Otto B Cornejo

Jon - I'm a bit confused. What the was original source for those authors and film makers who use the "lunch room" encounter as part of their "theory"? Also, did Truly verify the encounter or not? thanks, Otto.

Best wishes for a speedy recovery Jack.

Let's see...the first DVD player I bought was around $200...now I can get one for under $20...so I'd say about $15 bucks would be a good prioce for a Kindle... Interesting. Thanks. I think it's going to be a while before e-book readers are so ubiquitous that the cost will be that low. and I wonder if DVD players are that low because the they are outdated by the advent of blu-ray players. which would mean that something better would have to be on the market for e-books to become that cheap. I suppose the iPad and the Sony Reader as well as others have already started bringing competition to the market. we'll see.

The wi-fi Kindle is $139. The 3G is $189. How much lower do you think it needs to go to break into the kind of mainstream that causes what Jim called, a revolution?

I can't speak to how the moderators of this forum arbitrate disputes regarding it's rule about questioning the veracity of someones belief, it is not for me to decide. If, in their wisdom, they think that my thread is egregious in any way, let them do as they please. But I will make these points in defense of my initial inquiry: - Gary Mack is a member of this forum because he filled out the necessary form and it was accepted by the moderators. He hasn't participated in any conversations that I know of. It strains credulity, in my opinion, to make the assumption that he is a participating member here. - Gary Mack is a public figure in the history of the JFK assassination. His full-time job is to represent everything that happened that day (if you believe what the Sixth Floor Museum touts). He has participated in numerous media events as a paid consultant for his opinons about this case. In my mind he is a historical figure in the history of this case, and thus open to debate regarding his opinons. In fact, one could argue, since he has been granted such a public forum as TV to espouse what he believes, it is almost mandatory for those who believe otherwise to speak up. - Having said that, my initial question was simply to find out where Gary stood at this point in time. I was confused. I did know that asking my question in a public forum might spark some heated replies, but I felt that I might be able to sift through personal opinons and get some facts from people who were not the man himself. - and on that score, Gary did send me a personal message answering the question himself. We exchanged a few messages and that was that. He was cordial in his tone and I have nothing bad to say about what he wrote. It was never my intention to vilify or demonize him personally. - so I think that my initial question was harmless and made no attempt to question his veracity. If SUBSEQUENT POSTS defy the rules of this forum, perhaps they should be evaluated individually - dont you think? Otto

Thanks Harry. That last sentence, especially meaningful. Otto

John and Jim, thanks for your comments. Jim, I will keep your post in mind as I continue my reading. I have the Douglass book and will get to it soon. I am very encouraged by what others (whom I respect) have had to say about it. Even among CTrs who don't agree on certain points, agree that the Douglass book is very good. Otto

That is a cop out , and you are against us. Peter, what a strange accusation. It eschews logic so succinctly, I hardly know where to begin. But I'l try; - I said that I still believe in conspiracy. And since I am still researching from a CT point of view and trying to find a conclusion, that makes me a conspiracy theorist by definition.. - so who are the US you are talking about? CT's don't agree on everything, except that they don't believe in the WC version of what happened. I don't believe the WC version, so who am I against. - What's wrong with skepticism? Doesn't it help refine our perception by reexamining the evidence, and thereby, hopefully, assuring we have solid evidence to hang our opinion on? Am I supposed to swallow everything hook, line and sinker? Do you? If I do believe that the CIA was involved, but don't believe that the Zapruder film was altered, does that kick me out of HALF the club, or a 1/3. Or do I have to believe in everything in order to be NOT against US? - But perhaps it was my comment about the CT community not having a chance that offended you. Thats what I believe when I observe the present state of things regarding how likely it is that the WC will be overturned anytime soon. Is that what I want? No. Does that stop me from siding with conspiracy? No. I hardly think making this observation pits me against the CT community. Is there a rule among the CT community that one cannot speak such things without having their membership revoked? I admire your CT patriotism, but find it rather narrow minded. Otto.

I agree with both points being made by Duke and Peter in the above quote. I don't think the CT community will ever pose a serious threat to the established account of what happened until they can collectively agree on what happened (aside from the fact that they don't believe the Warren Commission) and move forward. When I started investigating the JFK assassination I was firmly in the CT camp. But as the years went by, so many different theories served to start making me skeptical. Unless better evidence comes to light, I don't think the CT community has a chance. Don't get me wrong, I still believe there was a conspiracy. But I don't think that there single coherent group of people and events that can be proved guilty. Not with the evidence available.

This is just a guess, but I think there is no statute-of-limitation in a murder case. So, I imagine those who conspire to commit murder are subject to prosecution at any time. If I understood your question correctly. However, is the case of the murder of JFK closed - officially? I guess I should know that. Was the Warren Commission an official legal closing of the case? Were the subsequent assassination boards an official reopening/and closing of the case?

I assume you are asking why they are silent about JFK's murder. Perhaps the Kennedys don't believe in conspiracy. Have they ever gone on record about what they think happened?

There is nothing curious about it David. In that massive thread in which you and Jim go at it, did I make a post like a did here? Even though negative personal comments were made by all sides in nearly every post, there was also substance. I have come to learn that the nature of the this subject and the people who have spent a greater portion of their time (lives) researching it (you included) are going to create strong opinions about it. So it seems that dealing with personal jabs are a part of it and a relative neophyte, such as myself, will just have deal with it. But most your posts in this thread bespeak of someone insecure, or just out to badger people. And I don't believe that because you have made posts of substance elsewhere that gives you the right to make the posts you have made in this "silly" thread, as you call it. I am surprised that someone who has worked as hard as you have representing your side, would want to unravel as you have. It doesn't make sense. Simple put, I was annoyed by your posts this thread and I exercised my right as a forum member to say so. But I will rest here for fear of diluting this thread any further. If you wish to make another comment about what I have said you can send it in a private message - please. ***EDIT: sorry ,the quoted piece below was removed and a small part added. My apologies***

That's quite a belly laugh, White. You JFK CT mongers have the patent on "wasting time". You've been doing it for almost 50 years. And you'll keep doing it for another 150, I surmise. David, as someone who is only a CT'er by one fact (the single bullet theory - which I don't believe), I am still very interested in hearing from people who believe in the Warren Commission version of what happened in the murder of JFK. You are really doing your side a huge diservice by posting what you do. You offer nothing in this thread that makes me interested in your point of view. So I can only assume that you don't care what your point of view is. So it seems that your only motive for coming here is to heckle people. This, in internet parlance, is trolling. What good can come from a LN'r who represents themselves as a xxxxx? And I find it ironic that someone who believes that all CT'rs are wasting their time, comes here to waste their time saying so. Again, one must conclude: xxxxx. I must ask in all sincerity: did you ever think your life would come to this? Not sarcasm. I can't imagine at my age that I would ever want to make a public spectacle in the manner you have.

François - Thank you for your reply. As long as I have been at this forum I have seen LN'rs and CT'rs attack each other with the same vigor. There is no use is saying who started it or who does more of it, those are childish arguments. The subject of JFK assassination is deeply personal for most people here whether they are CT or LN, so I am not surprised that along with factual information there are personal attacks made. I don't enjoy reading them but it's a part of human nature. Any egregious slurs can and should be reported. You have said that you made some post with comments about the assassination itself. Thank you for providing that information. If I have the time I will go back and read them. I suggest you continue to address your efforts to facts relating to the case. Ignoring people who make personal comments at you, will only make you look better. If they attack you, report it. You have already displayed your contempt for people who don't believe as you do. If it pains you, or angers you to the point of hysterics, to read the theories presented by people who believe in conspiracy, then I wouldn't come here at all. And now I will kindly bow out of this conversation as it has thrown the original intent of this thread way, off. My apologies to all. Otto Hello Mister Cornejo, Thank you for your message. It is a reasonable message, humbly and well written. That's rare in this forum. Mind you, I DID write some good, well-reasoned messages a few weeks ago (look for them), only to receive out-of-context, mean-spirited, dull and empty answers from the likes of Dean Hagerman, or Lee Fearley, or Bernie Laverick, who are the ones who really are trolling here. So I got mad. Contrary to what you say, those people are not here to discuss. They are here to (try to) make fun of anybody writing in defense of the official version. Now, it is very true that the last posts I wrote here were not meant to start any debate on any topic, but just to show that not everybody is taken-in by the disinformation spread by conspiracy theorists. I have a long and argumentative message ready to be posted. But I know, unfortunately, that for one serious member who will read it, there will be 10 silly members who will just want to "fight" me, without even reading my arguments. This forum, as I discovered, is not a good place to debate seriously. It is a hive of conspiracy theorists who can't even accept the possibility that they might be wrong. That's very sad. /F.C./

François Carlier, as someone who reads both sides of the argument and isn't really sure what to believe (which is why I am learning) you are offering nothing worth reading. In fact it seems like you are trolling and I am surprised that the moderators of this forum have given you as much latitude as they have. At least DVP offers some content, even if many here think it false content. But that's why these issues are discussed. If you want to make a better case for your cause, please issue an intelligent response of some sort.