Kennedy assassination conspirators again: how they operate
There are two topics almost guaranteed to draw a lot of heated commentary and trolls.
No, I’m not speaking of tits and ass (hey, I just threw that in to see if some traffic would come). I’m speaking of (a) anything defending Israel; and (b) anything challenging the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists.
Saturday’s post on the latter topic conformed quite nicely to the rule, calling forth much sturm and drang in the comments section.
I have noticed a pattern now too often for it to be a coincidence: people who believe in conspiracy theories cling to them in the face of all evidence to the contrary. In fact, when they are offered evidence to the contrary, they often will not even look at it. Why let the facts get in the way of a good (or bad) argument? It’s easier to just raise more objections, or to repeat the original assertion.
I’ve mentioned that Bugliosi’s book debunking the JFK assassination conspiracy theories is very long, in part because it attempts to deal with every single one. Most people are not going to read the whole thing. But the first 500 pages or so are quite doable, often riveting, and present a ton of facts that are exceedingly convincing to those who have minds open enough to take it all in objectively.
The rest of the book can be considered as a reference—and a handy one at that, since it is also available though Kindle, and a great deal of it is posted online for free at Google Books.
Since Bugliosi has pondered virtually every aspect of the Kennedy assassination and its conspiracy buffs, he’s pondered how they go about their business, and he has this to say (see pp. 951 ff):
It is remarkable that conspiracy theorists can believe that groups like the CIA, military-industrial complex, and FBI would murder the president, but cannot accept the likelihood, even the possibility, that a nut like Oswald would flip out and commit the act, despite the fact that there is a ton of evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy, and not an ounce showing that any of these groups had anything to do with the assassination.
It is further remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren’t troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence. More importantly, there is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don’t realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that in the real world—you know, the world in which when I talk you can hear me, there will be a dawn tomorrow, et cetera—you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you…
…[T]he evidence against Oswald is so great that you could throw 80% of it out the window and there would still be more than enough to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt…
The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald’s guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the individual branches. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence.
Bugliosi is describing something I’ve noticed as well. There is indeed a mountain—or a forest, or whatever comparison you like—of solid evidence implicating Oswald, from a multiplicity of sources, such that it could not be planted simultaneously. There are countless witnesses to actions before and after the assassination, and that involve the murder of Officer Tippit as well. There are fingerprints. There are mail orders for firearms and fake IDs written in Owald’s handwriting and photos that are NOT faked (and that his widow attested to having taken herself—did she frame Oswald as well?).
There is an absence of all of this evidence for everyone else. All that is left is “well, this person talked to that person once” or “this person was acquainted with that person” or “this group had reason to want Kennedy dead,” and on and on and on. Tiny discrepancies—common to all prosecutions of all crimes that do not involve a video of the perpetrator committing the act and an uncoerced confession—are found and focused on. Witnesses might disagree on a detail here and there. Sometimes some change their story. Not every single fact is completely nailed down. But, as Bugliosi points out, the evidence for Oswald as the sole perpetrator is so enormously overwhelming that it has been proven not only beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond a doubt.
However, doubting remains, and is extremely prevalent. A poll from 2003 indicated that 70% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy. The persistance of such ideas reflects, among other things, the fact that people are reluctant to believe that an insignificant individual such as Oswald could have committed an act that changed history. But it happens all the time—and, by the way, it was one of Oswald’s motivations: he wanted to change history and to change his own insignificance and turn it into significance.
Yet another reason for the prevalence of Kennedy assassination conspiracy theorists is that the sort of logical thinking that makes for the evaluation of a good legal case is not necessarily common among humanity. Critical thinking is difficult, and understanding a huge and unwieldy body of evidence is time-consuming and somewhat boring. Much more fun, and much easier, to poke a hole in a fact or two, to rely on outright lies or misrepresentations of what happened, and to jaw at length in paranoia on various and sundry discussion boards.
[NOTE: to those who point out that Bugliosi has written some rather sketchy books on other topics, my answer is that while this may be so (I haven’t read those), on this one he is both exhaustive and accurate. That is because it is in his wheelhouse, the prosecution of a criminal act, whereas the sketchy ones are not (one, for example, is about Bush being guilty of war crimes, which is not in Bugliosi’s field of expertise as an LA deputy district attorney). I have read Bugliosi’s Helter Skelter, about the Manson murder case which he had prosecuted; it is an excellent book on the subject.]
On the subject of conspiracy theories, every once and a while I will encounter someone who KNOWS that Israel attacked the USS Liberty intentionally during the six day war. The fact that a dozen commissions in the US and Israel concluded that it was an accident, that the Machiavellian state of Israel had one friend left in the world, the US, and that an act of war would be insane for a state in her situation, that friendly fire assaults even on ships are not particularly unusual, (see USS Cole and the US attack on the HMAS Holbart) that the attack was ended once the mistake was discovered nor had anything to gain from the attack is immaterial. Its all a cover up.
I wonder what the psychological pay off is for concocting and believing in a conspiracy theory? Probably something for people who failed in life and need a lifesaver, no matter how lubricious.
“the sort of logical thinking that makes for the evaluation of a good legal case is not necessarily common among humanity. Critical thinking is difficult.”
So true. Even many lawyers seem to struggle with it. In “The Paper Chase”, Professor Kingsfield tells the first year students that his goal is to teach them to think like a lawyer. From my own experience with law school (more than 30 years ago), thinking like a lawyer seemed no different than regular thinking. Perhaps that was due to an extensive math background. Logic is just logic. It should be the same for law, or math, or science, or economics or anything else which relies upon logic.
My question (I’m genuinely curious) — why is logic such a struggle for so many? Look at global warming climate science for a prime example.
“”A poll from 2003 indicated that 70% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy.””
Isn’t that 70% a bit ironic and humorous when you consider nearly all Kennedy conspiracist are postive they’re a trend bucking rebel with a bit more smarts and cleverness than mere conventional wisdom?
Another reason for the denial of Oswald’s guilt by so many is that to acknowledge it requires acknowledging that an american president was assassinated by an avowed communist for idealogical reasons. The Leftist/cultural-marxist media/academia complex has intentionally cultivated conspiracy theories to deprive the Oswald-acted-alone-because-he-was-a-communist meme of sunlight and oxygen in the mass culture. But I guess that makes me just another conspiracy theorist.
While I agree with the evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy, I suspect that Fidel Castro had a hand in Oswald’s doing so, as revenge for Kennedy Administration attempts to kill Castro.
Actually, thinking like a lawyer isn’t just logic. Consider they make their money as hired advocates. That means dismissing, ignoring, misrepresenting, and lying about facts that don’t suit whoever’s paying their bills. It becomes so ingrained that sometimes a casual conversation is a distasteful chore, soon ended.
“”My question (I’m genuinely curious) – why is logic such a struggle for so many?””
Stan
Logic isn’t a struggle. It’s baggage. Because if applied it means people dissappointed in their place in life will ultimately have no boogeyman but themselves to point to.
Gringo, with regards to Castro killing Kennedy; I recall an interview given by Castro years ago in which he mentioned that he and Kennedy were discussing a rapprochement shortly before his death but the assassination ended that possibility.
So do many scientists. It takes years in grad school to beat this into prospective scientists, and even then it often does not take, sometimes ever. To this day I mumble in my sleep, “Where are the @#$%^&* positive and negative controls?”
Logic isn’t a struggle.
With all due respect, I think it is. It’s hard for everyone to consistently subordinate hunches and feelings to reason, and to hew to a systematic approach to problem solving (e.g., to find a value between 1 and 100, determining whether the value exceeds 50, then 25 or 75, etc., instead of blurting out specific numerical guesses).
Richard Aubrey: “Actually, thinking like a lawyer isn’t just logic. Consider they make their money as hired advocates. That means dismissing, ignoring, misrepresenting, and lying about facts that don’t suit whoever’s paying their bills.”
Objection!
Lawyers, successful ones at any rate, don’t do that: it doesn’t work. The other side has a “hired advocate” as well, and you are not going to get away with “dismissing, ignoring, misrepresenting, and lying about the facts.”
What you are trained to do is to spot issues and from there make an argument that the facts as they are mean you win. You don’t lie about them at all, you distinguish them: you explain why these facts that are apparently against you don’t change the outcome, because under the applicable law they are irrelevant. The art is in fashioning a persuasive argument that the only relevant facts under the law are the favorable ones.
What people mistake for “lying” about the facts is advocating for a particular version of the facts, which in a typical case can be done entirely in good faith. Example: witnesses perceive things differently and have varying abilities to recall. Two witnesses have different versions of, say, a car accident. I argue to a jury that the witness favorable to me is the more credible of the two; perhaps they had a better view, perhaps they committed their story to paper before their memory had a chance to fade, perhaps they lack a bias the opposing witness has. No one is lying here, and indeed my witness may be the one who is incorrect. But as a “paid advocate” I am to put forth the best case for my clients the facts allow, and the facts include the testimony of this witness.
We are in the business of persuading juries, who are hearing from someone else who is working full time and being paid to un-persuade them. As a lawyer, you get caught actually lying about or misrepresenting the facts, and you lose. It really is that simple.
Neo –
I think you’re referring to me and a few others with your addendum. I did comment somewhat at length on Bugliosi’s other recent books, but ONLY to note the irony of him being something of a conspiracy theorist himself; NOT to discredit his Kennedy book. You don’t directly say that’s why I and others commented on the matter, but it’s implied by the remark being an addendum to your post on people who are resistant to facts.
No one who read the Bush book (except Chomsky/BDS-types) could dispute that Bugliosi’s case against Bush rests on a conspiracy-theory about Bush and his entire administration conniving to lie and manipulate the nation into war – deliberately and, as Bugliosi puts it, “with malice aforethought.” All I meant to note, thus, was that this man who “gets” what makes conspiracy-minded folks tick, doesn’t have the introspection to see that he himself suffers from a version of the syndrome.
I also wanted to note, on the side, how it’s unfortunate that his recent work is doing favors for the conspiracy-crowd, because it calls into his question his objectivity. It’s a shame because his Kennedy book is definitive.
On similar posts of yours in the past I’ve made it very clear that Bugliosi is pushing an open door with me on the Oswald issue. I’ve never bought the conspiracy theory and I believe Bugliosi’s book to be excellent (I skimmed it, admittedly). I’m 100% on your side on this issue.
Point is, I don’t want to be associated with an attempt to discredit Bugliosi’s Kennedy book via an assault on his other, more febrific books. I was keen to make a broader point about human nature and how even the most insightful minds can be the victims of what Hegel called “the cunning of reason.”
That is to say, I wanted to say that Bugliosi seems to care a lot about the Oswald matter, and I wonder what convinced him it was worth it to help trash a reputation for objectivity with a series of increasingly vitriolic, narcissistic, illogical, and fact-challenged rants.
So just to be clear, my post was a lament, not a circumlocution intended to lend a hand to conspiracy-theories.
Richard Johnson.
Okay. So lawyers talk like that in casual conversation for some other reason.
Got it.
It is worth noting, that Bugliosi is batshit crazy. Dennis Miller, the kindest of interviewers gave him the better part of an hour during his tour for the Bush book. He was literally frothing at the mouth, and beyond reason.
I’d recommend caution on fingering all critics as “conspiracy theorists” — especially for something as contentious and renown as the JFK assassination. My admittedly brief survey on the subject has led me to a pretty deep suspicion that Oswald wasn’t the lone shooter, strictly based on evidence that has been made public. I don’t have an alternate “theory” but find it entirely possible to doubt the government’s case without proposing — much less being sure of — another killer lurking in the shadows.
I simply think we’ll probably never know who fired all those shots in Dallas that day. As for conspiracy types, I expect their chief problem isn’t in ignoring evidence (they probably take in too much) but in not accepting that uncertainty.
America loves the Kennedy assassination conspiracy. Absolutely nothing will deter them. If the Government came out and admitted to a conspiracy true believers would immediately start wondering aloud about the conspiracy to mask the conspiracy.
A few years back I visited Dealy Square. After looking over the area I finally asked one the many conspiracy book hawkers where the Grassy Knoll was located. He pointed it out to me.
I haven’t laughed so hard since I first laid eyes on a Segway.
I saw a Mythbusters episode on the shooting. They were able to replicate it easily. I didn’t really buy into the conspiracy myth before, but if I had, the episode would have cured me of it.
Unless they were in on it too….
2 points. Marina’s uncle was KGB. It was the height of the Cold War. The commies were trying to takeover the country (and look how well they did). Yeah, a committed communist could do anything including frame her “husband”.
I met a CIA guy who was in Cuba in 1958 and saw Jack Ruby there. According to the Warren Commission, Jack Ruby was never in Cuba.
Read Annie Jacobsen’s new book on Area 51. There’s more to that story than we thought. I bet the same could be said about the Kennedy assassination. The government doesn’t tell us everything.
Jes sayin.
A reason I heard years ago on why so many fail to believe LHO did it was that he was a nothing, an ultimate loser. It is incomprehensible that someone like him could take down the great man, JFK.
That not how things should be. A great conspiracy must exist.
Valjean:
So where did you see this evidence that hasn’t been released? Did you shoot Kennedy yourself?
Ruby should have shot Oswald just for giving rise to this cottage industry. Kinda like what we should have done to whoever thought up reality TV.
A modest proposal: everyone who thinks Oswald didn’t and couldn’t have shot Kennedy from the School Book Depository should take a spin through Dealey Plaza while ex-Marines, for a small hunting license fee, take pot shots at them with a Mannlicher-Carcano.
Let’s find out who really believes it was an impossible shot.
“”What you are trained to do is to spot issues and from there make an argument that the facts as they are mean you win.””
Richard Johnson
Which means any assertion like “the sun didn’t rise today” can be both fact or lie depending on what the definition of rise is.
There are things worse than lying. A reflexive and ingrained general dishonesty that knows no lie to exist comes to mind.
Trimegistus,
Would have been a challenge from my crib in Los Angeles. Besides, compared to Dems today he wasn’t so bad (though apparently at least as horny).
But I didn’t refer to any unreleased evidence — just public record. Again: all the loose ends don’t prove any conspiracy (to me), but they raise more than enough questions to doubt the official story. To simply throw all that overboard — and then accuse skeptics of willfully ignoring evidence — seems a bit thick.
mousebert. I agree. That’s why the killing of MLK is contentious. Giants are not to be brought low by pissants. It offends the natural order.
Occam. Fine, fine modest proposal.
Steve H.
During the last pres election, I frequently visited a lawyers’ website. Ostensibly, it was about how stupid Sarah Palin was and the danger of having a stupid VP. They hauled out the crap like she speaks in tongues in church or believes in witches and tried to get a book banned. They pretended edited interviews show actual truth (not true with Breitbart, of course).
Now, if you’re concerned about stupid VPs, then when somebody said “JOE BIDEN!”, you’d address it. Crickets.
So, really, they were talking about how to avoid a republican president. Only they were lying, once about Palin and once about their purpose. Or they’d have said, well Biden’s not so smart, either, but at least he has hair plugs so that makes him humble or something. Not CRICKETS.
So, maybe they didn’t pick that up in law school.
Bob from Virginia.
Friendly fire has been a feature, I mean a bug, of war since the invention of the thrown rock. Indeed, Hanson has a story of a classical Greek phalanx which, in the dust and confusion, bent in the middle, folded around and had front line fighting its own front line.
Stonewall Jackson was killed by his own men and my father’s regimental HQ was bombed by US bombers.
But the Cole is probably not the example you were looking for. Possibly the Stark, although that stretches “friendly”.
Gringo: Since Bugliosi has covered everything, he’s got a chapter on conspiracy theories about Cuba’s participation. See the chapter entitled “Cuba,” beginning at page 1281.
kolnai: I understand. Tacking on the part about Bugliosi’s other books as a note on this post was not meant to imply any connection whatsoever. It was merely a convenient way to bring it to people’s attention, and to go on record with my point of view if they hadn’t already seen me express it in the comments section of my other post.
So although your points are well taken and I can see why I may have been misunderstood, I never meant to imply anything negative about your comments in the first place.
I dunno neo, if you look at the film his head goes back ward and and so does a piece of his skull. I remember a book that was written to prove that that was because it happened so fast the naked eye could not see the forward motion.
My other thought is that Kennedy was conducting his foreign policy through assassination. What would you do?
zipper: click on this link, and then click on “page 487” and start reading.
Casca: I’m not surprised that Bugliosi comes off as unbalanced at times. As I wrote in the NOTE at the end of the post, he has some pretty fringe political ideas that have come out in some of his books. The book Reclaiming History, about the Kennedy assassination, is so long and so complete that it occurred to me that anyone who wrote it would probably have to have either 10,000 assistants, or some form of obsessive-compulsive disorder. Perhaps both.
OCD isn’t always a bad thing, though. It can make for a very good lawyer (or accountant, or doctor). And it is almost necessary to plow through a project such as countering JFK assassination conspiracy theories.
neo – no problem; just being overzealous in guarding whatever’s left of my good….er…nom de plume.
I see we have a visit from helpful 9/11-truther and Kennedy conspiracist, Kate.
Marina framed her own husband! Her uncle was a member of the KGB! Hey, if you say so. Why, Kate even met someone claiming to be a CIA agent (real agents always tell people that they are agents), who told her he saw Ruby in Cuba! Must be true!! I see the light now!!!
Etc. etc. and so forth…
SteveH: “What you are trained to do is to spot issues and from there make an argument that the facts as they are mean you win.”
Richard Johnson
Which means any assertion like “the sun didn’t rise today” can be both fact or lie depending on what the definition of rise is.
______________
I don’t think I grasp your point here, but I can tell you no one goes into court and says the sun didn’t rise today unless they have actual evidence to back it up.
What I am saying is that, given that the sun rose today, do I have a credible argument that (a) the sun rising means I win or (b) the sun rising is irrelevant so it does not mean I lose? Maybe under the law is doesn’t matter whether the sun rose. If I have an argument to that effect then I make it. If not I see if there’s another way to make a winning argument which accepts the fact of the sun’s rising.
If the sun rising does mean I lose then I better have some actual admissible evidence the sun didn’t rise, and it better be strong enough to convince a jury after they hear my opponent argue to them it did so rise. Otherwise, I lose.
What I do not and cannot do is go into a courtroom and just lie about it.
Valjean: your comment is exactly the sort of thing I’m talking about in this post.
No doubt you’re an intelligent person. But, instead of using that intelligence to assimilate and understand the evidence and then evaluate it and come to a conclusion, you write that your “admittedly brief survey” on the subject has led you to doubt that Oswald was the lone shooter. You’ve already been told that there’s a mountain of evidence that he was the lone shooter, and that there’s another mountain that debunks all of the “evidence” to the contrary quite thoroughly. So why not reserve judgment till you’ve digested much of that mountain?
Occam’s Beard: your proposal at 7:14 is one of the best I’ve heard.
“”What I do not and cannot do is go into a courtroom and just lie about it.””
Richard Johnson
Nothing personal here since you’re probably a fine upstanding lawyer. But i’d have to say the lawyers job of turning truth into lies and lies into truth to advantage his client is a built in form of dishonesty to the profession IMO.
I have a very similar problem with main stream journalism profession. Their dishonesty similarly has as much to do with what they don’t report as what they do.
Neo,
I’m glad we’re (?) in agreement. It’s very hard to get this across in a blog comment (maybe you can relate), but I am reserving judgment. I’m just skeptical on this issue based on what I know and — as you correctly point out — see a lot of evidence on each “side”. But I don’t really have a side; it’s been almost 50 years and I (still) don’t think anyone has made their case.
Against that backdrop, the author you’re referencing refers to the evidence against Oswald as “more than enough to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt” (even “throwing out 80% of the objections” — makes me kind of curious about that remaining 20% …). I respectfully disagree — and am further put off by his using obvious legal language when Oswald never had a trial.
Again, again: my point is one can doubt the “official version” — and most decidedly not be a conspiracy theorist. The Warren Commission (among others) simply disregarded evidence — they had to, if nothing else to meet their charter — and concentrated on the best evidence they had. This clearly opened the door to the nutjobs — but just as clearly didn’t answer some very strong contrary evidence.
Valjean: my point is that you should read the book. There is so much in it that it’s hard to convey how very thorough it is, and how impressive.
As far as a trial for Oswald goes—the impetus for Bugliosi’s book is that he was hired in 1986 to do exactly what you say, try Oswald. Here’s the scoop:
Some of it is at YouTube (follow the link, watch, and keep clicking on further links to the right) Of course, the book is a million times more comprehensive. But these are interesting because they are the real witnesses. Since the “trial” was in 1986, many were still alive and not that much older.
Richard Aubrey, you are right I was confusing the Stark with the Cole.
BTW I might as well ‘fess up, I killed Kennedy.
BTW & off subject, here is a great musical commentary on the 2008 election.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFaBbw5twgE
Oliver Stone’s JFK was a joke based in fact – JFK was in fact the president and he was assassinated in Texas. The End.
However, there’s a scene that I found very helpful in understanding what happened to the Kennedy skull at the moment of impact – during the trial, the Zapruder film is shown in slow-motion. I watched the VHS tape ‘JFK’ on a machine with super-slo-mo. In super-duper-slo-mo, the triangular piece of skull was very obvious flying off to Kennedy’s left into the plaza grass when his head was angled to the right at the moment of impact. That missing piece of skull was picked up later when the hospital said the skull was incomplete.
Oswald killed Kennedy. He did it alone without any contact with others. However, that does not rule out the possibility of coincidental conspiracies unrelated to Oswald and those conspiracies being conflated to include Oswald and hundreds, if not thousands, of other players.
“It is remarkable that conspiracy theorists can believe that groups like the CIA, military-industrial complex, and FBI would murder the president, but cannot accept the likelihood, even the possibility, that a nut like Oswald would flip out and commit the act”
What is remarkable is that rediculous statement. I don’t know how he could make it with a straight face. Same for the USS Liberty…the “conspiracy theory” comes from the Liberty Veterans Association, not some batch of nutjobs. Live and learn, will yas?
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfairplay.htm
There are people who believe the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked. Despite the fact that we have photographic proof, and living astronauts to tell of it (one who takes considerable offense at being called a liar, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4 ), some people still insist it was all a sham.
Logic and scientific evidence will not sway the mind of a person clinging to a pet theory, no matter how asinine it proves to be.
In my lifetime there have been six assassinations or attempted assassinations of major figures: the two Kennedy’s, King, two attempts against Ford and Reagan. The left has generated endless conspiracy theories about the first three and ignored the ones against Republicans. The right has generated none about any of them. So who has the paranoid style?
I’m just leaving a comment because I saw “tits and ass”.
Haven’t read Bugliosi’s Kennedy book yet, and probably won’t, since, as I’ve mentioned before here, the assassination doesn’t hold a lot of interest for me. Helter Skelter, on the other hand, was an excellent book, and presented the case against Crazy Charlie Manson and his “family” in a most persuasive and readable fashion. And his descriptions of Manson and his minions murdering Sharon Tate, the LaBiancas, and the rest scared the bejeezus out of me. I read the book back in college, and it is to this day the only book that ever gave me nightmares.
Being social animal necessary involves a large dose of hypocrisy. That is why what people want us to believe about their beliefs and what they really believe are always two different things.
Occam’s Beard for the win!
Have you seen the video of Louis Farrakhan that is up at NRO? Talk about how conspiracy theories develop. There is something in there about Obama being used to become an assassin of KDaffy, and the evidence is that he spent the night at Buckingham Palace–or something to that effect. I have to confess that my brain’s logical pathways seem to digress a bit from Farrakhan’s. It’s also interesting that he says Jesus is the son of God. I thought Moslems considered him just one of the prophets. I guess he doesn’t like causing cognitive dissonance among listeners who may still celebrate Christmas and Easter.
As for cospiracy debunkers you still can’t beat Gerald Posner’s “Case Closed”, published in 2003 and still available at Amazon. Short and to the point.
I was in math class when it happened and we were all sent home. Lots of crying that weekend, and the churchs were full during the funeral. I also seem to remember that the conspiracy theories started that afternoon and have been metastizing ever since.
Expat
As for Farakahan, his life is a conspiracy theory, from the Mother Wheel, to the significance of the Number 19, to what ever part of that made up religion that he’s pushing this week. Sure hasn’t hurt his pockectbook though.
Now how to explain the blacksmith trade if fire doesn’t melt steel?
Also I’d like to add. Farhakan has been on Kadafhi’s payroll for years.
Oh, Oh, spell check just exploded.
Neo, just chiming in here about Bugliosi’s book. I have it, have waded through most of it, and absolutely loved it. I consider it THE last word on the JFK killing.
WaltJ, if you want a Manson book that’ll give you nightmares, read Ed Sanders’ “The Family.” It still gives me the creeps.
Jim, Why do you think I used KDaffy? Now I need to think about the other loon. How about Fairy Can?
whats missing from your assessments?
the stuff supporting the useful conspiracy…
for instance… you point out that bug points out:
well… i have read such explanations, and yes i do accept that Oswald did do it.
but USUALLY, the kind of explanation above is a person leaving out something… and is usually trying to reshape the story in some way.
he points out the things for which there are no evidence.. just like there is no evidence of a “right wing” conspiracy… moriarty… etc
which side creates realities for people to get lost in?
the whole point of the kennedy thing coming from the “military industrial complex”, the CIA, etc… is from the same old same old agitprop active measures…
if they are wrapped up in a conspiracy and are unshakable, then you have taken opponents sources of energy and action off the table.
if i can convince people through various mind games and falsehoods, and half truths, i can neutralize the other in the seat of their minds… they become ineffective…
so, the order and game has ALWAYS been for this event, is to bury soviet associations to it. actually, just as you notice a pattern that is too big for coincidence once you notice it.
explain the pattern of almost ZERO soviet information in our culture?
we have lots of evil nazi movies…. where are the evil soviet movies? we have movies of life in a German concentration camp… we have movies of life in a US concentration camp… where are the movies of life in a Gulag? where are the movies that show the soviets setting up the Israeli war? where is the movie that reveals that the men flying the planes in Vietnam were Russian soviets (who last year had a reunion for the Russian pilots from Korea, Vietnam, Egypt, etc)…
heck.. where is the movie that lays out the cold war without the “industrial complex”, Moriarty” etc?
what the prosecutor of charles manson (who anticipate obamas racism and social justice too early for the race war that the parents of obama and his current associates wer working towards), is all the connections of oswald to the soviets.
ie… he spends so much time on the soviet active measure point that we did it to ourselves because our “cia is out of control”… etc… a long time concept… dovetaling with suskinds list of soviet goals, one of which is to discredit and neutralize the CIA…
it does not mean that Oswald worked for the soviets. it washes the point that those following the desire for a revolution, have picked Stalinist and Maoism and Nazism as their models to hybridize together.
let me move to another active measure that is WELL KNOWN to be, and is also something that “just wont die”
the soviets and now the russians have purchased publishing houses.. (i published Sejna pointing this out)… by controlling the publishing houses and what they select to write, you can keep paying idiots to write Kennedy books. and because you buy Kennedy conspiracy stories, you get to inject them into the public…
a unexamined form of payola…
you dont need to take over the whole company or the publishing concern, you only need to collude collectively to keep moving your people into the organization.
you can read about the process… if you want to see two organizations one who resisted the process, and one who ignored its existence, just see how much the mens boy scouts stayed true to their founding, and how the girl scouts is an American soviet Nashi…
you get one person hired… they help hire another
the two of them conspire to remove one… and so on.
but all you need to do is place someone in the BUYERS position…
The basic goal of
Soviet active measures was to
weaken the USSR’s opponents–
first and foremost the “main
enemy” (glavny protivnik), the
United States–and to create a
favorable environment for
advancing Moscow’s views and
international objectives
worldwide.
the academics who love soviet living
becauise the soviet state was the first academically designed and planned society…
so do you think they are going to jepardize their cash cow of tenure to clue you in as to what is basic knowlege from history?
second paragraph in a cia report, points out that there were fundemental differences in morals between the two sides. and that one side, operated without limits or morals..
and was known to commit political assassinations…
i can list over 400 assasinations…
MOST of them having some connection to the soviet union, or in some response to something else they did.
the reason we accuse our CIA in our writing, is to put the CIA on equal footing with such a monstrocity
THEN subtract the soviet monstrosity, and what you ahve left is the monsterous CIA…
kind of interesting that the academics who want to construct the facts of the reality you live in, and are enamored by such a murderous regime
dont want you to notice.
[edited for length by n-n]
Artfldgr —
In the year 2011 they actually have medications and surgical procedures that can help. Please consider them before I have to hunt you down with several large car batteries and jumper cables.
“i can list over 400 assasinations…”
“Why, so can I, or so can any man,
But will they come true when you do list them?”
“which side creates realities for people to get lost in?”
Cue Frank Zappa:
“What will you do if we let you go home,
And the plastic’s all melted,
And so is the chrome?
WHO ARE THE BRAIN POLICE?”
“only the pragmatic opportunity to inject and play with the minds of your competitions people and abilities matters”
Okay, dgr, that’s it. It’s the jumper cables for you. That’s me making bumping noises in the back shadows of the closet.
Pingback:Lead and Gold
Neo,
Thank you for the recommendation, links, and especially for your considered replies. My reading plate is awfully full these days but I’ll try to work it in.
And I’d encourage you to revisit this topic once in a while; apparently it’s quite the crowd-pleaser.
Regards.
vanderleun Says:
June 21st, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Artfldgr –
In the year 2011 they actually have medications and surgical procedures that can help. Please consider them before I have to hunt you down with several large car batteries and jumper cables.
I’ll provide the batteries and the cables.
Vanderleun the skinnerian trained monkey speaks without reading, and definitely without thinking…
how do i know…
he didn’t address ANY point i made
but decided to triple post to discredit me out of hand just the way we are trained to!!!!!
Thanks Vanderleuen for proving my point, and validating B F Skinner, Pavlov, Goebbels, Hitler, Beria, and others.
Just so we are clear.
Vanderluens thesis is: “I am nuts”
His proof is his own ignorance.
that is, if Vanderluen don’t know it (as Vanderluen is god in his own world), then it must be nutty.
he has been provided a simple schema, like racist ideas, which disengages his brain, and gives him special knowing from the ‘signs’, and not from actual examination, education, etc.
may i ask Vanderluen, what did i say was so crazy or historically inaccurate?
here is my thesis…
I basically said that Oswald is a nutter. that we will never know what was in his head, thanks to ruby, even if we had a chance. And that the KGB would exploit what they could whether they actually orchestrated it, or not. as their stated goal is to destroy the US and that with nuclear weapons, direct military confrontation is replaced with mind games, and betrayals, and revolutions from inside.
here is an example of why, to Vanderluen, i am nutters…
ie… I know that the aids virus was not created as a biological weapon in American bio weapons labs, and that the idea is a well known, well studied, soviet active measure to equalize their bio weapons development which had recently let weaponized anthrax escape in violation of treaties the US was keeping (by not having bio weapons labs!)
and i give evidence for where and what things the conspiracy effects… as it has touched our social justice president, his religious mentor, farrakan and more!!!
Rev. Jeremiah Wright AIDS comment LIVE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvL9dLeDcSU&feature=related
go ahead… I DARE YOU to watch him answer the direct question as to his saying that AIDS was invented by the USA to kill black people…
he referrs to horrowitz book..
and other books in the genre
THEN
he goes on to mention Tuskegee syphilis study
so aids was developed as a means to eradicate black people… and the proof of it is Tuskegee syphilis study… he mentions authors and specific books and more… and after mentioning tuskeegee he says our government is capable of doing anything…
ie promoting the aids disinformation.
promoting tuskegee disinformation (we assume our government funded it as it does today, but we did not have such funding then! so do you know the facts Vanderluen?)
may i ask you Vanderluen, a few questions?
my thesis here that i will prove is this
that Vanderluen is ignorant of the facts behind certain events, and has swallowed the disinformation pill and now, has no other thing to do, but to protect his ego and ignorance, but ad hominem attack on others.
ie… he attacks me as a nutter to protect his ego which he knows is ignorant… in this way, an ingorant person among the left can appear to be knowlegable and so much so they are willing to blow social propriety and attack… which lends to the veracity.
lets see who is factually correct, shall we Vanderluen?
i will first note that my answers are from
The Cold War History Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institution, in Washington, DC / history books, speeches, mitrokhen archive, etc.
so are you ready to go toe to toe with a crazy man with the facts?
What superpower president admitted to the active measure of aids?
Gorbachev…
now, just as we get certain trolls here depending on what we talk about, there are a whole bunch of people devoted to spreading disiformatzia
here is a recent example
and this is despite their admitting to the conspiracy!
ie, Vancerluens will not adjust their reality to meet the facts and then project their failure onto others who DO know the facts and are being honest and measured.
here is the spreader
dgr, put down the BOLD FACE EE CUMMINGS TAG and step away from the keyboard.
DILUTE! DILUTE!
Come away quietly and your maiden aunt will not be hurt nor will her little dog back in Latvia.
Just sit quietly in this chair while I take the flesh caps off the electrodes in your neck and attach the jumper cable clamps to them. It will all become much quieter soon. The voices are
fading
f a d i n g
f a d i n g
You ask, you clever lad you, “who funded tuskeegee syphilis study?”
I shall answer only that it was the same shadowy creature “who put the bomp
In the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?
Who put the ram
In the rama lama ding dong?
Who put the bop
In the bop shoo bop shoo bop?
Who put the dip
In the dip da dip da dip?”
Who? Who did? C’mon wise guy. Who? Who? Who?
J’ACCUSE!
However, to take you slightly, but just slightly, more seriously than you deserve after all these years of petulantly not learning what others have struggled to bring to your attention…..
“Vanderleun the skinnerian trained monkey speaks without reading, and definitely without thinking…
how do i know…
he didn’t address ANY point i made
but decided to triple post to discredit me out of hand just the way we are trained to!!!!! ”
No, unfortunate lad, no. Sadly no.
You have yet to learn the very basic truth: Better ideas require better arguments.”
Not long arguments. Not bombastic arguments. Not arguments larded with quotes, cites, and links like some skeleton of a Christmas goose fattened up with much larding and little meat, but “better” arguments.
This means, at the very least, arguments one can be bothered to even begin to read and absorb. Sadly, even given what you know and don’t know and your known unknowns and unknown unknowns, you have yet to learn how to shape and pace and trim your arguments into a palatable form.
Until you do this. Until you can find the discipline in yourself to do so, your arguments — regardless of their merits — will fall not on deaf ears but on glazed eyes whose only sane response after half a screen of ranting boldfaced blather will be to simply scroll on by.
Stop talking to yourself. It’s really rather rude.
The lyric goes like this so pay attention:
“It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.
It’s not what you play, but how you play it.
It’s the singer.
Not the song.”
The thing I find most unbelievable about the “Oswald Acted Alone” angle is that I’m suppose to believe that during the height of the cold war, an army reconnaissance operator is allowed to defect (10/59)and then return (5/62) from the Soviet Union. Francis Gary Powers was the U-2 pilot shot down by the Soviets 5/1/60. Give me a break Bugliosi….I’m a person of faith (Catholic), but this begs a suspension of belief beyond my capacity. Oh…and to add to it, Powers was killed in a helicopter “accident” in 1977. He was in negotiations with NBC for an interview. Cause of crash…he “ran out of gas”. Fact…Bell helicopters can be safely landed without fuel. He was over an open field at the time. Mind you, a man who survived being shot-down over Russia.
vanderleun is revealed as TROLL…
Tuskegee syphilis experiment
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment
Sharon W:
I think you’re portraying the type of error Neo wrote about — that, in spite of a large body of consistent evidence, there is a single fact that doesn’t make sense to you, causing you to throw out the entire thesis.
I think of this as the “existence theorem fallacy”. (No doubt students of logic have a better name for it.) For example, I have a colleague at work who used to engage me in political arguments. Not once, but many times, he would say something like “but Daniel, given XXX YYY ZZZ, why should I believe anything you say?” He clearly liked saying it, and felt it was a useful debating technique — to find the “existence theorem” that would enable him to completely discredit me AND my argument. (I would typically explain that his XXX YYY ZZZ was not relevant to the subject at hand, or was not relevant to me, or was not truthful or factual in the first place… at which point he’d change the subject. That’s the problem with basing your entire argument on one detail; if you lose that detail, your argument collapses into nothing.)
I’m no expert on the deaths of Francis Powers OR President Kennedy. I will say that others, smarter than you or me, have investigated these matters far more thoroughly than we have — and that, rather than casting doubt, you should see what these experts have to say. Perhaps there’s a reasonable explanation for Powers’ fatal crash in 1977 (e.g. he was tired or angry or drunk that day, as he was not in 1960); perhaps there is not. Perhaps there’s a reasonable explanation for a washed-up Marine to be permitted to defect to the Soviet Union (did we prevent anybody from doing that, if they really wanted to?) and then be permitted back (I’ll vote for sheer incompetence at Immigration here); perhaps there is no such explanation.
Either way, I’m sure the questions have been asked most thoroughly, and answered in great detail. If these issues are important to you, you might want to look these matters up. Neo has given you an excellent resource for your first question, and you don’t even have to buy the book.
On the other hand, if you prefer to hang on to your existence theorems without questioning them, well, it’s a free country.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Thanks Daniel. Being a Catholic I have a belief in the afterlife. I am already comfortable with paradox vis a vis, “God is in control, but we have a free-will”, etc. etc. So I am also aware that I will be in for big surprises on the other side. I’m sure many things throughout my life that I thought to be true, could in fact be profoundly different. But in this case, whereas you think the CIA at the time would allow for a fluid citizenship for the likes of Oswald…I do not. Today, such a thing would not surprise me. At that time…I don’t believe so. BTW…my father died with Powers.
Sharon,
I don’t “think the CIA at the time would allow for a fluid citizenship for the likes of Oswald”. I think that Oswald’s re-entry into the United States may sound weird, but I do not think it requires a conspiracy to explain, as you suggest. Other than that, I have no opinion on the matter.
I’m sorry to hear about your father. You and I seem to have that in common; my father also died in a helicopter in the 1970s. (A conspiracy theorist might try to make something of that…)
best wishes,
DiB
Vanderluen: Not arguments larded with quotes, cites, and links like some skeleton of a Christmas goose fattened up with much larding and little meat, but “better” arguments.
ah…
i see…
a better argument…
like… “hope and change”
or maybe “Alles muss anders sein!”
What Vanderluen wants is propaganda he likes…
he cares not if its valid, so who needs citations
he cares not, as long as it chimes state slavery in any variation.. and it makes him FEEL a certain way… my missives make him feel bad… they make him feel small inside…
all his noise is just a inferiority complex trying to equalize with that which makes them inferior
i guess then he knows Edward Filene… no need for a cite, link, etc… Vanderluen knows all through ignorance…
Edward Filene was an expert in better arguments sans reality…
lets see… How many does Vanderluen use?
His first was to make fun and name calling
and when i asked to be refuted not attacked…
he decided to make fun and do 1950s tune
These techniques are designed to fool us because the appeal to our emotions rather than to our reason.
which is why he went to rock and roll, called me crazy… Vanderluen is incapable of reasoned debate as he pretends to claim to want…
why Vanderluen?
Why attack me for knowing a lot more than you?
Is it because your a sad little thing inside who is so small that he has to try to hurt others to feel bigger?
do you think that such behavior gets others to like you? if so, what kinds of others make up your world?
cmon… your not showing us how smart you are… your not even showing us you can respectfully learn
all you got is the asinine chops of a 13 year old who having failed their classes only has some juvenile standing among other juveniles…
the kind of person standing there who thinks cause he can act out, that others will just side with them for that alone.
so far you basically showed any thinkers here that your best is less than beavis and butthead..
your just an ignorant bully…
you think that by attacking me, my information, and such, your going to accomplish what?
your going to sway the erudite and smart to your side? sorry, Rama lama ding dong from a ding dong, don’t do that…
your going to teach me a lesson? what lesson? that i should listen to an ignorant moron lecturing me that i cant change the mind of an ignorant person once someone else has planted an answer there like a turd? [i know that. to paraphrase Tim Curry as Frankenfurter.. “it wasn’t written for you”]
oooohhhh… i should fear vanderluen… he will hound and attack me for being the tall poppy… the king crab in the crab bucket… has to pull everyone else down to his level… the same marxist mentality of parasitical losers
spiteful… selfish… ignorant… hateful…
in this recent discourse you have shown your colors..
i will say that despite your nastiness..
i still respected you enough to give you facts
no argument will suffice for you Vanderluen
because i respect you as a person to lie to you
i know… i know… you dont understand real morals, and logic and erudition… i know.. which is why we have such legal concepts as parens patria.. for people like you.
I will make it simple for you. no argument will ever make you feel better about yourself enough to respect others, because you don’t respect yourself.
so all you have is to hurt others and manipulate others so that they don’t reveal to you and others where you stand. but without your acting out, most wouldn’t know…
so its more about revealing you to you and you not liking what you find…
and no amount of attacking me, trying to manipulate me, creating fear in me… is going to change any of that.
if i shut up… your still as stupid and moronic and asinine as you were!!!!!!!!!!!
your actions will not change YOU…
you can erase all the people smarter than you..
and you will still be as dumb as you were when they were all around you!!!
breaking all the full glasses in the world will not make your empty glass full…
You can try to make fun of what i just said. but all that will do is let others know i am telling the truth and you know it.
your a Fitzgig…
all noise and no substance..
i have spent my life dealing with such losers
I call them losers because the solutions they adopt, do not lead to any personal improvement in them
how much did your solution improve you?
really sir… through all the stuff you hated…
and your self hate… did you EVER realize that the whole of my points was your freedom and ability to self determine your own life?
nope…
you choose stagnation
you choose hate and attack
you choose selfishness
and you make fun of me?
sad sad little person…
thanks vanderluen
NEO… he has proven my point from our discussion
Ref helicopters: An airplane flies because its speed through the air builds lift on top of the air foil. If the engine quits, the airplane’s speed is still there, bleeding off slowly, but until it reaches stall speed, the aircraft can still fly, in a fashion. The momentum of the entire airplane pulls the craft, most importantly the wings through the air until drag eventually slows it.
A chopper flies because the engine is forcing the blades through the air. Once the engine quits, the blades, quite light, have very little momentum to force them through the air to provide lift. IOW, no power, very little lift for a very short time.
In effect, the chopper is hanging on its transmission.
If the engine quits you have one chance to recover, drop until juuust the right moment and then pull full pitch, jamming the til-then free-wheeling blades into full lift. You get a hard deceleration, for a moment. if you called it right, it’s about the time you hit the ground. If too soon, you run out of your one-chance lift and hit the ground hard anyway. Too late is…too late. Not like landing an airplane which still has flying speed, which you can keep up by droppingaltitude.
Now, somebody may dispute my grunt’s view of such things. So I’ll go another route. I’m in the life insurance business. We charge extra for fliers, more or less depending on various factors about their flying. That’s fixed-wing. We charge a lot more for rotary wing. Must mean something.
Point is, dying in a helicopter crash is not prima facie evidence of something afoot because it’s so unlikely.
Artfldgr Said: “…he didn’t address ANY point i made…”
That’s because few will even bother to read what you say anymore regardless of the merits of your argument.
You still don’t get it, do you, Artfl.
Nobody wants to have to wade through page after page of dreck just to glean a single valid point. Until you learn to edit, it’s all wasted time and electrons because people like me and Vanderluen will simply scroll past your digital diarrhea.
I agree with Richard. I believe what he is describing is called “auto rotation”. If you are at altitude, you’re coming down hard. That’s it.
The first step in “winning” the argument against Kennedy-conspiracy “theorists” is just that – stop calling them “theorists”.
They are not proferring “theories” in any empirical / scientifically accepted way.
They are conspiracy-narrators, or conspiracy-fabulists – this goes for those who tell fables about 9/11, the Apollo moonshot, the birth certificate and so on.
You are a blur, dgr. Just a blur. You need to learn focus. Need to learn it bad. Otherwise a scroll is just silence no matter how many keystrokes you pump into it.
This is tangent to the topic, but some might enjoy looking at it (in the context of the originators), posted today:
9/11 and the Orwellian Redefinition of “Conspiracy Theory”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=25339
Nobody wants to have to wade through page after page of dreck just to glean a single valid point. Until you learn to edit, it’s all wasted time and electrons because people like me and Vanderluen will simply scroll past your digital diarrhea.
this is how a moron pretends to be capable when they arent…
the truth is that LOTS do want to wade through FACTS, history, etc..
the SAD part is that you think that life is about being entertained…
well.
here is a bit of truth for you..
MOST of the time, the answers you want, and the facts you need, are hard to find, and buried deep inside a tapestry of interconnected history.
you dont get diamonds on the grass in your backyard, you get it by mining a ton of ore for one ct… same with gold… same with research science facts… (how many BILLIONS do we spend in trying to just get a tiny one character SNP, or methelation?)
you dont get it do you?
you want me to get it… but i do..
i get that you want to be entertained and all that cause you think your so special..
but what I WANT is a place for my son and his children, and my nieces and nephews to have a future… and i KNOW deep down that the easy answer is not the right answer.
a chess board has 64 squares, 16 pieces, and people read 1500 page books on it.
so dont tell me that people dont want to read through huge quantities of stuff to get to answers.
Chess: 5334 Problems, Combinations, and Games – 1104 pages
and unlike the history i copy so you can start linking up what happened before you were hatched… chess has no bearing on the future, the world, the lives of mankind, etc!
“Cryptonomincon” by Neal Stephenson. It clocks in at 1168 pages
Atlas Shrugged
Published 1957. Approximately 645,000 words. 1168 pages.
Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace
Published from 1865 to 1869. Original text has some 460,000 Russian and French words. English translation contains over 560,000 words and over 3.1 million characters; typically over 1400 pages as a paperback.
thomas pynchon against the day 1220 pages or 1,085 both with small type
don quixote and ulyses are about 900 pages each
jewish scribes and rabbi can tell you what word is under another word X pages deep from where you point..
Gone With the Wind. I believe that book has 1037 pages.
Antonio Gramsci prison books are 9 volumes..
you think i am dry, and all that? read them
also read Stalin volumes and lenins
Prison Notebooks, Volume vol. 1, 2,3 2032 pages
notice that there are tons of dry books with information in them that people have read for hundreds of years..
i understand the problem is that you cant understand stuff taht is above you.. like trying to teach tensors to an average joe… or discuss the equations of schroedinger.
people like you cant read gurdjieff…
and rather than accept that, what you do, liek good little marxists in procrustean fashion, want to tear down that which makes you feel small in side.
Without self knowledge, without understanding the working and functions of his machine, man cannot be free, he cannot govern himself and he will always remain a slave.
G. I. Gurdjieff
i stand on the shoulders of giants…
you ask me to climb down into the mud?
why?
why should i abandon, tenyson, Gurdjieff…
why would i not want to love Foucaults pendulum?
or Gulag Archipeligo? The last of the mohicans, etc..
i entered bronx science a year early, nearly had a perfect score in the SAT…
when i sit with phds, and doctorate students, we all have a good time discussing in long form the things you dont want to.
there is a reason why run spot run is for children, and Godel Escher and Bach (the eternal golden braid) is for a different set.
well… the people we are discussing, are harvard, yale, princeton, etc… they DO read 3000 page tracts of trash and study them, and then write their own 3000 page tracts to discuss things from the other 3000 page thing.
and its your behavior to such people all their lives that makes them hate you, and want to team up and enslave you.
i feel it every time you and others do your baby dum dum shtick… why not give up on such people and join the side that will win? and it will win… baby dum dums are EASY to trick…
and i mean it… VERY easy…
you like to say they are dumb for not doing what you think is right. but you are a nobody sitting nowhere, and subject to their whims… not bad for dummies.
and if those dummies have millions, and part of it is from your pocket, and they can remove med care and make laws to lock you down.
why are they dummies and you genius?
you really think the bs from the movies that a charismatic person with entertaining quippery from the comics can easily out maneuver the smart nasty person because they, as everyone know are crazy…
well, to quote pink floyd: I got some bad news for you sunshine..
they not only are not crazy, they are sociopathic, and full of hatred of people like you. i know, i work with a lot of them… they look down on you.. they think that such people have no place, and they are much smarter than you, and much more subservient too… so they can be coordinated.
they are playing a game where the past 2000 years of history is their laboratory…
and you cant even tell us once sentence about key people they worship…
perhaps… i should change sides.. why not sell people like you out? your certainly not making room for everyone… you assume content by size.. you attack those who want to help,like a stray dog with an injury… and for the most part, given the chance you would hurt people who are smarter than you and more devious.
keep it up..
your like the dummy that gets pissed and shoots the helicopter pilot you need for rescue…
personally…
unlike my contemporaries in academia, and elite institutions and such (who were generally abused), i like people… and i take the bad with the good to have that good.
if i have to put up with ilk like you to get the honey i get otherwise, then i guess i put up quite well.
just note…
no amount of beating on me and declarign i dont write well enough for your sensibilities, will change your capacity… nor will it hide you from others, as such actions expose you..
at some point your going to need answers, and your going to find there are no indexes, and you peeved off the people who can point you to them… don’t matter if you believe otherwise!!!!! believe all you want in a house of mirrors, and no experience… it wont help you find the exit
Yes Neo, but he’s still nutz.
My finger gets tired, always scrolling past Artfldgr.
Well, I think art makes some good points although I certainly have not studied them all. I think the kommies control the MSM except for the part that mo and his boys have bought and paid for.
ELC Says:
June 22nd, 2011 at 9:28 pm
My finger gets tired, always scrolling past Artfldgr.
Yes. And it’s a pity that he’s such a clueless comment hog repeatedly engaging in flagrant attempts to drown out everyone else with his sheer volume of words. One wonders what actual conversation with him must be like. One shudders and is glad to be spared that experience.
random.
One wonders what his life is like, and shudders.
Art. Vanderleun is actually concerned for you, his tone notwithstanding.
I am pretty sure this will make no difference, but I will try.
“interconnected” Remember six degrees of separation?
One way or another, most things are connected, if you look hard enough. But most things are connected to a lot of other things, one way or another, and the connections differ in their strength and relevance to a particular question.
To presume, or at least to try to convince others, that there is only one connection between Fact A and Fact G, is nonsense.
Give you an example: I had a great uncle who was president of Uncas Merchants Bank in Norwich, CT. In the manner of banks, UMB may have owned stock in other banks which owned stock in still other banks which owned stock in firms which owned stock in yet other banks. If you follow it far enough, you almost certainly will find a connection to Kruppenwerk. You think that’s ominous???? Top this. When my father was at Ft. Benning in Infantry OCS in 1944, the FBI came to see him. Apparently the town in upstate NY where he said–CLAIMED–his father had been born did not exist. Upstate NY not being a hotbed of growth, economic or otherwise, the town had gone out of business and the records were with the county. That’s what they want you to think.
Absolute proof the Aubreys were a German plant. Cagey bastards got a sergeant with Wolfe’s army to demob in Canada after the Plains of Abraham and wait for orders.
Art. I’m trying to be facetious here, but I’m making more sense than you are.
Neo,
I fully agree on Bugliosi. I haven’t read his book on the Kennedy assassination, but I’ve seen him interviewed on C-SPAN or Booknotes a couple of times. (Still available, I believe.) He’s compelling. Helter Skelter, which I read one afternoon sitting down on the aisle of my college bookstore, is also a great read.
Very interesting article!
There are a lot of theories out there on the JFK assassination. I tried to list them all in my book “The JFK Assassination Theories” and reached 67!
The book is now available on the Kindle for those interested: http://amzn.to/qFTkyH
And right on cue, an assassination conspiracist spammer in the comment above.