007-10-21 23:13:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
TOP POST
Hi Robcap,
I don't think you can claim that Nixon *didn't know where he was* the day
Kennedy was assassinated. He writes about it in his 1978 memoir *RN - The
Memoirs of Richard Nixon*.
The Dallas Morning News reported on the morning of November 22 that he was
in Dallas for a Pepsi-Cola meeting and was due to fly out about two hours
before Kennedy arrived. This appears to accord with his memoirs.
Whether he was at Idlewild or in a cab in Queens doesn't seem to make a
lot of difference. He was in New York when he heard Kennedy had been shot.
I think some of the sinister speculations by some of the people you are
quoting appear exaggerated. For instance, he could hardly hide the fact he
had been in Dallas that day. It was printed in the newspaper, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
I was being sarcastic Tim, sorry. My point is that there are few days
when most grownups in the U.S. remember where they were and what they
were doing - 12/7/41, 11/22/63 and 9/11/01. Yet these two couldn't
manage to get their stories straight. I don't think these have
exaggerated as much of Nixon's comments were to the FBI.
Everyone keeps saying Nixon could be tracked (and maybe he could) but
remember in 1963 he was in private practice and a private citizen. He
was not a public official.
Robert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Jim Marrs, at that website you quote, uses parts of both clippings to
illustrate his account, but when it comes to the most inflammatory claim
*Both Nixon and Crawford made comments in the Dallas newspapers to the
effect that they, unlike the President, didn't need Secret Service
protection...*
*It has been suggested that this taunting may have been responsible for
Kennedy's critical decision not to order the Plexiglas top placed on his
limousine...*
he provides no direct quote from either article to support that
contention. That's because there is no such statement by Nixon in either
article.
Now, maybe there was a further Dallas article that the FBI missed and
Marrs saw but wouldn't he quote directly from that if he had it?
Particularly to back up this nastiest slur against Nixon? He doesn't.
In fact, contrary to what Marrs concludes, in the first of the two
articles Nixon is quoted as urging *a courteous reception for President
Kennedy and Vice President Johnson Friday.*
Nixon was still a public figure and his trip to Dallas for the Pepsi Cola
meeting is documented in both articles.
Any websit quoting Marrs, known UFO theorist, should be viewed with
caution, in my book.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4df5c2371318366e/a550c3b3fd5d95dc?lnk=raot#a550c3b3fd5d95dc

***@netscape.com at acj wrote :

Go see my new posts. I know more than you guys who just cite each other.
I point out basic stuff and nobody seems to have ever heard any of it
before. How convenient. Your stuff is worthy of the john.

TL replied :

I take great exception ! I hope he wasn't refering to John McAdams

:-( tl )-:
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-21 23:18:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,

I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.

The point I was infering is these two men were very iffy on where they
were and how they heard about this event. My question is why?

Robert
yeuhd
2007-10-22 15:21:06 UTC
Permalink
The writer implies, the reader infers.
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-22 23:24:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,
I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.
Well, the most important thing is to demonize. The WC defenders can not
argue the facts. They have none. So their only tactic available then is to
discredit their opponents. Notice though that they never do that to one of
their own. They would not point out that their hero Ronald Reagan believed
in UFOs.
Post by r***@netscape.com
The point I was infering is these two men were very iffy on where they
were and how they heard about this event. My question is why?
Robert
t***@gmail.com
2007-10-23 19:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,
I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.
Well, the most important thing is to demonize. The WC defenders can not
argue the facts. They have none. So their only tactic available then is to
discredit their opponents. Notice though that they never do that to one of
their own. They would not point out that their hero Ronald Reagan believed
in UFOs.
Post by r***@netscape.com
The point I was infering is these two men were very iffy on where they
were and how they heard about this event. My question is why?
Robert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Tony,

Say, Marsh, I don't think you can claim that I haven't argued the
facts with RobCap on this matter. I have pointed out that the guy he
is quoting, Marrs, is making a very nasty inference about Nixon
without producing a source.

Marrs is happy to demonize Nixon in the matter of the Kennedy
assassination, Tony, without backing it up. You don't seem too
concerned about that.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-24 02:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,
I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.
Well, the most important thing is to demonize. The WC defenders can not
argue the facts. They have none. So their only tactic available then is to
discredit their opponents. Notice though that they never do that to one of
their own. They would not point out that their hero Ronald Reagan believed
in UFOs.
Post by r***@netscape.com
The point I was infering is these two men were very iffy on where they
were and how they heard about this event. My question is why?
Robert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Tony,
Say, Marsh, I don't think you can claim that I haven't argued the
facts with RobCap on this matter. I have pointed out that the guy he
is quoting, Marrs, is making a very nasty inference about Nixon
without producing a source.
Marrs is happy to demonize Nixon in the matter of the Kennedy
assassination, Tony, without backing it up. You don't seem too
concerned about that.
What do you want me to do, assassinate him?
It doesn't matter how much I hate Nixon, he had nothing to do with the
Kennedy assassination, and all these recent accusations are silly.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
t***@gmail.com
2007-10-25 02:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,
I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.
Well, the most important thing is to demonize. The WC defenders can not
argue the facts. They have none. So their only tactic available then is to
discredit their opponents. Notice though that they never do that to one of
their own. They would not point out that their hero Ronald Reagan believed
in UFOs.
Post by r***@netscape.com
The point I was infering is these two men were very iffy on where they
were and how they heard about this event. My question is why?
Robert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Tony,
Say, Marsh, I don't think you can claim that I haven't argued the
facts with RobCap on this matter. I have pointed out that the guy he
is quoting, Marrs, is making a very nasty inference about Nixon
without producing a source.
Marrs is happy to demonize Nixon in the matter of the Kennedy
assassination, Tony, without backing it up. You don't seem too
concerned about that.
What do you want me to do, assassinate him?
It doesn't matter how much I hate Nixon, he had nothing to do with the
Kennedy assassination, and all these recent accusations are silly.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What I want you to do, Tony, is to pick one side or the other of the
current debate and stick to it, instead of playing both ends against the
middle.

What I also want you to do is to cease making generalised comments about
WC defenders if you can't wear the same sort of generalisations being made
against Oswald defenders.

The fact is that Oswald defenders demonize when it suits their purpose,
Tony. The term CIA asset comes to mind.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-25 05:35:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,
I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.
Well, the most important thing is to demonize. The WC defenders can not
argue the facts. They have none. So their only tactic available then is to
discredit their opponents. Notice though that they never do that to one of
their own. They would not point out that their hero Ronald Reagan believed
in UFOs.
Post by r***@netscape.com
The point I was infering is these two men were very iffy on where they
were and how they heard about this event. My question is why?
Robert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Tony,
Say, Marsh, I don't think you can claim that I haven't argued the
facts with RobCap on this matter. I have pointed out that the guy he
is quoting, Marrs, is making a very nasty inference about Nixon
without producing a source.
Marrs is happy to demonize Nixon in the matter of the Kennedy
assassination, Tony, without backing it up. You don't seem too
concerned about that.
What do you want me to do, assassinate him?
It doesn't matter how much I hate Nixon, he had nothing to do with the
Kennedy assassination, and all these recent accusations are silly.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
What I want you to do, Tony, is to pick one side or the other of the
current debate and stick to it, instead of playing both ends against the
middle.
No, what you want to do is state with a preconceived conclusion and
ignore anything which does not support it.
Post by t***@gmail.com
What I also want you to do is to cease making generalised comments about
WC defenders if you can't wear the same sort of generalisations being made
against Oswald defenders.
Oswald defenders? There you go again with the character assassination.
Post by t***@gmail.com
The fact is that Oswald defenders demonize when it suits their purpose,
Tony. The term CIA asset comes to mind.
More nonsense from a WC defender.
Post by t***@gmail.com
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-26 02:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
What do you want me to do, assassinate him?
It doesn't matter how much I hate Nixon, he had nothing to do with the
Kennedy assassination, and all these recent accusations are silly.
Tony, read each of my posts and tell me which one of mine is accusing
Nixon? I was asking simple questions. The LNers have taken that to me
saying he shot the gun in the 6th floor window of the TSBD, why?

Robert
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-27 01:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
What do you want me to do, assassinate him?
It doesn't matter how much I hate Nixon, he had nothing to do with the
Kennedy assassination, and all these recent accusations are silly.
Tony, read each of my posts and tell me which one of mine is accusing
Nixon? I was asking simple questions. The LNers have taken that to me
saying he shot the gun in the 6th floor window of the TSBD, why?
You have said that Nixon did not know where he was that day. That is a
false allegation.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Robert
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-26 02:04:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,
I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.
Well, the most important thing is to demonize. The WC defenders can not
argue the facts. They have none. So their only tactic available then is to
discredit their opponents. Notice though that they never do that to one of
their own. They would not point out that their hero Ronald Reagan believed
in UFOs.
Post by r***@netscape.com
The point I was infering is these two men were very iffy on where they
were and how they heard about this event. My question is why?
Robert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Tony,
Say, Marsh, I don't think you can claim that I haven't argued the
facts with RobCap on this matter. I have pointed out that the guy he
is quoting, Marrs, is making a very nasty inference about Nixon
without producing a source.
Marrs is happy to demonize Nixon in the matter of the Kennedy
assassination, Tony, without backing it up. You don't seem too
concerned about that.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Tim,

Marrs is but one of many who have discussed this issue in print over the
years. The irony of a grown man not being able to get the story straight
about how he heard of JFK's assassination is pretty important. Why all
the deception? Is that demonizing Nixon? Is asking why a man who ran our
country can't remember his whereabouts (he lied about the time of his
departure from Dallas as well) or how heard the news of JFK's assassinaton
(one of the most important events in the 20th century for America)
demonizing him? Not in my book. If he had just stated the facts as they
were from the beginning it wouldn't been an issue.

Robert
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-27 01:23:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,
I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.
Well, the most important thing is to demonize. The WC defenders can not
argue the facts. They have none. So their only tactic available then is to
discredit their opponents. Notice though that they never do that to one of
their own. They would not point out that their hero Ronald Reagan believed
in UFOs.
Post by r***@netscape.com
The point I was infering is these two men were very iffy on where they
were and how they heard about this event. My question is why?
Robert- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hi Tony,
Say, Marsh, I don't think you can claim that I haven't argued the
facts with RobCap on this matter. I have pointed out that the guy he
is quoting, Marrs, is making a very nasty inference about Nixon
without producing a source.
Marrs is happy to demonize Nixon in the matter of the Kennedy
assassination, Tony, without backing it up. You don't seem too
concerned about that.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Tim,
Marrs is but one of many who have discussed this issue in print over the
years. The irony of a grown man not being able to get the story straight
about how he heard of JFK's assassination is pretty important. Why all
Again, that is a false accusation. The facts document where Nixon was.
Post by r***@netscape.com
the deception? Is that demonizing Nixon? Is asking why a man who ran our
country can't remember his whereabouts (he lied about the time of his
departure from Dallas as well) or how heard the news of JFK's assassinaton
(one of the most important events in the 20th century for America)
demonizing him? Not in my book. If he had just stated the facts as they
were from the beginning it wouldn't been an issue.
How can he get to Idlewild at 12:56 if he didn't leave Dallas in the
morning?
Post by r***@netscape.com
Robert
t***@gmail.com
2007-10-23 19:49:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,
I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.
The point I was infering is these two men were very iffy on where they
were and how they heard about this event. My question is why?
Robert
Hi Robert,

No one is claiming you haven't done your reading on this matter, but I
think there are a few problems emerging. Rather alarming problems.

I think you're in danger here of throwing more and more at Nixon in an
attempt to make something stick in the matter of the Kennedy
assassination, and failing rather badly.

You posted a website that showed a photo of him at Idlewild on 22/11,
then posted another source that said he stayed in Dallas. John McAdams
pointed out this anomaly in your reasoning.

You're defending Marrs and his *great* book *Crossfire*, but the part
about the bubble top and Joan Crawford and the nasty things that were
said that may have influenced JFK's thinking into lowering his
security that day are a direct quote from Marrs's book!

I have pointed out that Marrs fails to provide a source for that but
that does not appear to cloud your enthusiasm for Marrs and his so far
unsubstantiated anti-Nixon rant.

Nixon's account appears, by and large, to gell with what is on the
public record. The factoids in these websites that you quote appear
much more questionable, in my view.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-26 02:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,
I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.
The point I was infering is these two men were very iffy on where they
were and how they heard about this event. My question is why?
Robert
Hi Robert,
No one is claiming you haven't done your reading on this matter, but I
think there are a few problems emerging. Rather alarming problems.
I think you're in danger here of throwing more and more at Nixon in an
attempt to make something stick in the matter of the Kennedy
assassination, and failing rather badly.
You posted a website that showed a photo of him at Idlewild on 22/11,
then posted another source that said he stayed in Dallas. John McAdams
pointed out this anomaly in your reasoning.
You're defending Marrs and his *great* book *Crossfire*, but the part
about the bubble top and Joan Crawford and the nasty things that were
said that may have influenced JFK's thinking into lowering his
security that day are a direct quote from Marrs's book!
I have pointed out that Marrs fails to provide a source for that but
that does not appear to cloud your enthusiasm for Marrs and his so far
unsubstantiated anti-Nixon rant.
Nixon's account appears, by and large, to gell with what is on the
public record. The factoids in these websites that you quote appear
much more questionable, in my view.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Tim,

You're the one making more of this than me. I'm simply stating that Nixon
lied about his whereabouts and how he heard of the JFK assassination. I
started this string simply asking why? The all out repsonse I've gotten
from the LNers tells me it doesn't look good for Nixon. Why the lies? It
is a simple question, but all I've gotten is attacks on the few sources
I've listed. This has been mentioned by alot of researchers over the
years as it is public record due to Nixon being interviewed by the FBI.
Quit attacking (not you personally) the messanger and answer the questions
- why did Nixon have difficulty remembering when he left Dallas and how he
heard about the assassination? If no answer comes, then I have my answer.

Robert
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-27 01:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,
I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.
The point I was infering is these two men were very iffy on where they
were and how they heard about this event. My question is why?
Robert
Hi Robert,
No one is claiming you haven't done your reading on this matter, but I
think there are a few problems emerging. Rather alarming problems.
I think you're in danger here of throwing more and more at Nixon in an
attempt to make something stick in the matter of the Kennedy
assassination, and failing rather badly.
You posted a website that showed a photo of him at Idlewild on 22/11,
then posted another source that said he stayed in Dallas. John McAdams
pointed out this anomaly in your reasoning.
You're defending Marrs and his *great* book *Crossfire*, but the part
about the bubble top and Joan Crawford and the nasty things that were
said that may have influenced JFK's thinking into lowering his
security that day are a direct quote from Marrs's book!
I have pointed out that Marrs fails to provide a source for that but
that does not appear to cloud your enthusiasm for Marrs and his so far
unsubstantiated anti-Nixon rant.
Nixon's account appears, by and large, to gell with what is on the
public record. The factoids in these websites that you quote appear
much more questionable, in my view.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Tim,
You're the one making more of this than me. I'm simply stating that Nixon
lied about his whereabouts and how he heard of the JFK assassination. I
No HE did not. YOU, however, have misrepresented what he said.
Post by r***@netscape.com
started this string simply asking why? The all out repsonse I've gotten
from the LNers tells me it doesn't look good for Nixon. Why the lies? It
is a simple question, but all I've gotten is attacks on the few sources
I've listed. This has been mentioned by alot of researchers over the
years as it is public record due to Nixon being interviewed by the FBI.
No, not a lot of researchers. What is public record about Nixon being
interviewed by the FBI WHEN? And how does that contradict Nixon's account?
Post by r***@netscape.com
Quit attacking (not you personally) the messanger and answer the questions
- why did Nixon have difficulty remembering when he left Dallas and how he
heard about the assassination? If no answer comes, then I have my answer.
He didn't. And if anyone attacks you it is for you making false
accusations. Not because you delivered a message.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Robert
John McAdams
2007-10-24 03:40:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,
I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.
In the first place, there is no evidence that Nixon disbelieved the
WC. (And the Haldeman statement isn't really evdience.)

In the second place, LBJ had very favorable things to say about the
WC, although he suspected that Castro may have been behind it.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/video/lbj_conspiracy.ram

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-25 02:14:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Hi Robert,
I think the problem here is that you are relying on unreliable sources for
your information. For instance, the FBI reported that they found only two
clippings in Dallas newspapers concerning Nixon's visit.
Hi Tim,
I think the assumption is that the few links I have posted is all that I
have read about the case/topic. Not true. I read so many things over the
last 20 years I couldn't possibly cite everyone. Everyone wants to
discredit Jim Marrs because he now talks about UFOs. I say so what. His
great book, "Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy" was written nearly
20 years ago and his current beliefs have nothing to do with the
information in that book. Many people (Nixon, LBJ, Hale Boggs, etc...)
have said the WC was inaccurate or a hoax and that doesn't stop people
from relying on that as a source.
In the first place, there is no evidence that Nixon disbelieved the
WC. (And the Haldeman statement isn't really evdience.)
Yeah, I guess you're right. So he was only lying when he said it was a
crock of shit.
Post by John McAdams
In the second place, LBJ had very favorable things to say about the
WC, although he suspected that Castro may have been behind it.
Everybody thought that Castro did it. That's what Hoover told everybody.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/video/lbj_conspiracy.ram
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-25 21:14:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
In the first place, there is no evidence that Nixon disbelieved the
WC. (And the Haldeman statement isn't really evdience.)
I guess I guy who worked with him for years and had many private
discussions with him has no credibility. Many of the statements of
witnesses in 1963/64 were not evidence, but that didn't stop the WC
did it? Please. Your funny, only your stuff is evidence.
Post by John McAdams
In the second place, LBJ had very favorable things to say about the
WC, although he suspected that Castro may have been behind it.
Of course he did since he was the one who formed it. What's he going
to say publicly? It served him to have people believe the official
lies. Castro had nothing to do with it, why would he? JFK agreed with
the Soviets to back off of Cuba, why would he have JFK killed as that
would lead to an invasion in retaliation? Makes no sense.

Robert
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-26 02:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
In the first place, there is no evidence that Nixon disbelieved the
WC. (And the Haldeman statement isn't really evdience.)
I guess I guy who worked with him for years and had many private
discussions with him has no credibility. Many of the statements of
witnesses in 1963/64 were not evidence, but that didn't stop the WC
did it? Please. Your funny, only your stuff is evidence.
Post by John McAdams
In the second place, LBJ had very favorable things to say about the
WC, although he suspected that Castro may have been behind it.
Of course he did since he was the one who formed it. What's he going
to say publicly? It served him to have people believe the official
lies. Castro had nothing to do with it, why would he? JFK agreed with
the Soviets to back off of Cuba, why would he have JFK killed as that
would lead to an invasion in retaliation? Makes no sense.
It makes sense because Castro believed that JFK was trying to kill him.
LBJ knew it was a conspiracy and ordered the WC members to cover it up
in order to prevent WWIII.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm
Post by r***@netscape.com
Robert
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-27 20:31:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
Of course he did since he was the one who formed it. What's he going
to say publicly? It served him to have people believe the official
lies. Castro had nothing to do with it, why would he? JFK agreed with
the Soviets to back off of Cuba, why would he have JFK killed as that
would lead to an invasion in retaliation? Makes no sense.
It makes sense because Castro believed that JFK was trying to kill him.
LBJ knew it was a conspiracy and ordered the WC members to cover it up
in order to prevent WWIII.
It doesn't make a lick of sense. Most people have long ago gave up on
Castro as a likely party. He had nothing to gain by replacing JFK
with LBJ. Also, you don't think the man knew Lorenz worked for the
CIA? RFK was adament about not using killing as a method of political
negotiations, this has been cited in many books on his life. Neither
brother believed in using murder. JFK was not out to get Castro as
you say, it was the CIA's program "Operation Mongoose" that used mob
ties to try and kill Castro. Castro knew that if Kennedy wanted him
gone then JFK would never have agreed to terms with the Soviets and
removed missiles from Turkey. This was a good faith gesture by JFK to
Castro. He had nothing to fear from JFK, but a hell of lot to fear
from warhawks like LBJ and Richard Nixon(the mastermind behind the Bay
of Pigs). The old WWIII stuff is bogus as the Soviets quickly put
together intelligence to show they or Cuba had nothing to do with it.
In fact, some say they could prove who was responsible. Isn't it
funny no one has bothered Castro since 11/22/63? The people who
really wanted Castro out there was the mob as they wanted their
casinos and resorts back, so when JFK made an agreement with the
Soviets this could have given some more motivation to get rid of him.
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-27 01:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
In the first place, there is no evidence that Nixon disbelieved the
WC. (And the Haldeman statement isn't really evdience.)
In the second place, LBJ had very favorable things to say about the
WC, although he suspected that Castro may have been behind it.
Unfortuanetly there is and it is straight from the horse's mouth. See
this link for more details of his tapes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1848157.stm

Look under the JFK assassination section.

What would JBJ say - it was a fraud? He set it up (WC).
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-23 03:16:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
TOP POST
Hi Robcap,
I don't think you can claim that Nixon *didn't know where he was* the day
Kennedy was assassinated. He writes about it in his 1978 memoir *RN - The
Memoirs of Richard Nixon*.
The Dallas Morning News reported on the morning of November 22 that he was
in Dallas for a Pepsi-Cola meeting and was due to fly out about two hours
before Kennedy arrived. This appears to accord with his memoirs.
Whether he was at Idlewild or in a cab in Queens doesn't seem to make a
lot of difference. He was in New York when he heard Kennedy had been shot.
I think some of the sinister speculations by some of the people you are
quoting appear exaggerated. For instance, he could hardly hide the fact he
had been in Dallas that day. It was printed in the newspaper, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
I was being sarcastic Tim, sorry. My point is that there are few days
when most grownups in the U.S. remember where they were and what they
were doing - 12/7/41, 11/22/63 and 9/11/01. Yet these two couldn't
manage to get their stories straight. I don't think these have
exaggerated as much of Nixon's comments were to the FBI.
You are making way too much of this. Nixon said he was in a taxi in New
York when he heard about it.


I think part of the confusion was the fault of the newspaper editor who
wrote about the "shocked Richard Nixon" after he arrived at Idlewild. But
Nixon may not have heard about the shooting by then and the newspaper
editor did not realize that. Maybe Nixon always looked that way. Consider
the other story.

Not long after Kennedy was shot, Nixon wrote an unusually long article for
the Reader's Digest. It appeared in the November 1964 issue under the
strange title, "Cuba, Castro, and John F. Kennedy." Prepared as it was by
Nixon or for his signature and prepared for the massive worldwide audience
of the August Reader's Digest, we are asked to believe that this is the
factual account of what took place. Nixon says

"I urged, in a statement to the press [Dallas on November 21] that the
President and the vice-president be shown the respect to which their
office entitled them." Nixon added, "I boarded a plane in Dallas on the
morning of November 22 to New York. We arrived on schedule at 12:56. I
hailed a cab. We were waiting for a light to change when a man ran over
from the street corner and said that the President had just been shot in
Dallas. This is the way that I learned the news."

If Nixon was correct about when his flight arrived, and I think the times
are consistent, then his 12:56 would be actually only 11:56 cst in Dallas
and Kennedy had not been shot yet. But being in a cab at 1:35 est would be
when the news was broadcast as Kennedy had been shot at 12:30 cst.

It is also possible that Nixon heard about Kennedy being shot while at the
airport, but did not hear that he had died until after he was in the taxi.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Everyone keeps saying Nixon could be tracked (and maybe he could) but
remember in 1963 he was in private practice and a private citizen. He
was not a public official.
Robert
cdddraftsman
2007-10-21 23:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
there was a conspiracy, that *every* claim of
conspiracy must be true.
.John
That's a big assumption from someone I don't even know. I don't believe
every conspiracy theory or supposed fact, but I certainly don't believe
one man pulled this off.
Robert
Robert wrote : :
" That's a big assumption from someone I don't even know "

You just don't get it do you ? That John would assume your wrong has come
from many years of experience and is reasonable . That you don't know him
does not follow , is illogical and has shown us that your confusion that
lead to your posting these questions is primarily due to a lack of
skeptical thinking skills .

That you quote from a book by Jim Marrs shows us that perhaps you have a
belief in a conspiracy to murder JFK , but no proof , just a lot of loose
ends that you have tied together to cause doubt in your own mind .

Illogical for me to say this ? No , if you counted up all the assasins and
co-conspirators that Marrs speculates about in his book we could expect
that the assasination happened in many different ways , by many different
assassins , hired by many different people for many different reasons .

How logical is that ? :-( Sad face by you )-: if you believe this over
logic that dictates at a minimum that it's impossible .
.................tl
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-22 23:23:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by cdddraftsman
" That's a big assumption from someone I don't even know "
You just don't get it do you ? That John would assume your wrong has come
from many years of experience and is reasonable . That you don't know him
does not follow , is illogical and has shown us that your confusion that
lead to your posting these questions is primarily due to a lack of
skeptical thinking skills .
I know logic is tough for you to follow, I've noticed by your posts.
In fact, I think this is the most I've seen you actually write.
Usually we get 100 links. If I lacked skeptical thinking skills I
would believe the WCR - get it? I'm a skeptic of the WCR. You need a
timeout as you are confused.
Post by cdddraftsman
That you quote from a book by Jim Marrs shows us that perhaps you have a
belief in a conspiracy to murder JFK , but no proof , just a lot of loose
ends that you have tied together to cause doubt in your own mind .
Illogical for me to say this ? No , if you counted up all the assasins and
co-conspirators that Marrs speculates about in his book we could expect
that the assasination happened in many different ways , by many different
assassins , hired by many different people for many different reasons .
We obviously read different books because he doesn't point out a
million different people as being involved. You are full of hot air
and you waste more post space than anyone on these boards. I take it
as a compliment if you can't follow my logic as it means I'm about a
3rd grade level. I have my own thoughts on who did this I don't rely
on Marrs to think for like you LNers who can tie your shoe laces
without guidance from the WCR.
Post by cdddraftsman
How logical is that ? :-( Sad face by you )-: if you believe this over
logic that dictates at a minimum that it's impossible .
.................tl
What? This doesn't even make sense. Maybe Marrs can bring an alien
to decipher this for me. Go back to the 100 links. RC
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-23 03:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
If you don't want to accept that, you might explain *why* Nixon would
lie about this.
I have no clue. That's what I'm saying, why lie? I guess because he said
he was there for a Pepsi Co. board meeting and none was scheduled. He was
I think it was a convention.

The November 1973 issue of Esquire magazine carried the following Nixon
quote; "I attended the Pepsi Cola convention [in Dallas] and left on
Friday morning November 22, from Love Field, Dallas, on a flight back to
New York . . . on arrival in New York we caught a cab and headed for the
city the cabbie missed a turn somewhere and we were off the highway. ... a
woman came out of her house screaming and crying. I rolled down the cab
window to ask what the matter was and when she saw my face she turned even
paler. She told me that John Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas,"

Not a board meeting.

He was a lawyer for Pepsi. Guess which soda company got the exclusive
rights to production in China shortly after Nixon's famous trip to China?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE3DA163EF932A35752C1A964958260
Post by r***@netscape.com
also very loud about Kennedy during this trip. So when JFK was shot it
could look to some he was guilty.
NIXON, PEPISCO & THE JFK ASSASSINATION
Posted By: ShermanSkolnick <Send E-Mail>
Date: Thursday, 21 November 2002, 8:38 p.m. From: Sherman Skolnick
Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: NIXON, PEPSICO AND THE JFK ASSASSINATION
In the 1970s, after giving a seminar in Fort Worth, Texas, I was several
times as a guest on WFAA- Dallas radio. One time I was on the air with a
former Director of Pepsico. He had been at their convention in Dallas with
their General Counsel at the time, Richard M. Nixon. He said that Nixon's
later statement (published in a magazine in 1973), that he left Dallas
before noon on an airflight to New York, November 22, 1963, is simply not
correct. The former Pepsico director said Nixon was at the convention all
that afternoon and was acting strange. While others stopped conducting
their business affairs, Nixon kept insisting on proceeding,
notwithstanding that everyone had heard that President Kennedy had been
assassinated shortly after noon that day.
As to Joan Crawford, that inherited her husband's large stock position at
Pepsico, she was certainly in a position to know a few things about Nixon.
At the hotel she was staying at in Dallas, she occupied the room next door
to Nixon.
By a strange series of circumstances in the 1970s, a retired "spook" I
knew, introduced me one night to the former covert operations official in
the FBI that had interviewed Nixon. The interview document is in the
Warren Commission documents. Yes, Nixon had lied about leaving Dallas that
fateful morning.
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
That page has the supposed photo of Bush in front of the Depository.
And you consider it reliable?
If you had read the paragraph next to it that says, "The image of the
elder Bush at the Texas Book Depository is authentic and can be verified
by the intelligence operatives who took the picture and would testify if
subpoenaed, according to U.S. intelligence expert Thomas Heneghan, who
provided TomFlocco.com with the photo which was leaked to several others."
then yes I think it is reliable.
Post by John McAdams
But I don't see "Tyler/Houston" thing on the page.
Please point me to the specific document.
http://www.guerrillacampaign.com/bush.htm
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
Which part. Sorry it is not wrong.
Why did you delete my link?
Can't deal with it?
No, I have a million links already. I've probably seen it before.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
You have accepted a bunch of bogus factoids. You seem to believe
that, since you think there was a conspiracy, that *every* claim of
conspiracy must be true.
.John
That's a big assumption from someone I don't even know. I don't believe
every conspiracy theory or supposed fact, but I certainly don't believe
one man pulled this off.
Robert
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-24 00:30:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
I have no clue. That's what I'm saying, why lie? I guess because he said
he was there for a Pepsi Co. board meeting and none was scheduled. He was
I think it was a convention.
It was a convention, but he was the legal representative of the Pepsi Co.
so he thought a board meeting sounded more official. Why would a lawyer
need to make a trip to attend a convention?
Post by Anthony Marsh
The November 1973 issue of Esquire magazine carried the following Nixon
quote; "I attended the Pepsi Cola convention [in Dallas] and left on
Friday morning November 22, from Love Field, Dallas, on a flight back to
New York . . . on arrival in New York we caught a cab and headed for the
city the cabbie missed a turn somewhere and we were off the highway. ... a
woman came out of her house screaming and crying. I rolled down the cab
window to ask what the matter was and when she saw my face she turned even
paler. She told me that John Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas,"
Not a board meeting.
I have also heard he said a board meeting. Again, why would a lawyer need
to attend a convention. I have attended many conventions and it is not
the spot to discuss important company business.
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-25 02:20:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
I have no clue. That's what I'm saying, why lie? I guess because he said
he was there for a Pepsi Co. board meeting and none was scheduled. He was
I think it was a convention.
It was a convention, but he was the legal representative of the Pepsi Co.
so he thought a board meeting sounded more official. Why would a lawyer
need to make a trip to attend a convention?
He did not say board meeting.
A lawyer goes to a convention to press the flesh and meet people.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
The November 1973 issue of Esquire magazine carried the following Nixon
quote; "I attended the Pepsi Cola convention [in Dallas] and left on
Friday morning November 22, from Love Field, Dallas, on a flight back to
New York . . . on arrival in New York we caught a cab and headed for the
city the cabbie missed a turn somewhere and we were off the highway. ... a
woman came out of her house screaming and crying. I rolled down the cab
window to ask what the matter was and when she saw my face she turned even
paler. She told me that John Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas,"
Not a board meeting.
I have also heard he said a board meeting. Again, why would a lawyer need
to attend a convention. I have attended many conventions and it is not
the spot to discuss important company business.
He did not say board meeting. Instead of just guessing at these things,
try documenting something sometime.
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-26 02:08:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say board meeting. Instead of just guessing at these things,
try documenting something sometime.
Like you do, huh? Quit making accusations. I'll say the same thing to
you I said to the others, if you have never come across this before in
your "research" than you are not looking at anything besides the basic
evidence. This has been talked about for years as it is ironic that Nixon
remembered nothing about that day in the beginning. Oh, and by the way, I
haven't seen too much documentation from you for your beliefs either.
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-27 01:20:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
He did not say board meeting. Instead of just guessing at these things,
try documenting something sometime.
Like you do, huh? Quit making accusations. I'll say the same thing to
you I said to the others, if you have never come across this before in
your "research" than you are not looking at anything besides the basic
evidence. This has been talked about for years as it is ironic that Nixon
remembered nothing about that day in the beginning. Oh, and by the way, I
haven't seen too much documentation from you for your beliefs either.
You have nothing and you have provided no documentation for anything.
I have thousands of documents on my Web site. If you refuse to read
them, that is your error.
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-28 02:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
You have nothing and you have provided no documentation for anything.
I have thousands of documents on my Web site. If you refuse to read
them, that is your error.
So you are like everyone here, if it is on your "Website" than it must be
true, but if it is found anywhere else then I've got nothing. Sounds
logical. As Tim said awhile back, why don't you stop playing devil's
advocate. Pick a theory and stay with it. And if you can't see that lying
about how your heard and when you departed Dallas on the day of the
assassination isn't normal behavior than I give up. Furthermore, all of
you should read my post on the conspircay site as John just cut and pasted
this to this board. Perhaps all I posted was not transfered.
tomnln
2007-10-20 04:26:21 UTC
Permalink
These official records tell which side is Lying John.>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/why_these_lies.htm
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Why?
That's simply not true.
Who says, you?
Post by John McAdams
You've picked up a silly factoid from Groden and Livingstone.
Actually, I didn't read it in their book. And since when is their
stuff factoid stuff? In your opinion.
They took a document in which Nixon said that "the only time he was in
Dallas in 1963 was on November 20" and interpreted that to mean that
Nixon was saying that he was *not* in Dallas the morning of Nov. 22.
In fact, Nixon was a very public figure and reporters were waiting for
him in the airport when he returned to NY about noon on Nov. 22.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Nixon was in a cab in Queens when somebody (his accounts do differ as
to whether it was a man or a woman) came up to the cab crying with the
news.
Wrong.
http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy.html
<quote on>
Richard Nixon claimed to remember where he was during another
momentous event -- the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November
22, 1963. Nixon said that he first heard about Kennedy's death during
a taxi ride in New York City. However, a United Press International
photo taken that day tells a different story. The photo shows a
"shocked Richard Nixon" (as the caption reads) having already learned
of Kennedy's assassination upon his arrival at New York's Idlewild
Airport -- in other words, before his alleged taxi ride.
<quote off>
The "stunned" caption was put their by the newspaper, and captions are
often clueless.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/vplimo.htm
If you don't want to accept that, you might explain *why* Nixon would
lie about this.
Remember, *you* cited the photo of him at the airport!
He was a public figure, and reporters knew where he was.
Post by r***@netscape.com
And numerous other ones.
Post by John McAdams
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
The FBI received a call from Bush 10 minutes after JFK was shot saying he
knew someone who was dangerous and may kill the president (Parrot). The
origin of this call was Tyler, TX. Bush denied being in Tyler and said he
was in Houston at the time of the shooting. Strange thing is when some
intelligence agents took pictures there is a photo of Bush outside the
TSBD very shortly after the shooting. Not enough time to travel from
Houston.
http://tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm
Oh, my!
That page has the supposed photo of Bush in front of the Depository.
And you consider it reliable?
And it has the Madeleine Brown story!
http://davesjfk.com/browns.html
But I don't see "Tyler/Houston" thing on the page.
Please point me to the specific document.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Kindly post your source.
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
Which part. Sorry it is not wrong.
Why did you delete my link?
Can't deal with it?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
The "hoax" according to Nixon was that the left managed to blame the
assassination on the right.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
You've been here long enough that it ought to be dawning on you that
you've accepted a bunch of bogus factoids.
.John
This from someone who has a website full of bogus factoids. How about
using some links that aren't to your website. Are you saying no one else
in this field knows anything unless they say LHO did it by himself?
That's unusual. Most researchers collaborate in their work to some degree,
but I guess it is the WC or nothing here.
You have accepted a bunch of bogus factoids. You seem to believe
that, since you think there was a conspiracy, that *every* claim of
conspiracy must be true.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-23 03:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Why?
That's simply not true.
Who says, you?
Post by John McAdams
You've picked up a silly factoid from Groden and Livingstone.
Actually, I didn't read it in their book. And since when is their
stuff factoid stuff? In your opinion.
They took a document in which Nixon said that "the only time he was in
Dallas in 1963 was on November 20" and interpreted that to mean that
Nixon was saying that he was *not* in Dallas the morning of Nov. 22.
In fact, Nixon was a very public figure and reporters were waiting for
him in the airport when he returned to NY about noon on Nov. 22.
About NOON? Nixon said the plane was on time at 12:56. Are you calling
Nixon a liar? That would be 12:56 PM EST, which is only 11:56 CST, BEFORE
the assassination at 12:31 PM CST.
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Nixon was in a cab in Queens when somebody (his accounts do differ as
to whether it was a man or a woman) came up to the cab crying with the
news.
Wrong.
http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy.html
<quote on>
Richard Nixon claimed to remember where he was during another
momentous event -- the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November
22, 1963. Nixon said that he first heard about Kennedy's death during
a taxi ride in New York City. However, a United Press International
photo taken that day tells a different story. The photo shows a
"shocked Richard Nixon" (as the caption reads) having already learned
of Kennedy's assassination upon his arrival at New York's Idlewild
Airport -- in other words, before his alleged taxi ride.
<quote off>
The "stunned" caption was put their by the newspaper, and captions are
often clueless.
"Shocked" is the word the caption writer used, the next day.
Nixon always looked that way.
Post by John McAdams
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/vplimo.htm
If you don't want to accept that, you might explain *why* Nixon would
lie about this.
Remember, *you* cited the photo of him at the airport!
He was a public figure, and reporters knew where he was.
Post by r***@netscape.com
And numerous other ones.
Post by John McAdams
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
The FBI received a call from Bush 10 minutes after JFK was shot saying he
knew someone who was dangerous and may kill the president (Parrot). The
origin of this call was Tyler, TX. Bush denied being in Tyler and said he
was in Houston at the time of the shooting. Strange thing is when some
intelligence agents took pictures there is a photo of Bush outside the
TSBD very shortly after the shooting. Not enough time to travel from
Houston.
http://tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm
Oh, my!
That page has the supposed photo of Bush in front of the Depository.
And you consider it reliable?
And it has the Madeleine Brown story!
http://davesjfk.com/browns.html
But I don't see "Tyler/Houston" thing on the page.
Please point me to the specific document.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Kindly post your source.
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
Which part. Sorry it is not wrong.
Why did you delete my link?
Can't deal with it?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
The "hoax" according to Nixon was that the left managed to blame the
assassination on the right.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
You've been here long enough that it ought to be dawning on you that
you've accepted a bunch of bogus factoids.
.John
This from someone who has a website full of bogus factoids. How about
using some links that aren't to your website. Are you saying no one else
in this field knows anything unless they say LHO did it by himself?
That's unusual. Most researchers collaborate in their work to some degree,
but I guess it is the WC or nothing here.
You have accepted a bunch of bogus factoids. You seem to believe
that, since you think there was a conspiracy, that *every* claim of
conspiracy must be true.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
2007-10-20 16:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
The FBI received a call from Bush 10 minutes after JFK was shot saying he
knew someone who was dangerous and may kill the president (Parrot). The
origin of this call was Tyler, TX. Bush denied being in Tyler and said he
was in Houston at the time of the shooting. Strange thing is when some
intelligence agents took pictures there is a photo of Bush outside the
TSBD very shortly after the shooting. Not enough time to travel from
Houston.
The FBI office in Houston received a call from George Bush in Tyler,
Texas at 1:45 p.m., 75 minutes after the assassination, not 10
minutes. Tyler is 100 miles from Dallas.

Loading Image...

George Bush later recalled that he was "somewhere in Texas" when he
learned of the assassination, although Barbara Bush correctly
remembered that they were in Tyler. When did Bush ever *deny* that he
was in Tyler at the time?
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-20 23:28:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Post by r***@netscape.com
The FBI received a call from Bush 10 minutes after JFK was shot saying he
knew someone who was dangerous and may kill the president (Parrot). The
origin of this call was Tyler, TX. Bush denied being in Tyler and said he
was in Houston at the time of the shooting. Strange thing is when some
intelligence agents took pictures there is a photo of Bush outside the
TSBD very shortly after the shooting. Not enough time to travel from
Houston.
The FBI office in Houston received a call from George Bush in Tyler,
Texas at 1:45 p.m., 75 minutes after the assassination, not 10
minutes. Tyler is 100 miles from Dallas.
That maybe when the report was typed by the call was shortly after the
shooting, 75 minutes is not shortly. Also, it is not enough time to
get to Dallas.
Post by yeuhd
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/images/bushwarning.jpg
Should have looked at:

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm
Post by yeuhd
George Bush later recalled that he was "somewhere in Texas" when he
learned of the assassination, although Barbara Bush correctly
remembered that they were in Tyler. When did Bush ever *deny* that he
was in Tyler at the time?
Thanks for making my point. Somewhere? Can he be any more vague? He
said he was in Houston at his oil company. That statment has been
listed in hundreds of places.
John McAdams
2007-10-20 23:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by yeuhd
Post by r***@netscape.com
The FBI received a call from Bush 10 minutes after JFK was shot saying he
knew someone who was dangerous and may kill the president (Parrot). The
origin of this call was Tyler, TX. Bush denied being in Tyler and said he
was in Houston at the time of the shooting. Strange thing is when some
intelligence agents took pictures there is a photo of Bush outside the
TSBD very shortly after the shooting. Not enough time to travel from
Houston.
The FBI office in Houston received a call from George Bush in Tyler,
Texas at 1:45 p.m., 75 minutes after the assassination, not 10
minutes. Tyler is 100 miles from Dallas.
That maybe when the report was typed by the call was shortly after the
shooting, 75 minutes is not shortly. Also, it is not enough time to
get to Dallas.
Wouldn't the memo be EST?

But if I understand your position, he was in Dallas, not Tyler.

.John

--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-21 23:18:12 UTC
Permalink
On Oct 20, 7:56 pm, ***@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:

John, I'm getting off the merry go round. My main reason for this post
was to highlight that two men (3 if you talk about E.H. Hunt) changed
their stories several times of where they were/how they heard about JFK's
assassination. There have been many sources that have mentioned that
Nixon changed how he heard about the assassination 3 times! If you have
been researching this case you had to have read this before. Bush was
iffy on where he was too. My only question is why? You have taken this
to saying that I said they were involved, maybe they were, maybe they
weren't. I just wanted to hear other people's point of view.

Yes, I think Nixon was guilty of alot of crimes, thus the need to be
"pardoned". If he was innocent that wouldn't have been unnecessary and
yes, I find it funny the man who did pardon him was his leak on the WC
(and co-author of the ridiculous SBT) - Gerald Ford.

One can learn a lot about the this case by examining the years before and
after the actual event. We have the benefit of nearly 44 years of
hindsight now and when one sees all the things Nixon was alledgedly tied
to it is obvious he was a bad man even if only 30% of it is true.

This is my last statement on this:

By Sue Morrison

On November 22, 1963, quoted in the New York Times after having made a
timely evacuation from Dallas, Richard Nixon publicly recognized his
anti-Kennedy zeal through the bold assertion: "I am going to work as hard
as I can to get the Kennedys out of there. We can't afford four more years
of that kind of administration."

While Nixon publicly exposed his commitment to get rid of the Kennedys, he
did not say how he planned to accomplish his goal. At any rate, the fact
that Nixon did not plan to defeat the Kennedys through legitimate
political elections is quite obvious. In 1963, Nixon was the most popular
Republican in the nation, yet despite the declared intention "to get the
Kennedys out of there", he refused to run for the presidency until a
shadowy committee to elect Richard Nixon was created in 1967. Political
pundits, experts at creating a theory which matches the limit of public
awareness, have repeatedly claimed that Nixon's decision not to run in
1964 was a brilliant tactical exploit. It was, they claim, foolish to
challenge the unbeatable wave of popularity that brought Johnson a
landslide victory in 1964. And so, it is popularly asserted, Richard
Nixon, the brilliant statesman, staged one of the greatest political
comebacks in American history, when he became the President in 1968. It is
indeed a convenient theory but it ignores the fact that Nixon was not a
typical politician but a man immersed in the shadowy world of secret
politics. The fact that Nixon was largely a low key behind-the-scenes
political operator until the Kennedys were assassinated, suggests that the
so-called Nixon comeback was anything but legitimate. Politics, in the
Nixon tradition was about behind-the-scenes plotting to destroy political
enemies, it was not about fair play elections. And if Nixon did not aim
for the presidency in 1964, it was not because he thought he couldn't win,
but because the plotting of political cronies like J. Edgar Hoover
precluded the possibility of a Nixon presidency in 1964. John Ehrlichman,
Nixon's former counsel, made that quite evident when he said:

Hoover and Nixon had kept in touch during all the years Nixon was out of
office. Rose Mary Woods had been Hoover's Nixon contact for the exchange
of information and advice between them. Whenever Nixon travelled abroad as
a private citizen, the FBI agents who posed as "legal attaches" in U.S.
embassies were instructed by Hoover to look after Nixon. Hoover fed Nixon
information during those years via Cartha De Loach, and through Lou
Nichols, a retired Bureau assistant director who had become a distillery
executive. But Hoover was more than a source of information -he was a
political advisor to whom Nixon listened. (Witness to Power; The Nixon
Years, 1982, Simon & Schuster, New York p.156-7)

http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardnixon,1014.htm

Robert
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-22 23:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
John, I'm getting off the merry go round. My main reason for this post
was to highlight that two men (3 if you talk about E.H. Hunt) changed
That is not quite true. Nixon knew where he was. He was in a taxi.
Post by r***@netscape.com
their stories several times of where they were/how they heard about JFK's
assassination. There have been many sources that have mentioned that
Nixon changed how he heard about the assassination 3 times! If you have
been researching this case you had to have read this before. Bush was
iffy on where he was too. My only question is why? You have taken this
There may be a difference between where he was at the time of the
assassination and where he was when he heard the news.
Post by r***@netscape.com
to saying that I said they were involved, maybe they were, maybe they
weren't. I just wanted to hear other people's point of view.
Yes, I think Nixon was guilty of alot of crimes, thus the need to be
"pardoned". If he was innocent that wouldn't have been unnecessary and
yes, I find it funny the man who did pardon him was his leak on the WC
(and co-author of the ridiculous SBT) - Gerald Ford.
Pardons are usually granted after a conviction. Nixon's pardon was
universal for anything he might do or might have done.
Post by r***@netscape.com
One can learn a lot about the this case by examining the years before and
after the actual event. We have the benefit of nearly 44 years of
hindsight now and when one sees all the things Nixon was alledgedly tied
to it is obvious he was a bad man even if only 30% of it is true.
We also have the benefit that new files are coming out of the Nixon
Library.
Post by r***@netscape.com
By Sue Morrison
On November 22, 1963, quoted in the New York Times after having made a
timely evacuation from Dallas, Richard Nixon publicly recognized his
anti-Kennedy zeal through the bold assertion: "I am going to work as hard
as I can to get the Kennedys out of there. We can't afford four more years
of that kind of administration."
While Nixon publicly exposed his commitment to get rid of the Kennedys, he
did not say how he planned to accomplish his goal. At any rate, the fact
that Nixon did not plan to defeat the Kennedys through legitimate
political elections is quite obvious. In 1963, Nixon was the most popular
Republican in the nation, yet despite the declared intention "to get the
Kennedys out of there", he refused to run for the presidency until a
shadowy committee to elect Richard Nixon was created in 1967. Political
pundits, experts at creating a theory which matches the limit of public
awareness, have repeatedly claimed that Nixon's decision not to run in
1964 was a brilliant tactical exploit. It was, they claim, foolish to
challenge the unbeatable wave of popularity that brought Johnson a
landslide victory in 1964. And so, it is popularly asserted, Richard
Nixon, the brilliant statesman, staged one of the greatest political
comebacks in American history, when he became the President in 1968. It is
indeed a convenient theory but it ignores the fact that Nixon was not a
typical politician but a man immersed in the shadowy world of secret
politics. The fact that Nixon was largely a low key behind-the-scenes
political operator until the Kennedys were assassinated, suggests that the
so-called Nixon comeback was anything but legitimate. Politics, in the
Nixon tradition was about behind-the-scenes plotting to destroy political
enemies, it was not about fair play elections. And if Nixon did not aim
for the presidency in 1964, it was not because he thought he couldn't win,
but because the plotting of political cronies like J. Edgar Hoover
precluded the possibility of a Nixon presidency in 1964. John Ehrlichman,
Hoover and Nixon had kept in touch during all the years Nixon was out of
office. Rose Mary Woods had been Hoover's Nixon contact for the exchange
of information and advice between them. Whenever Nixon travelled abroad as
a private citizen, the FBI agents who posed as "legal attaches" in U.S.
embassies were instructed by Hoover to look after Nixon. Hoover fed Nixon
information during those years via Cartha De Loach, and through Lou
Nichols, a retired Bureau assistant director who had become a distillery
executive. But Hoover was more than a source of information -he was a
political advisor to whom Nixon listened. (Witness to Power; The Nixon
Years, 1982, Simon & Schuster, New York p.156-7)
http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardnixon,1014.htm
Robert
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-23 03:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
John, I'm getting off the merry go round. My main reason for this post
was to highlight that two men (3 if you talk about E.H. Hunt) changed
That is not quite true. Nixon knew where he was. He was in a taxi.
He was in a taxi, but at first he tried to deny he was in the city of
Dallas on November 22.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
their stories several times of where they were/how they heard about JFK's
assassination. There have been many sources that have mentioned that
Nixon changed how he heard about the assassination 3 times! If you have
been researching this case you had to have read this before. Bush was
iffy on where he was too. My only question is why? You have taken this
There may be a difference between where he was at the time of the
assassination and where he was when he heard the news.
Only in his lies. He gave 3 different answers for how he heard the news,
the cab one was the 3rd answer. Why is this so difficult? Why lie so
much? It wouldn't have been an issue otherwise for some researchers.
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
to saying that I said they were involved, maybe they were, maybe they
weren't. I just wanted to hear other people's point of view.
Yes, I think Nixon was guilty of alot of crimes, thus the need to be
"pardoned". If he was innocent that wouldn't have been unnecessary and
yes, I find it funny the man who did pardon him was his leak on the WC
(and co-author of the ridiculous SBT) - Gerald Ford.
Pardons are usually granted after a conviction. Nixon's pardon was
universal for anything he might do or might have done.
Exactly, he didn't want to be tried as too much dirty laundry would have
come out (like alot of the tapes).
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
One can learn a lot about the this case by examining the years before and
after the actual event. We have the benefit of nearly 44 years of
hindsight now and when one sees all the things Nixon was alledgedly tied
to it is obvious he was a bad man even if only 30% of it is true.
We also have the benefit that new files are coming out of the Nixon
Library.
John McAdams
2007-10-23 03:35:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
John, I'm getting off the merry go round. My main reason for this post
was to highlight that two men (3 if you talk about E.H. Hunt) changed
That is not quite true. Nixon knew where he was. He was in a taxi.
He was in a taxi, but at first he tried to deny he was in the city of
Dallas on November 22.
Please post the source for this.

How cout a public figure like Nixon, who was the center of press
attention, deny he had been in Dallas?

Why would he want to?
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by r***@netscape.com
their stories several times of where they were/how they heard about JFK's
assassination. There have been many sources that have mentioned that
Nixon changed how he heard about the assassination 3 times! If you have
been researching this case you had to have read this before. Bush was
iffy on where he was too. My only question is why? You have taken this
There may be a difference between where he was at the time of the
assassination and where he was when he heard the news.
Only in his lies. He gave 3 different answers for how he heard the news,
the cab one was the 3rd answer. Why is this so difficult? Why lie so
much? It wouldn't have been an issue otherwise for some researchers.
OK, list them!

.John

The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-24 00:29:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
He was in a taxi, but at first he tried to deny he was in the city of
Dallas on November 22.
Please post the source for this.
Why bother as you will just say it is crap or a kook as it is from CT
researchers. You want to sensitize everyone to the fact that all secondary
sources are false.
Post by John McAdams
How cout a public figure like Nixon, who was the center of press
attention, deny he had been in Dallas?
He did. Just shows he wasn't too bright. He was acting guilty. My
theory is he was afraid if he was known to be in Dallas during the
assassination there would be some who would think he was involved.
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Only in his lies. He gave 3 different answers for how he heard the news,
the cab one was the 3rd answer. Why is this so difficult? Why lie so
much? It wouldn't have been an issue otherwise for some researchers.
OK, list them!
Firstly, he said he heard from the cabbie in N.Y.C. when he arrived at
Idlewood airport. Secondly, he said a woman told him about when he exited
the cab at his destination. Thirdly, he said he heard on the plane ride
back to N.Y.C. The man just couldn't get his answer straight.
John McAdams
2007-10-24 03:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
He was in a taxi, but at first he tried to deny he was in the city of
Dallas on November 22.
Please post the source for this.
Why bother as you will just say it is crap or a kook as it is from CT
researchers. You want to sensitize everyone to the fact that all secondary
sources are false.
Many secondary sources are false.

But you should be able to post a *primary* source on this. Just were
does this some from.

Doesn't this strike you as vastly implausible? Nixon was a very
public figure. The media reported his comings and goings. Doubtless
a dozen people at his hotel would have been able to testify that he
left the morning of Nov. 22.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
How cout a public figure like Nixon, who was the center of press
attention, deny he had been in Dallas?
He did. Just shows he wasn't too bright. He was acting guilty. My
theory is he was afraid if he was known to be in Dallas during the
assassination there would be some who would think he was involved.
Nixon in fact was quite bright.

But I want that primary source.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Only in his lies. He gave 3 different answers for how he heard the news,
the cab one was the 3rd answer. Why is this so difficult? Why lie so
much? It wouldn't have been an issue otherwise for some researchers.
OK, list them!
Firstly, he said he heard from the cabbie in N.Y.C. when he arrived at
Idlewood airport. Secondly, he said a woman told him about when he exited
the cab at his destination. Thirdly, he said he heard on the plane ride
back to N.Y.C. The man just couldn't get his answer straight.
Had he been involved in any way, he would have been certain to tell a
consistent story.

As for "on the plane:" could this simply be when he heard of the
shooting (as opposed to the JFK death)?

.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-24 16:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
He was in a taxi, but at first he tried to deny he was in the city of
Dallas on November 22.
Please post the source for this.
Why bother as you will just say it is crap or a kook as it is from CT
researchers. You want to sensitize everyone to the fact that all secondary
sources are false.
Many secondary sources are false.
But you should be able to post a *primary* source on this. Just were
does this some from.
Doesn't this strike you as vastly implausible? Nixon was a very
public figure. The media reported his comings and goings. Doubtless
a dozen people at his hotel would have been able to testify that he
left the morning of Nov. 22.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
How cout a public figure like Nixon, who was the center of press
attention, deny he had been in Dallas?
He did. Just shows he wasn't too bright. He was acting guilty. My
theory is he was afraid if he was known to be in Dallas during the
assassination there would be some who would think he was involved.
Nixon in fact was quite bright.
But I want that primary source.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Only in his lies. He gave 3 different answers for how he heard the news,
the cab one was the 3rd answer. Why is this so difficult? Why lie so
much? It wouldn't have been an issue otherwise for some researchers.
OK, list them!
Firstly, he said he heard from the cabbie in N.Y.C. when he arrived at
Idlewood airport. Secondly, he said a woman told him about when he exited
the cab at his destination. Thirdly, he said he heard on the plane ride
back to N.Y.C. The man just couldn't get his answer straight.
Had he been involved in any way, he would have been certain to tell a
consistent story.
Not logical. Many criminals are tripped up by inconsistencies in their
stories.
Post by John McAdams
As for "on the plane:" could this simply be when he heard of the
shooting (as opposed to the JFK death)?
Again, try to pay attention. Nixon said his plane arrived at 12:56 PM.
That is only 11:56 AM in Dallas. Before the shooting.
Post by John McAdams
.John
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
t***@gmail.com
2007-10-24 16:21:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
He was in a taxi, but at first he tried to deny he was in the city of
Dallas on November 22.
Please post the source for this.
Why bother as you will just say it is crap or a kook as it is from CT
researchers. You want to sensitize everyone to the fact that all secondary
sources are false.
Post by John McAdams
How cout a public figure like Nixon, who was the center of press
attention, deny he had been in Dallas?
He did. Just shows he wasn't too bright. He was acting guilty. My
theory is he was afraid if he was known to be in Dallas during the
assassination there would be some who would think he was involved.
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Only in his lies. He gave 3 different answers for how he heard the news,
the cab one was the 3rd answer. Why is this so difficult? Why lie so
much? It wouldn't have been an issue otherwise for some researchers.
OK, list them!
Firstly, he said he heard from the cabbie in N.Y.C. when he arrived at
Idlewood airport. Secondly, he said a woman told him about when he exited
the cab at his destination. Thirdly, he said he heard on the plane ride
back to N.Y.C. The man just couldn't get his answer straight.
Nixon's recall of events seems to basically gell with available public
documents on the matter.

This is in stark contrast to the ever varying conspiracy scenarios you
keep throwing up from various dubious sources.

There are a few minor discrepancies in his account. You can't seem to
decide whether he even left Dallas on the fateful day, if, in fact, he
was even there in the first place, LOL!

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-26 02:07:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@gmail.com
Nixon's recall of events seems to basically gell with available public
documents on the matter.
This is in stark contrast to the ever varying conspiracy scenarios you
keep throwing up from various dubious sources.
There are a few minor discrepancies in his account. You can't seem to
decide whether he even left Dallas on the fateful day, if, in fact, he
was even there in the first place, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Tim,

No disrespect, but you must be the "ubiquitous" McAdams for Australia. I
have not mentioned a single conspiracy scenario, all I've done is ask two
simple questions that not one LNer can answer. All you do is attack the
sources. IF, you are the researchers you claim surely you have come
across this stuff before, right? There is no reason to lie is the answer.
You can push it back on me, but you can't change history. Nixon was a
liar in 1963 and history has showed he was a lair in many later events.
Once a lair, always a lair.

Robert
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-27 01:21:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Nixon's recall of events seems to basically gell with available public
documents on the matter.
This is in stark contrast to the ever varying conspiracy scenarios you
keep throwing up from various dubious sources.
There are a few minor discrepancies in his account. You can't seem to
decide whether he even left Dallas on the fateful day, if, in fact, he
was even there in the first place, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Tim,
No disrespect, but you must be the "ubiquitous" McAdams for Australia. I
have not mentioned a single conspiracy scenario, all I've done is ask two
simple questions that not one LNer can answer. All you do is attack the
sources. IF, you are the researchers you claim surely you have come
across this stuff before, right? There is no reason to lie is the answer.
You can push it back on me, but you can't change history. Nixon was a
liar in 1963 and history has showed he was a lair in many later events.
Once a lair, always a lair.
So what? The fact remains that you made a false claim that he could not
remember where he was.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Robert
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-27 20:32:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
So what? The fact remains that you made a false claim that he could not
remember where he was.
You're a funny man Tony. So what? So what if our politicians are
lairs? That's a bunch of baloney, there is ample proof out there
stating he claimed he left in the early morning when in fact he left
late morning. I don't know what the big deal is either, why lie about
it? That is all I said. You can attack me all you want, it doesn't
change the fact he lied about those things.
t***@gmail.com
2007-10-27 20:20:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by t***@gmail.com
Nixon's recall of events seems to basically gell with available public
documents on the matter.
This is in stark contrast to the ever varying conspiracy scenarios you
keep throwing up from various dubious sources.
There are a few minor discrepancies in his account. You can't seem to
decide whether he even left Dallas on the fateful day, if, in fact, he
was even there in the first place, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Tim,
No disrespect, but you must be the "ubiquitous" McAdams for Australia. I
have not mentioned a single conspiracy scenario, all I've done is ask two
simple questions that not one LNer can answer. All you do is attack the
sources. IF, you are the researchers you claim surely you have come
across this stuff before, right? There is no reason to lie is the answer.
You can push it back on me, but you can't change history. Nixon was a
liar in 1963 and history has showed he was a lair in many later events.
Once a lair, always a lair.
Robert
Hi Robert,

I think the problem is that you haven't been able to prove Nixon was a
liar on the matter. You've thrown a whole lot of demonizing website
references at him but you've failed to prove your point.

There is nothing sinister about Nixon's recall of the events of 22
November 1963. He had nothing to do with Kennedy's assassination.

Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup Commentator*
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-25 02:20:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
He was in a taxi, but at first he tried to deny he was in the city of
Dallas on November 22.
Please post the source for this.
Why bother as you will just say it is crap or a kook as it is from CT
researchers. You want to sensitize everyone to the fact that all secondary
sources are false.
The point remains that you can't cite anything at all. Maybe you read
someone's article on a Web site. That is not proof of anything.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
How cout a public figure like Nixon, who was the center of press
attention, deny he had been in Dallas?
He did. Just shows he wasn't too bright. He was acting guilty. My
theory is he was afraid if he was known to be in Dallas during the
assassination there would be some who would think he was involved.
He did not deny being in Dallas. You are misrepresenting what he said
and then trying to convict him on that. Not nice.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Post by r***@netscape.com
Only in his lies. He gave 3 different answers for how he heard the news,
the cab one was the 3rd answer. Why is this so difficult? Why lie so
much? It wouldn't have been an issue otherwise for some researchers.
OK, list them!
Firstly, he said he heard from the cabbie in N.Y.C. when he arrived at
Idlewood airport. Secondly, he said a woman told him about when he exited
Not quite.
Post by r***@netscape.com
the cab at his destination. Thirdly, he said he heard on the plane ride
back to N.Y.C. The man just couldn't get his answer straight.
He could not have heard it on the plane and he never said that. Stop
making up crap.
cdddraftsman
2007-10-20 21:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
That's unusual. Most researchers collaborate in their work to some degree,
but I guess it is the WC or nothing here.
Loading Image...

Sorry Robert , we don't use the word corroborate very much around here .
IMO this corroboration by the critical community is the only conspiracy in
JFK's death . My condolences that you haven't seen through their smoke
screen yet , but give it a little time , you will :-) ........tl
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-23 03:26:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by cdddraftsman
Post by r***@netscape.com
That's unusual. Most researchers collaborate in their work to some degree,
but I guess it is the WC or nothing here.
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/?action=view¤t=GilJesusOnTheTrailofTheAssassins-1.jpg
Sorry Robert , we don't use the word corroborate very much around here .
He said collaborate, not corroborate. I have worked with all types of
researchers, even WC defenders.
Post by cdddraftsman
IMO this corroboration by the critical community is the only conspiracy in
JFK's death . My condolences that you haven't seen through their smoke
screen yet , but give it a little time , you will :-) ........tl
cdddraftsman
2007-10-24 00:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by cdddraftsman
Sorry Robert , we don't use the word corroborate very much around here .
He said collaborate, not corroborate. I have worked with all types of
researchers, even WC defenders.
He should of used conspire , he would of been more honest . Try looking up
that word , I think you might of lost your point of reference
.........about 20 years ago ...........in regards to what it means in this
case .............tl
Anthony Marsh
2007-10-23 03:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Why?
That's simply not true.
Who says, you?
Post by John McAdams
You've picked up a silly factoid from Groden and Livingstone.
Actually, I didn't read it in their book. And since when is their
stuff factoid stuff? In your opinion.
Post by John McAdams
Nixon was in a cab in Queens when somebody (his accounts do differ as
to whether it was a man or a woman) came up to the cab crying with the
news.
Wrong.
http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy.html
And numerous other ones.
Post by John McAdams
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
The FBI received a call from Bush 10 minutes after JFK was shot saying he
knew someone who was dangerous and may kill the president (Parrot). The
origin of this call was Tyler, TX. Bush denied being in Tyler and said he
was in Houston at the time of the shooting. Strange thing is when some
intelligence agents took pictures there is a photo of Bush outside the
TSBD very shortly after the shooting. Not enough time to travel from
Houston.
http://tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm
Post by John McAdams
Kindly post your source.
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
Which part. Sorry it is not wrong.
The letter is a hoax meant to embarrass the research community. Ruby had
no connection to Nixon.
Post by r***@netscape.com
Post by John McAdams
You've been here long enough that it ought to be dawning on you that
you've accepted a bunch of bogus factoids.
.John
This from someone who has a website full of bogus factoids. How about
using some links that aren't to your website. Are you saying no one else
in this field knows anything unless they say LHO did it by himself?
Yes, that's exactly what he is saying.
Post by r***@netscape.com
That's unusual. Most researchers collaborate in their work to some degree,
but I guess it is the WC or nothing here.
Gerry Simone (O)
2007-10-20 02:07:16 UTC
Permalink
Didn't he (NIXON) deny knowledge of his whereabouts originally?

I thought his different recollections were not as minor as you state.

As for Bush, I thought I saw him say he didn't remember where he was at
some press conference around the time that the movie JFK caused a hoopla.
Post by John McAdams
who couldn't remember where they were when JFK was assassinated? Give
up?
Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Why?
That's simply not true.
You've picked up a silly factoid from Groden and Livingstone.
Nixon was in a cab in Queens when somebody (his accounts do differ as
to whether it was a man or a woman) came up to the cab crying with the
news.
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
Kindly post your source.
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
It is scary to think men can run a country but they can't remember
where they were on a significant day.
You've been here long enough that it ought to be dawning on you that
you've accepted a bunch of bogus factoids.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
2007-10-20 23:58:36 UTC
Permalink
On 19 Oct 2007 22:07:16 -0400, "Gerry Simone \(O\)"
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Didn't he (NIXON) deny knowledge of his whereabouts originally?
I'm not aware of *any* source that supports that.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
I thought his different recollections were not as minor as you state.
As for Bush, I thought I saw him say he didn't remember where he was at
some press conference around the time that the movie JFK caused a hoopla.
If you could post a transcript of that, it would be helpful.
Post by Gerry Simone (O)
Post by John McAdams
who couldn't remember where they were when JFK was assassinated? Give
up?
Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Why?
That's simply not true.
You've picked up a silly factoid from Groden and Livingstone.
Nixon was in a cab in Queens when somebody (his accounts do differ as
to whether it was a man or a woman) came up to the cab crying with the
news.
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
Kindly post your source.
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
It is scary to think men can run a country but they can't remember
where they were on a significant day.
You've been here long enough that it ought to be dawning on you that
you've accepted a bunch of bogus factoids.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
--
Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Gerry Simone (O)
2007-10-20 02:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Three grown men - didn't E. Howard Hunt originally say he couldn't
remember too.
Post by John McAdams
who couldn't remember where they were when JFK was assassinated? Give
up?
Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Why?
That's simply not true.
You've picked up a silly factoid from Groden and Livingstone.
Nixon was in a cab in Queens when somebody (his accounts do differ as
to whether it was a man or a woman) came up to the cab crying with the
news.
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
Kindly post your source.
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
It is scary to think men can run a country but they can't remember
where they were on a significant day.
You've been here long enough that it ought to be dawning on you that
you've accepted a bunch of bogus factoids.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
2007-10-20 04:07:17 UTC
Permalink
George H.W. Bush was addressing a Rotary Club luncheon in Tyler, Texas,
when the news came in of the assassination. They mutually agreed to cancel
his speech. Bush called the FBI to report a young Republican campaign
worker whom he understood had made a death threat against Kennedy.

The Bushes later returned to Houston via Dallas. It is interesting a
interesting bit of trivia that three U.S. Presidents were in Dallas on
Nov. 22, 1963.

Accepting for the sake of argument that Bush didn't remember where he was
when he heard the news - so what? What would be the point in lying about
where he was? Likewise with Nixon - what is the point of whether he heard
the news at Idlewald Airport or in the taxi ride home? What would be the
point in lying?
t***@hotmail.com
2007-10-20 22:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
George H.W. Bush was addressing a Rotary Club luncheon in Tyler, Texas,
when the news came in of the assassination. They mutually agreed to cancel
his speech. Bush called the FBI to report a young Republican campaign
worker whom he understood had made a death threat against Kennedy.
The Bushes later returned to Houston via Dallas. It is interesting a
interesting bit of trivia that three U.S. Presidents were in Dallas on
Nov. 22, 1963.
Accepting for the sake of argument that Bush didn't remember where he was
when he heard the news - so what? What would be the point in lying about
where he was? Likewise with Nixon - what is the point of whether he heard
the news at Idlewald Airport or in the taxi ride home? What would be the
point in lying?
I know when I have told **porky pies** (to my parents when I was a young
rebel) that you tend to over - embellish the story and it becomes
difficult to keep track of what you have said. The fact that Nixon changed
his story from a man telling him to a woman telling him (or vice versa)
suggests that it is "make-believe" story not based in reality.
r***@netscape.com
2007-10-20 22:07:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by yeuhd
Accepting for the sake of argument that Bush didn't remember where he was
when he heard the news - so what? What would be the point in lying about
where he was? Likewise with Nixon - what is the point of whether he heard
the news at Idlewald Airport or in the taxi ride home? What would be the
point in lying?
Exactly, so why all the lying? Most guilty people lie all the time.
See:

http://surftofind.com/nixon
http://crimemagazine.com/03/richardnixon,1014.htm
http://mtracy9.tripod.com/kennedy.html
Gerry Simone (O)
2007-10-20 23:37:21 UTC
Permalink
I don't think that photo clearly establishes him to be Bush Sr.

Bush has a refined nose - that photo shows otherwise.

The head seems more square than rectangular (Bush has a lean face).

I could be wrong, but if I was a juror, I wouldn't say that it clearly
establishes that man as Bush Sr.

I do believe that's Bush Sr. as reported in that FBI memo.
Post by John McAdams
who couldn't remember where they were when JFK was assassinated? Give
up?
Richard M. Nixon and George H.W. Bush. Why?
That's simply not true.
You've picked up a silly factoid from Groden and Livingstone.
Nixon was in a cab in Queens when somebody (his accounts do differ as
to whether it was a man or a woman) came up to the cab crying with the
news.
I'm not sure where you get the Bush thing.
Kindly post your source.
What was there link? Prescott Bush. Nixon was a minion of the Bush's
since 1947. Who did work for Congressman Nixon? Jack Rubenstein,
a.k.a. Jack Ruby. Who said the WC was the greatest hoax ever foisted
on the American public? Richard M. Nixon. Both would become
presidents later on as well.
Wrong again.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nixon_hoax.htm
It is scary to think men can run a country but they can't remember
where they were on a significant day.
You've been here long enough that it ought to be dawning on you that
you've accepted a bunch of bogus factoids.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...