|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
[quote="JMO"]
| regicide wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
lol..i was joking dude..
any word on that number for your conspiracy yet or have you actualy thought it through in any detail?
sorry about my spelling, its crap. i shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.
As I said give me a number? I ca't believe nobody has asked you this before..thought it would be on the tip of the tongue. |
|
I posted your question on another forum and this is one of the responses I received. You are going to have to wait a long time for mine, however.
I'm not one of those who think that the conspiracy couldn't have been big, or someone would have broken their silence about it. Powerful people have conspired to commit crimes since the beginning of time, and most of those conspiracies were successful. If you control the apparatus whereby the public at large gets their information, then your crimes will never be exposed. Our mainstream media has been controlled by the forces who killed JFK for the past 43+ years, and unless the internet becomes the primary source of information for the vast majority of people, the coverup will never be broken because of this. Personally, I think that the individuals most obviously involved in the conspiracy at the ground level were Emory Roberts, Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman, at the very least, among the Secret Service agents in Dallas, presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, vice president Lyndon Johnson, and CIA veterans like James Angleton and Richard Helms. Those involved in setting Oswald up as the patsy would probably have included Ruth and Michael Paine, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and possibly George Demohrenschildt and James Hosty. It is hard to imagine that CIA director John McCone didn't know about the conspiracy at least after the fact. Certainly Allen Dulles must have known, and I'm certain Earl Warren must have figured it out. Assistant attorney general Nicholas Katzenbach must at least have been guilty of being an accesory after the fact, for writing his infamous "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin" memo almost as soon as Oswald was pronounced dead on 11/24/63. The list of conspirators, imho, is very long. This was a true coup d'tat, and involved the most powerful forces in our society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="regicide"]
| JMO wrote: |
| regicide wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
lol..i was joking dude..
any word on that number for your conspiracy yet or have you actualy thought it through in any detail?
sorry about my spelling, its crap. i shouldn't throw stones in glass houses.
As I said give me a number? I ca't believe nobody has asked you this before..thought it would be on the tip of the tongue. |
|
I posted your question on another forum and this is one of the responses I received. You are going to have to wait a long time for mine, however.
I'm not one of those who think that the conspiracy couldn't have been big, or someone would have broken their silence about it. Powerful people have conspired to commit crimes since the beginning of time, and most of those conspiracies were successful. If you control the apparatus whereby the public at large gets their information, then your crimes will never be exposed. Our mainstream media has been controlled by the forces who killed JFK for the past 43+ years, and unless the internet becomes the primary source of information for the vast majority of people, the coverup will never be broken because of this. Personally, I think that the individuals most obviously involved in the conspiracy at the ground level were Emory Roberts, Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman, at the very least, among the Secret Service agents in Dallas, presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, vice president Lyndon Johnson, and CIA veterans like James Angleton and Richard Helms. Those involved in setting Oswald up as the patsy would probably have included Ruth and Michael Paine, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and possibly George Demohrenschildt and James Hosty. It is hard to imagine that CIA director John McCone didn't know about the conspiracy at least after the fact. Certainly Allen Dulles must have known, and I'm certain Earl Warren must have figured it out. Assistant attorney general Nicholas Katzenbach must at least have been guilty of being an accesory after the fact, for writing his infamous "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin" memo almost as soon as Oswald was pronounced dead on 11/24/63. The list of conspirators, imho, is very long. This was a true coup d'tat, and involved the most powerful forces in our society. |
Ok now we are getting somewhere. First question, can you give me an historic example of a conspiracy like this that was kept quiet for 40 years after the fact and was later proven to have happened? I'll ignore the fact that we are living in a much more advanced media age.
Secondly are you saying that the mainstream media are all controlled by the same prsob/people? Who are these people/person? Why did these people allow the large amount of books on kennedy's death to be published?
If you can get me a rough number of the conspirators I can work out the plausibility and the probability of such an event. Is it in the hundreds, thousands? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
just curious..why are u reluctant to share your private views on the subject? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="JMO"][quote="regicide"]
| JMO wrote: |
| regicide wrote: |
In addition, new information declassified from the House Select Committee on Assassinations and the JFK Assassination Records Review Board casts further doubt on the Warren Commission theory of JFK�s wounds.
I'm not one of those who think that the conspiracy couldn't have been big,
or someone
woulld have broken their silence about it.
Powerful people have conspired to commit crimes since the beginning of time, and most of those conspiracies were successful. If you control the apparatus whereby the public at large gets their information, then your crimes will never be exposed. Our mainstream media has been controlled by the forces who killed JFK for the past 43+ years, and unless the internet becomes the primary source of information for the vast majority of people, the coverup will never be broken because of this. Personally, I think that the individuals most obviously involved in the conspiracy at the ground level were Emory Roberts, Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman, at the very least, among the Secret Service agents in Dallas, presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, vice president Lyndon Johnson, and CIA veterans like James Angleton and Richard Helms. Those involved in setting Oswald up as the patsy would probably have included Ruth and Michael Paine, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and possibly George Demohrenschildt and James Hosty. It is hard to imagine that CIA director John McCone didn't know about the conspiracy at least after the fact. Certainly Allen Dulles must have known, and I'm certain Earl Warren must have figured it out. Assistant attorney general Nicholas Katzenbach must at least have been guilty of being an accesory after the fact, for writing his infamous "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin" memo almost as soon as Oswald was pronounced dead on 11/24/63. The list of conspirators, imho, is very long. This was a true coup d'tat, and involved the most powerful forces in our society. |
Ok now we are getting somewhere. First question, can you give me an historic example of a conspiracy like this that was kept quiet for 40 years after the fact and was later proven to have happened? I'll ignore the fact that we are living in a much more advanced media age.
Secondly are you saying that the mainstream media are all controlled by the same prsob/people? Who are these people/person? Why did these people allow the large amount of books on kennedy's death to be published?
If you can get me a rough number of the conspirators I can work out the plausibility and the probability of such an event. Is it in the hundreds, thousands? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
just curious..why are u reluctant to share your private views on the subject? |
The intelligence network responsible for the covert action at Dealey Plaza were very experienced in what they were doing. They did it before and they've done it since.
Successful conspiracies are difficult to unravel because they are successful and those responsible took over the power of the presidency and the US government.
I think a reasonable comparison would be the July 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler. It too was not only an assassinaton, but an attempted coup, and if successful, those responsible would have taken over the Nazi government and agreed to a ceasefire, at least on the western front.
It was unsuccessful only because Hitler didn't die. Most of those involved in the logistics were immediately executed, as were many of their families, and eventually there were hundreds implicated and executed, including Rommell.
There are at least four people - Allen Dulles, Mary Bancroft, Bernd Gisivious and Dr. Kutemeyer, who were involved in both operations.
They learned their lesson in 1944 and the victim was not going to leave Dealey Plaza alive.
BK
Last edited by regicide on Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:08 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="regicide"][quote="JMO"]
| regicide wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| regicide wrote: |
I posted your question on another forum and this is one of the responses I received. You are going to have to wait a long time for mine, however.
I'm not one of those who think that the conspiracy couldn't have been big, or someone would have broken their silence about it. Powerful people have conspired to commit crimes since the beginning of time, and most of those conspiracies were successful. If you control the apparatus whereby the public at large gets their information, then your crimes will never be exposed. Our mainstream media has been controlled by the forces who killed JFK for the past 43+ years, and unless the internet becomes the primary source of information for the vast majority of people, the coverup will never be broken because of this. Personally, I think that the individuals most obviously involved in the conspiracy at the ground level were Emory Roberts, Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman, at the very least, among the Secret Service agents in Dallas, presidential advisor McGeorge Bundy, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, vice president Lyndon Johnson, and CIA veterans like James Angleton and Richard Helms. Those involved in setting Oswald up as the patsy would probably have included Ruth and Michael Paine, Jack Ruby, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie and possibly George Demohrenschildt and James Hosty. It is hard to imagine that CIA director John McCone didn't know about the conspiracy at least after the fact. Certainly Allen Dulles must have known, and I'm certain Earl Warren must have figured it out. Assistant attorney general Nicholas Katzenbach must at least have been guilty of being an accesory after the fact, for writing his infamous "the public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin" memo almost as soon as Oswald was pronounced dead on 11/24/63. The list of conspirators, imho, is very long. This was a true coup d'tat, and involved the most powerful forces in our society. |
Ok now we are getting somewhere. First question, can you give me an historic example of a conspiracy like this that was kept quiet for 40 years after the fact and was later proven to have happened? I'll ignore the fact that we are living in a much more advanced media age.
Secondly are you saying that the mainstream media are all controlled by the same prsob/people? Who are these people/person? Why did these people allow the large amount of books on kennedy's death to be published?
If you can get me a rough number of the conspirators I can work out the plausibility and the probability of such an event. Is it in the hundreds, thousands? Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions.
just curious..why are u reluctant to share your private views on the subject? |
The reason I wont post mine views is because I have only been at this for a year and a half. There is a lot to learn and my view of the "big picture" is constantly evolving.
This is the second response I received and it looks at another assassination (attempt).
The intelligence network responsible for the covert action at Dealey Plaza were very experienced in what they were doing. They did it before and they've done it since.
Successful conspiracies are difficult to unravel because they are successful and those responsible took over the power of the presidency and the US government.
I think a reasonable comparison would be the July 1944 attempt to assassinate Hitler. It too was not only an assassinaton, but an attempted coup, and if successful, those responsible would have taken over the Nazi government and agreed to a ceasefire, at least on the western front.
It was unsuccessful only because Hitler didn't die. Most of those involved in the logistics were immediately executed, as were many of their families, and eventually there were hundreds implicated and executed, including Rommell.
There are at least four people - Allen Dulles, Mary Bancroft, Bernd Gisivious and Dr. Kutemeyer, who were involved in both operations.
They learned their lesson in 1944 and the victim was not going to leave Dealey Plaza alive.
BK |
I asked for an example that involved a time period such as this. 40 years is a long time for a conspiracy to hold. I'd be interested if there were any historical examples as was inferred in your previous post.
In the Hitler example, I'm pretty sure he murdered anybody he suspected to be part of the conspiracy. the actual conspiracy would have been smaller. I'd assume he'd take the opportunity to wipe out his enemies whether they had something to do with it or not. Not a very good example. If anything an example of what normally happen with conspiracies, people find out what happened very quickly.
Anyway what i'm really interested to know is this. Is the media all controlled by the same people? All of it? Why were books about the Kennedy assassination allowed to be published?
Roughly would you put the number of conpirators at 100, 200 etc? ask the guys on the other board for a rough number.
You've been at this for a year and a half? What convinced you that oswald didn't do it? Outline that for me..it doesnt have to be a concrete theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, a poison dart in the neck?
Why not a bullet?
Was JFK in the middle of a big game of Mouse Trap?
Why paralyse him?
This version of the JFK conspiracy seems so unnecessary.
If it was a poison dart, then why the bullets?
I'm not saying there is a conspiracy or not, just why poison and bullets. Next they'll find an ice pick.
(JMO-Firefox comes with a spell check try it! Helped me spell unnecessary  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
"In fact many were threatened, discredited, and killed."
|
This is an example of a witness being discredited:
QUOTE(Don Jeffries @ Mar 29 2007, 07:31 AM)
Mark Valenti wrote:
Don't forget - one key eyewitness said she saw a dog in the limo next to JFK. So not all eyewitnesses are credible.
This bit of misinformation is still being trotted out to discredit Jean Hill. Jackie was given a small stuffed animal, which was next to her in the limousine, and could easily have been mistaken for a small dog. I was once one of those who used this against Jean Hill, but I later found about the stuffed animal. It does not affect her credibility.
Jean Hill told the Warren Commission about how she saw "a little white dog" in the rear seat of the president's car. As there was no dog in the car, the reliability of Hill's witness statement was undermined. However, 25 years later, it was revealed that a small white stuffed animal was on the back seat of the car. A child had presented it to Jackie Kennedy at the beginning of the tour of Dallas. This information was suppressed in order to discredit Hill as a reliable witness.
See this thread for a discussion on this issue:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7516 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
"In fact many were threatened, discredited, and killed."
|
This is an example of a witness being discredited:
QUOTE(Don Jeffries @ Mar 29 2007, 07:31 AM)
Mark Valenti wrote:
Don't forget - one key eyewitness said she saw a dog in the limo next to JFK. So not all eyewitnesses are credible.
This bit of misinformation is still being trotted out to discredit Jean Hill. Jackie was given a small stuffed animal, which was next to her in the limousine, and could easily have been mistaken for a small dog. I was once one of those who used this against Jean Hill, but I later found about the stuffed animal. It does not affect her credibility.
Jean Hill told the Warren Commission about how she saw "a little white dog" in the rear seat of the president's car. As there was no dog in the car, the reliability of Hill's witness statement was undermined. However, 25 years later, it was revealed that a small white stuffed animal was on the back seat of the car. A child had presented it to Jackie Kennedy at the beginning of the tour of Dallas. This information was suppressed in order to discredit Hill as a reliable witness.
See this thread for a discussion on this issue:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7516 |
Sweet, now how about some murders, people being threatened and a rough number for this conspiracy. Is 50 people too big or small?
I'll have a look at this lady..i'm sure there weren't any more discrepincies in her testimony as you would have found any others to give balance to your case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ED209 wrote: |
Sorry, a poison dart in the neck?
Why not a bullet?
Was JFK in the middle of a big game of Mouse Trap?
Why paralyse him?
This version of the JFK conspiracy seems so unnecessary.
If it was a poison dart, then why the bullets?
I'm not saying there is a conspiracy or not, just why poison and bullets. Next they'll find an ice pick.
(JMO-Firefox comes with a spell check try it! Helped me spell unnecessary ) |
My spelling is a necassary part of my personality. I just wuoldn't be me without it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Before i start to get into the small things I need the big picture. Ask those guys on the board how many people were involved. I'm interested in probability studies to begin with and honestly it is the most interesting aspect of the whole thing.
I love conspiracies because of this, they are a really interesting insight in to how the human mind works.
As regards Jean Hill, it seems that could well have been a teddy in the car. I wouldn't put too much faith in her testimony anyway because eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. I would say this for a witness who said he heard 3 shots and saw oswald do it too.
Building a case on anomalies and inconsistencies is not a great plan. First of all the logical step is to decide how many people were involved. Then you can judge how likely it was.
you say you have been doing this for a year and a half. Well you really should have an idea. I have been looking at this for a couple of months(since i responded to another post of yours) and the first thing that jumped out at me was the sheer number of people required in many of the conspiracy theories about his death. That screams of implausibility to me.
Have you thought about this question? how would you answer it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
Before i start to get into the small things I need the big picture. Ask those guys on the board how many people were involved. I'm interested in probability studies to begin with and honestly it is the most interesting aspect of the whole thing.
I love conspiracies because of this, they are a really interesting insight in to how the human mind works.
As regards Jean Hill, it seems that could well have been a teddy in the car. I wouldn't put too much faith in her testimony anyway because eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. I would say this for a witness who said he heard 3 shots and saw oswald do it too.
Building a case on anomalies and inconsistencies is not a great plan. First of all the logical step is to decide how many people were involved. Then you can judge how likely it was.
you say you have been doing this for a year and a half. Well you really should have an idea. I have been looking at this for a couple of months(since i responded to another post of yours) and the first thing that jumped out at me was the sheer number of people required in many of the conspiracy theories about his death. That screams of implausibility to me.
Have you thought about this question? how would you answer it. |
The Warren Commission says then that Oswald was walking (since he didn�t drive or own a car) on a quiet street, when a patrolman drove up to him. According to the official story, the crazed ex-serviceman pulled out a pistol, shot the patrolman and fled. As our book points out for the first time, that exact scene (involving an ex-serviceman) is in a movie that Johnny Rosselli produced (uncredited, but confirmed by court documents) in 1948, called �He Walked by Night.�
I actually became interested in this matter years ago at my University which had a presentation regarding the assassination. What stuck in my mind was the number of people associated with the assassination who met suspicious deaths.
Back to "Executive Action"
COVER-UP / Mysterious Deaths
A LOOK AT THE DEATHS OF THOSE INVOLVED*
Jim Marrs and Ralph Schuster
[Editor's Note: The claim that many persons who had
personal knowledge of the assassination of JFK have met
untimely deaths is reviewed by the authors, who provide
a overview of the evidence. It appears that many who
had personal knowledge of the assassination of JFK
have indeed met untimely deaths.]
In the three-year period which followed the murder of President Kennedy and Lee Harvey Oswald, 18 material witnesses died - six by gunfire, three in motor accidents, two by suicide, one from a cut throat, one from a karate chop to the neck, three from heart attacks and two from natural causes.
An actuary, engaged by the "London Sunday Times," concluded that on November 22, 1963, the odds against these witnesses being dead by February 1967, were one hundred thousand trillion to one.
The above comment on the deaths of assassination witnesses was published in a tabloid companion piece to the movie "Executive Action," released in 1973. By that time, part of the mythology of the Kennedy assassination included the mysterious deaths of people who were connected with it. By the mid-1960s, people in Dallas already were whispering about the number of persons who died under strange or questionable circumstances.
Well into the 1980s, witnesses and others were hesitant to come forward with information because of the stories of strange and sudden death which seemed visit anyone with information about the assassination.
Finally, in the late 1970s, the House Select Committee on Assassinations felt compelled to look into the matter.
Last edited by regicide on Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Give me names of the people who died and a link to the study please.
Your not really helping me though. Do you ahve an opinion of your own or are you a random link spewing machine. How many people would be needed to carry out the conspiracy that you envisage? If you don't want to answer the questio, tell me why. why so evasive though..it really is strange.
All I want is a rough estimate of how many people were required to carry out the conspiracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
Give me names of the people who died and a link to the study please.
Your not really helping me though. Do you ahve an opinion of your own or are you a random link spewing machine. How many people would be needed to carry out the conspiracy that you envisage? If you don't want to answer the questio, tell me why. why so evasive though..it really is strange.
All I want is a rough estimate of how many people were required to carry out the conspiracy. |
FOR YOU IDIOTS THAT BELIEVE WHAT POSNER HAS TO SAY: you are absolute morons for believing this stuff. And you call us conspiracy nuts or worse and you believe THAT STUFF LOOK IN A MIRROR!
Take a look at Gerald Posner's case closed. I know you have read it because of your silly comment I cited previously:
Case Closed:
Okay where to start? probably the best way is to get my copy and open a page at random. I havepretty good chance of cf finding a misrepresented claim or a reference that doesn't say what Posner says it does.
Page 51.
Posner quotes from his interview of a KGB agent who defected in 1964 by the name of Yuriy Nosenko. Nosenko told him that the KGB ordered mental evaluations of Oswald. Posner claims that according to Nosenko the psychiatrists said that Oswald was mentally unstable.
Unfortunately for Posner, the Soviet reports are provided in Warren Commission volume 18.
They flatly contradict this false claim.
Nosenko should also be considered a discredited witness as he was caught in several lies by the The House Select Committee on Assassinations
They reported that Nosenko presented "significant inconsistencies" in his statements given to the FBI, the CIA and the Select Committee itself.
Shall I choose another page at random?
If Posner had the truth on his side there would no need to falisfy references.
Okay, here we go...
Page 127. Posner claims that on May 29, 1963 Oswald "'went to the Jones Printing Company" to order 1000 pro-Cuba handbills.
His reference for this is an FBI report by Special agent John M. McCarthy concerning McCarthy's interview of Myra Silver. When shown a photograph of Oswald she was unable to recognize him as the man who ordered the handbills from her. So what we have here is a classic Posnerism. He cites testimony that contradicts the point it is supposed to support.
Oh what the heck, one more for fun, I had to laugh at this one
Page 273.
Posner's was so anxious to debunk the story about three tramps arrested in Dealey Plaza after the assassination, he commits one of his most comical errors.
Posner said that one of the tramps was identified as "Buddy Harrelson." Somehow, Posner got the father of actor Woody Harrelson confused with another man named Harrelson. Who's next, Buddy Hackett?
Charles Harrelson is in jail for the murder of a federal judge and once claimed he was a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. Buddy Harrelson is a former infielder with the New York Mets. ( he is now deceased)
Not the kind of errors we expect to see in a "scholarly" report.
Further it is difficult to refute his evidence since he really didn't present any. In the entire book there is not the first shred of definitive evidence showing that Oswald did it. Considering that the title is "Case Closed" that seems a bit ambitious.
Did I miss something here? All this is is a confusing collection of minutia in an attempt to obfuscate thwe real evidence, none of which Ponser even attempted to refute. Want an example: the impossibility of the shot Oswald made. The worlds BEST snipers such as Col Craig Roberts tells that the reasons why the shots are impossible even with professional equipment which Oswald did NOT have. On this Posner is silent.
This book bolsters the Oswald lone-nut case until one actually reads it and checks his references.
Last edited by regicide on Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:10 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
Give me names of the people who died and a link to the study please.
Your not really helping me though. Do you ahve an opinion of your own or are you a random link spewing machine. How many people would be needed to carry out the conspiracy that you envisage? If you don't want to answer the questio, tell me why. why so evasive though..it really is strange.
All I want is a rough estimate of how many people were required to carry out the conspiracy. |
Look, the machine I am not is your information getter.
Nor , do I like this last comment.
I am not going to answer your question. Who in the hell knows, for Christ sake anyway?
I have done this so far because it helps me to clarify with factual information what I already believe. And it goes on the world wide web , which will be picked up by search engines.
Do the work yourself. As you said, you have the links.
I am becoming bored with the topic anyway. |
Lol..sorry I did search for it anyway. I came up with this. Its a letter from the times to the committee on assassinations.
Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses
was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should
not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial
staff after the first edition--the one which goes to the United States and
which I believe you have--had gone out, and later editions were amended.
There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong: It
was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were
the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United
States dying within a short period of time to which he
replied--correctly--that they were very high. However, if one asks what
are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index
dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much
lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it
dealt with the latter--hence the fundamental error in our first edition
report, for which we apologize.
None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember
the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you
will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.
Yours sincerely, Antony Whitaker, Legal Manager.
Seriously all i did was google it. It was that easy.
If you don't want to give me a number that is cool. Please though vet stuff before you post it. How you can believe in something with no concept of its scope astounds me.
"I have done this so far because it helps me to clarify with factual information what I already believe"
This is what you are doing wrong. You are supposed to find the factual evidence and let that lead you to the truth. Not believe in something then find evidence to support it. That is called cherry picking the evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="JMO"]
| regicide wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
Give me names of the people who died and a link to the study please.
Your not really helping me though. Do you ahve an opinion of your own or are you a random link spewing machine. How many people would be needed to carry out the conspiracy that you envisage? If you don't want to answer the questio, tell me why. why so evasive though..it really is strange.
All I want is a rough estimate of how many people were required to carry out the conspiracy. |
If you don't want to give me a number that is cool. Please though vet stuff before you post it. How you can believe in something with no concept of its scope astounds me. |
It goes like this for every piece of evidence.
The government covers up the truth.
Some private party digs into it and exposes the lie.
The government comes back either discrediting the study in this case, or the witness in another, or just simply BRAINWASHES the public into thinking the case is unsolveable.
YOU ARE BRAINWASHED AND NOT THINKING FOR YOURSELF. YOU WOULD BELIEVE ANYTHING THE GOVERNMENT TELLS YOU.
The fact is, it has been solved a long, time , ago.
It is what it is. It is a simple case.
JFK's enemies took him out using the CIA , which used
SECRET SERVICE AGENTS EMORY ROBERTS, WILLIAM GREER AND ROY KELLERMAN, who are traitors to their country,
to eliminate protection for the President that day and they shot him. They controlled the crime scene, the media to this day, and they took over the government. It was a Coup D' Etat
Since the new government were the purportrators of the crime, there is no chain of evidence in this case. That means anything the true actors in this crime did can be manipulated or just destroyed.
Last edited by regicide on Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:59 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| regicide wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
Give me names of the people who died and a link to the study please.
Your not really helping me though. Do you ahve an opinion of your own or are you a random link spewing machine. How many people would be needed to carry out the conspiracy that you envisage? If you don't want to answer the questio, tell me why. why so evasive though..it really is strange.
All I want is a rough estimate of how many people were required to carry out the conspiracy. |
Look, the machine I am not is your information getter.
Nor , do I like this last comment.
I am not going to answer your question. Who in the hell knows, for Christ sake anyway?
I have done this so far because it helps me to clarify with factual information what I already believe. And it goes on the world wide web , which will be picked up by search engines.
Do the work yourself. As you said, you have the links.
I am becoming bored with the topic anyway. |
Lol..sorry I did search for it anyway. I came up with this. Its a letter from the times to the committee on assassinations.
Our piece about the odds against the deaths of the Kennedy witnesses
was, I regret to say, based on a careless journalistic mistake and should
not have been published. This was realized by The Sunday Times' editorial
staff after the first edition--the one which goes to the United States and
which I believe you have--had gone out, and later editions were amended.
There was no question of our actuary having got his answer wrong: It
was simply that we asked him the wrong question. He was asked what were
the odds against 15 named people out of the population of the United
States dying within a short period of time to which he
replied--correctly--that they were very high. However, if one asks what
are the odds against 15 of those included in the Warren Commission index
dying within a given period, the answer is, of course, that they are much
lower. Our mistake was to treat the reply to the former question as if it
dealt with the latter--hence the fundamental error in our first edition
report, for which we apologize.
None of the editorial staff involved in this story can remember
the name of the actuary we consulted, but in view of what happened you
will, I imagine, agree that his identity is hardly material.
Yours sincerely, Antony Whitaker, Legal Manager.
Seriously all i did was google it. It was that easy.
If you don't want to give me a number that is cool. Please though vet stuff before you post it. How you can believe in something with no concept of its scope astounds me. |
You are seeing now why I am sick of this.
It goes like this for every piece of evidence.
The government covers up the truth.
Some private party digs into it and exposes the lie.
The government comes back either discrediting the study in this case, or the witness in another, or just simply brainwashes the public into thinking the case is unsolveable.
The fact is, it has been solved a long, time , ago.
It is what it is. It is a simple case. JFK's enemies took him out using the CIA , which used Secret Service Agents Emory Roberts, William Greer and Roy Kellerman to eliminate protection for the President that day and they shot him. They controlled the crime scene, the media to this day, and they took over the government. It was a Coup D' Etat
Since the new government were the purportrators of the crime, there is no chain of evidence in this case. That means anything the true actors in this crime did can be manipulated or just destroyed.
There is no reason to believe anything the government says , since they are the purportrators of the crime. The old Fox in the henhouse.
I believe it has been estimated that it cost in the 10's of millions of dollars to take out President Kennedy.
Sloppy and
Expensive |
I don't really understand. You are telling me that the Sunday London Times lied in this letter? they were put under pressure? this letter was forged?
How could this have been proved long ago if there is as you say "there is no chain of evidence in this case". Normally you need a chain of evidence to prove a case.
What you have here is a loop. You are willing to believe that anything that supports your claims is the truth, and that anything that discredits your claims has been falsified by the conspirators. I'll leave you in there spinning around.
I dont think you will, but you need to think over a few points. How many people were required to do this. Once you figured out how many people are needed, what are the chances of them all staying quiet for 40 years. If your conclusion requires conspirators with incredible power and near complete control over the media and goverment, then you have boxed yourself in.
Anyway i really really enjoyed our chat, seriously it was enlightening. when I was a kid I used to chat with the jehovas at the door for ages just waiting for that instant when the u could see the absolute belief and insanity in their eyes. Made my day always. I love to see how people tick..and its a lot easier to read in people with absolute, fervent faith. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
