Cliff Varnell

Oh for gods sake Cliff, your "the jacket fell" theory is nothing more than

poor photo analysis,

And yet you have failed to provide a counter-analysis to the article

I cited -- "JFK's Jacket Dropped In Dealey Plaza".

Again, a presentation of conclusion without making a case.

Such is standard fare for Bunch Theorists.

Let's bump up our 2008 discussion and let folks see first-hand

your degree of intellectual honesty on this issue, Craig.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12303

which is the stndard fare for CT's everywhere.

Glad to see you finally admit you're an LNer.

Get over yourself and move on. I know I have. You are a waste

of time as is your theory.

Let's bump up my argument on the "Present State of the Critical Community"

thread, give you a chance to rebut my best argument.

Craig, you've had hundreds of discussions on the Zapruder film and

what -- two? -- discussions on the Dealey Plaza photo evidence

of the jacket dropping?

You don't have a problem discussing an issue you're correct

about, do you, Craig?

You can't bring yourself to admit you were wrong about your

Betzner #3 analysis.

Your world-view won't allow it.

James Fetzer and Jack White know where JFK's back wound was:

Third Thoracic Vertebra.

Gary Mack, Craig Lamson, and Barb Junkkarinen, however, are all

on record attempting to legitimize John Hunt's uber-fraudulent

"Bunch Theory" -- the claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated

over 2 inches in near tandem to match the HSCA-SBT inshoot at C7/T1.

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

I'm convinced all the Dealey Plaza films and photos are authentic, but I

have to marvel at the spectacle of Bunch Theorists lecturing anyone

about common sense and intellectual honesty.

Here's a tasty bit from Hunt's near-decade-old essay, "The Case for a

Bunched Jacket" -- emphasis mine:

...My research indicates that the difference between the impact point

of a "smoothly oriented" jacket shot and a "bunched up" jacket shot

is little more than two inches. The reader is invited to contact me via

e-mail if he or she is curious as to how I arrived at the aforementioned

figure. That essay, explaining in detail my methodology, is not yet

finished.

That. Essay. Is. Not. Yet. Finished.

Almost 10 years later, it's still not finished. (I've seen it -- it's a joke!)

Hunt published his conclusions -- to which Mack/Lamson/Junkarrinen

subscribe to one degree or another -- but left out any actual case in

an essay presented as a "Case."

Wow. What common sense intellectual honesty!

And what do we make of Craig Lamson's attempt to illustrate Hunt's

claim that "a distinctly arched shape" of jacket/shirt bunching rode up

above JFK's right shoulder in Betzner #3 (Z186)?

Let's check Z186 (can't imagine why Craig didn't think of this):

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z186.jpg

It's JFK's right hand/forearm -- Hunt/Lamson/Mack call it "the Bunch."

The fact that JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza is far more

obvious than Z-alteration questions.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Z-alteration is an unfortunate foot-note in the case, imo; establishing

the T3 back wound as a fact is central to understanding both the "how"

of the assassination and the "how" of the cover-up.

"Bunch Theory" is a far more egregious violation of intellectual honesty

than Z-alteration.

You're a national treasure, Tosh.

Thank you...and good luck!

If you've worn a dress shirt, undergarment,* suit coat, and tie, you know in your heart that it takes a couple inches of fabric rise above the belt line to produce the 1" (aprx. - I was being conservative) creased uprise behind the suit collar that I described.

David, with all due respect, you are grossly over-stating the mount of slack

fabric in a tucked-in custom-made dress shirt. And you are still significantly

under-stating the amount of elevated fabric required by the SBT.

Let's consult the expert on fine men's dress -- Alan Flusser:

CLOTHES AND THE MAN - THE PRINCIPLES OF FINE MEN'S DRESS

(Alan Flusser) pg 79:

The body of the shirt should have no more material than is necessary for a man to sit

comfortably. Excess material bulging around the midriff could destroy the lines of the

jacket...The length of the shirt is also an important concern. It should hang at least six

inches below the waist so that it stays tucked in when you move around.

The "lines of the jacket" were even more important in the case of

John F. Kennedy, who wore a suit style called "Updated American Silhouette."

http://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-pa...-american-style

The main feature of this style was the "suppressed waistline" -- which meant that

the shirt and jacket were designed to fit "close to the torso."

So there is more than an inch of play in the fabric, and if you've dressed for

the public you've fretted over this stuff the way women used to fret over

stocking seams.

There's far more than an inch of fabric in play in a suit jacket due to the

simple fact that the wearer does not sit on the tail of the jacket, as he

does with the shirt. There is only a fraction of an inch of slack in a

custom-made dress shirt for the reason Flusser cited -- 3/4" to be exact,

according to a San Francisco shirt-maker with whom I've discussed the

issue.

JFK went through several earlier limo stops in which he made some more

animated motions than we see in film shot closer to Dealey, and he's animated

enough in the later footage to produce bunching as we see in the Jeffries film.

No need to speculate. Let's take a look at the photographic evidence and

see if your analysis holds water.

Here's a photo on Main St. about 2 minutes before the shooting, taken 30

seconds before the Jefferies film. Please note the position of JFK's jacket,

the fold in the back of the jacket, and JFK's posture.

The jacket rode up to JFK's hairline; the diagonal fold in the jacket was an

indentation; JFK was turned to the right and waved his right hand.

Right?

Now here's a frame from the Jefferies film. Note that the jacket rode up to

JFK's hairline, and the "bunch" is a bulge.

Here's the Weaver photo taken on the corner of Main and Houston about

one minute before the shooting. Note the position of the jacket well below the

hairline, and the horizontal/diagonal indentation in the jacket across the

right shoulder-line.

Here are two frames from the Houston St. segment of the Nix film. In the

first frame JFK was leaning forward chatting with Nellie, and in the second

frame he had just sat back in his seat. Please note that the shirt collar was

not visible in the first frame, but was visible in the second.

So already we can see that JFK had knocked his jacket down in a matter

of seconds by first brushing the back of his head with his right hand (Weaver),

and then by leaning forward to talk to Nellie and then sitting back (Nix).

The jacket was knocked down again at circa Z178 when JFK turned his head

to the right and began to wave his right arm.

This posture is very similar to JFK's posture in the first Main St. photo: head

turned to the right, right hand waving. The indentation in the back of the

jacket is also similar, as we can see in Betzner #3 taken at Z186:

The back of JFK's shirt collar is clearly visible in film and photos taken on

Elm St. The jacket rode up to the hairline in film and photos taken on

Main St.

It should be obvious, David, that the jacket dropped in Dealey.

I'm violating high rules of masculine stoicism to argue this, but this I do for truth.

Seems to me you're arguing that JFK's clothing violated the principles of fine

men's dress, and that dropping down is the same as riding up.

There's no truth in any of that whatsoever.

Not forgetting that the back of a man's dress shirt is frequently bloused out above the belt line for comfort, or just through normal wear stress. The backs of men's dress shirts frequently adhere to suit coats after sitting with back to upholstery.

Suit coats and sport coats frequently bunch up in ordinary sitting - try shooting a documentary film sometime, with a slate of interviewees to film. You'll be having them all sit on their pulled-down coattails, too - a la Albert Brooks in the 1980s film comedy "Broadcast News."

The Jeffries film shows a very familiar inch-high (aprx.) creased "hump" of fabric immediately behind JFK's shoulder line. Get a friend to ride in a convertable with one elbow above the door and see how easily it happens.

Yes, clothing readily moves in amounts up to an inch due to casual body

movement. The term of art in clothing design is "normal ease."

But the SBT requires 3 INCHES of near tandem shirt/jacket movement,

or "gross ease."

One inch does not equal three inches.

It just doesn't.

That such a large segment of the "critical research community" insists

on pretending that it does leaves me forever amazed.

The Jefferies film was taken 90 seconds before the shooting. The jacket

dropped in those 90 seconds...

You are sounding more and more like a neo-con yourself. The alleged "bunching up" seen in the Jeffries film "throws a new light" on things, but suggesting the Umbrella Man's filmed behavior is suspcious is "absolute lunacy?" The "bunched up" theory is just as impossible at the single bullet theory. If you don't know that, you know nothing about this case. Even if you accept the improbable notion that the most immaculately dressed politician of his time somehow allowed his coat to ride up some 5 inches in public, are you going to seriously entertain the notion that his shirt rode up to such an extent that the holes matched perfectly? And what about the autopsy face sheet, the certificate of death and Sibert and O'Neill's FBI report? Exactly how did they all become "bunched up?"

I was waiting on that coming lol!!! What a load of garbage, it's clear his jacket was bunched up in Dealey Plaza, the photographic record clearly shows this.

The holes in the clothes clearly show this.

One does not have to look at a single photograph to figure out that

the jacket was "bunched up" at the moment JFK was shot in the back.

Bullet hole in the back of the shirt: 4" below the bottom of the shirt collar.

Bullet hole in the back of the jacket: 4 & 1/8" below the bottom of the jacket collar.

The jacket was "bunched up" 1/8" -- obviously.

The SBT requires about 3" of JFK's shirt and jacket to have elevated in

near-tandem.

1/8" does not equal 3".

These obvious facts appear to have eluded a sizable segment of the

"critical research community."

The claim that JFK's shirt and jacket were elevated in a manner consistent

with the SBT is debunked by the photographic evidence, which shows JFK's

jacket dropping in Dealey Plaza.

http://occamsrazorjfk.net/

Don,

No doubt about it -- Mr. Purvis is the KING of unintended irony.

That this king has no clothes is no secret, however.

Calling him out on a regular basis is a waste of time.

And yes, it does seem strange to be called a "lone nutter" just because

Z-film alterationists have failed to make their case.

Like you, I have respect for the Z-film alterationists on the basis of

their other work -- but get right down to it, the Dealey Plaza films

and photos are "the bedrock evidence in the case."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...757C0A96F948260

Fugitive Vesco Indicted In Drug Conspiracy

AP

Published: Tuesday, April 18, 1989

The fugitive financier Robert Vesco today was added as a defendant in a narcotics conspiracy indictment, accused of persuading the Cuban Government to allow planes with cocaine to fly over Cuba on the way to the Bahamas.

Mr. Vesco, indicted on one count charging that he conspired to import cocaine into the United States, is believed to have lived in Cuba since 1982, after moving around the Bahamas, the Caribbean and Costa Rica. He has been wanted in the United States since 1973 on charges of looting an investment company, Investors Overseas Services, of $224 million.

etc., etc....

As I commented in my previous post, I can admit when I've made a

mistake.

Well, I made another mistake in that last post.

Pablo Escobar was first indicted in 1984, not 1986.

World Encyclopedia Of Organized Crime, pg 336:

On July 27, 1984, a Miami, Fla., grand jury, on evidence from informant Barry Seal,

who had once managed shipping operations for the Colombian drug cartel, indicted

Carlos Enrique Lehder Rivas, Pablo Escobar Gaviria, Federico Vaughn,

Jorge Ochoa Vasquez, and Jose Gonazalo Rodriguez Gacha for drug

trafficking and racketeering.

From the PBS Frontline web page linked above:

(November 18, 1986) A U.S. federal grand jury in Miami releases the indictment of the

Ochoas [Jorge and Fabio], Pablo Escobar, Carlos Lehder and Jose

Gonzalo Rodriguez Gacha under the RICO statute. The indictment names the Medellin

cartel as the largest cocaine smuggling organization in the world.

From the March 23, 1989 Reuters article:

Among those indicted [today] were four accused of being chiefs of the

Medellin network: Mr. Escobar, Jorge Ochoa, Fabio Ochoa,

and Jose Gonzalo Rodriguez Gacha.

That's five guys with multiple indictments issued at various times while they

were fugitives.

Usama bin Laden hasn't been indicted for the attack on the USS Cole

or the attacks of 9/11 because the Justice Department has no hard

evidence he was involved.

Some people are emotionally incapable of admitting error,

as we are going to witness some time soon...

The Justice Department routinely piles on indictments whenever the evidence

warrants.

Domestic terrorist Eric Rudolph, Panamanian dictator and drug smuggler

Manuel Noriega, and influence peddler Jack Abramoff each received two

separate indictments.

That's just off the top of my head...

Perhaps the best example, in the context of this thread, is Pablo Escobar, the

Colombian coke kingpin and terrorist:

1) Indicted in Miami for racketeering and drug smuggling (Nov. 18, 1986)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/

2) Indicted on March 23, 1989 for drug smuggling and arranging the murder

of Colombian Justice Minister Lara Bonilla.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...20and%20Traffic

3) Indicted on August 13, 1992 for plotting to blow up Avianca Airlines

Flight 203 in November, 1989.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-1020287.html

When I'm shown to be wrong about something, I'll readily admit it.

We'll see if others are so capable.

The Justice Department routinely piles on indictments whenever the evidence

warrants.

Domestic terrorist Eric Rudolph, Panamanian dictator and drug smuggler

Manuel Noriega, and influence peddler Jack Abramoff each received two

separate indictments.

That's just off the top of my head...

I stand corrected on the Cole. My turn as slow kid...

From the 9/11 Commission report:

On 25 January [2--1], Tenet briefed the President on the Cole investigation. The written briefing repeated for top officials of the new administration what the CIA had told the Clinton White House in November. This included the "preliminary judgment" that al Qaeda was responsible, with the caveat that no evidence had yet been found that Bin Ladin himself ordered the attack... in March 2001, the CIA's briefing slides for Rice were still describing the CIA's "preliminary judgment" that a "strong circumstantial case" could be made against al Qaeda but noting that the CIA continued to lack "conclusive information on external command and control" of the attack.

Pot...

Do you think repetition transforms nonsense in to significant facts?

...meet Kettle:

But indicting OBL would have been pointless since he was already wanted but had yet to be captured.

Rinse idiocy, and repeat...

Can you cite an example of an already indicted terrorist suspect, where-abouts (far outside the US) unknown, indicted on additional charges?

For the slower kids in class who haven't been paying attention, bin Laden

was indicted in '99 for the '98 Embassy bombings, and then indicted in '01

on additional charges relating to the attack on the Cole in '00.

The Justice Department routinely piles on indictments whenever the evidence

warrants.

Pot...

Do you think repetition transforms nonsense in to significant facts?

...meet Kettle:

But indicting OBL would have been pointless since he was already wanted but had

yet to be captured.

Emphasis mine:

“There’s going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged. To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court.”

Indicted for participation in the crimes of 9/11:

Zacarias Moussaoui

Khalid Sheik Mohammad

Walid bin Attash

Ramzi bin al Shibh

Ali Abdul Aziz Ali

Mustafa al Hawsawi

NOT indicted (albeit suspected) for participation in the crimes of 9/11:

Usama bin Laden

The United States invaded Iraq on the basis of a "suspicion" -- ditto Afghanistan.

26. Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?

The attacks were thoroughly investigated

47%

Reinvestigate the attacks

45

Not sure

8

If it were common knowledge that the FBI has found no hard evidence

that Usama bin Laden was involved in the crimes of Nine One One -- the

"re-investigate the attacks" response would be in the 90-percentile.

Let's take a closer look at the FBI "Wanted" poster for Usama bin Laden

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Emphasis mine:

MURDER OF U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; CONSPIRACY TO MURDER U.S. NATIONALS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; ATTACK ON A FEDERAL FACILITY RESULTING IN DEATH

The last I looked New York City, Washington DC, and Pennsylvania were inside

the United States.

Look at the dates the poster was created and revised:

June 1999

Poster Revised November 2001

The poster was created after the Justice Department indicted bin Laden

for the '98 Embassy attacks.

The poster was revised in November 2001 after both the '00 attack on the

USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks.

The Justice Department has indicted bin Laden for "attack on a federal facility

resulting in death" -- the USS Cole.

But according to this account, the FBI admits what their poster obviously

shows: there is no hard evidence bin Laden was involved in 9/11.

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

Here's some background on the report:

http://www.rinf.com/columnists/news/fbi-sa...in-laden-to-911

Here's an updated backgrounder:

http://aconstantineblacklist.blogspot.com/...-bin-laden.html

The lack of hard evidence tying bin Laden to 9/11 should give any decent,

reasonable person pause before buying the "official version" of 9/11.

26. Some people say that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success. Other people say the 9/11 attacks were thoroughly investigated and that any speculation about US government involvement is nonsense. Who are you more likely to agree with?

The attacks were thoroughly investigated

47%

Reinvestigate the attacks

45

Not sure

8

If it were common knowledge that the FBI has found no hard evidence

that Usama bin Laden was involved in the crimes of Nine One One -- the

"re-investigate the attacks" response would be in the 90-percentile.

This is the central fallacy of Fesser and Simkin's view -- lump all conspiracy

theories together and then attribute all of them to "most" if not "all" researchers.

I am not sure you have actually read my posts on this thread.

I did. Which is why your following statement was so jarring:

The problem with most “conspiracy theorists” is that they seem to believe everything is a conspiracy. They even think this forum is part of a conspiracy.

Anyone who posts heavily is going to be accused of being some kind of

"government disinfo agent" at one time or another.

I know I have.

Pays to have a thick skin, eh?

I have attacked Fesser's view of lumping together people who believe that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK and those that believe 9/11 was some sort of government operation.

As I tried to point out, this is an attempt to smear those who are part of the 80% who believe this as being “conspiracy theorists”. This is a common tactic. In the UK, whenever some one put forwards a theory that involves the government trying to keep something secret, they are immediately described as a "conspiracy theorist". Our main campaigner for freedom of information in Parliament is Norman Baker. When he wrote a recent book on the death of Dr. David Kelly he was immediately dismissed by the BBC (it is always vitally important that is the BBC that starts the ball rolling as it is accepted by the masses as being objective) as a “conspiracy theorist”.

As I tried to point out, this is an attempt to smear those who are part of the 80% who believe that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Unfortunately, there are a very small number of people who do appear to believe that a whole series of events are part of some sort of large US government conspiracy: 9/11, moon landings, alien visits, etc. [

Great!

We've gone from "most conspiracy theorists" to "a very small number of people."

It is indeed very tempting to describe these people as conspiracy theorists. Especially, as they are also the same group of people who claim that Andy and I use this forum to deny them freedom of speech by deleting postings, banning members, etc. As someone who has been on the receiving end of this type of nonsense, it is not difficult to believe that a group of people can indeed be categorized as “conspiracy theorists”. The existence of this group will continue to make it difficult for those who believe as I do, that in some cases, such as the deaths of JFK and David Kelly, governments conspire against the people.

Allow me this moment to thank you and Andy for the work you've done to provide

this wonderful forum.

Cliff

If you would like to be serious about these matters for a moment you might begin to see them as matters of ideology or perspective - this is in fact the broader and more important point.

From this side of the Atlantic your ideological perspective seems oddly askew.

Holocaust denial has nothing to do with challenging the official story of 9/11,

ideologically or otherwise.

This is about the facts in certain crime cases.

Basic, simple facts. Matters of record. Many "conspiracy theories" disregard

matters of record, as do many "coincidence theories."

No side has a monopoly on sloppy research, and poor arguments.

Take, for instance the "official" villain of 9/11 -- Usama bin Laden.

Here's the official FBI webpage for UBL:

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Notice how they don't say anything about the crimes of 9/11?

The "outside the United States" phrase is used twice.

Then we have this report:

http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters,

(202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not

indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker

Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI.

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted

web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama

Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence

connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Since the central claim of the "official story" of 9/11 -- that the hijackers

worked for UBL -- is in doubt, it is reasonable to question other aspects of

the case.

It is unreasonable to conflate the merits of arguments -- or lack thereof -- in

different cases with those arguments challenging 9/11.

These people Simkin described as "most conspiracy theorists" do not exist.

The biggest falacy is that there is a select group of people, like Democrats or Republicans, or liberals or conservatives, who can be defined as "conspiracy theorirsts," as in fact there is no such animal

Oh yes there is!

No, this is a figment of some hyper-active imaginations.

Better perhaps however to call them 'relativists' for whom there are no objective facts just competing subjective opinions. With just one leap inductive reasoning, logic, consistency and evidence can be rejected wholesale and the holocaust can be denied, the Apollo landings become hoaxes, Aids does not exist, Diana was bumped off by the Duke of Edinburgh, Bush masterminded 9/11, fiction becomes fact and lies become research.

I don't think anyone who posts here regularly denies the Holocaust.

Some here may question the moon landings, but I don't -- and I doubt if

"most" do.

AIDS doesn't exist? Where do you dredge this nonsense up?

To lump every marginal conspiracy theory in with the very arguable

challenges to the official stories behind JFK and 9/11 is pure strawman.

This is the central fallacy of Fesser and Simkin's view -- lump all conspiracy

theories together and then attribute all of them to "most" if not "all" researchers.

Andy, John, yours' is indeed a curious critique and one which of course requires

no critical thought at all.

More an affectation than a 'critique' in fact.

Here's an interesting test: Publicly expose a few of them and refuse to play their game; then watch as they desperately attempt to draw you back in. When they fail to do so, stand by for accusations of spinelessness and ignorance.

CD

Cliff,

I hate to be an I-told-you-so, but ...

I told you so.

CD

Indeed you did, sir!

And I have to say I'm shocked -- shocked! -- by the degree of mendacity that

has accompanied said accusations.

Pardon me, I must fetch my vapors...

Except that I never said such things explicitly or implicitly just as I never backed away from my position that 9/11 “inside job” theories are too complex to be plausible.

You do not appear to grasp what the word "theory" means.

Since you are incapable of getting your facts straight about something as straight forward as what another poster did or didn’t say on a forum thread

I clearly never accused the scrambled pilots of complicity.

You claim I did.

Your hypocrisy here is stunning.

it’s no wonder you get confused about something as complex as 9/11.

If you want to back out of yet another 9/11 thread*, don’t illude yourself into thinking that many will fail to notice you left behind a collection of unsubstantiated claims.

I leave the gentle reader to check out the links posted and draw their own

conclusions as to the logical basis of a Cheney/Ahmed conspiracy theory.

* This will be the third time you’ve done so; comparisons with Gen. McClellan are more apt than Patton.

Charles Drago -- right again!

Just because you keep blowing smoke, Colby, doesn't mean you've made

a point.

You will keep blowing smoke on this thread, so by all means, have the last

word...

Here's an interesting test: Publicly expose a few of them and refuse to play their game; then watch as they desperately attempt to draw you back in. When they fail to do so, stand by for accusations of spinelessness and ignorance.

CD

Cliff,

I hate to be an I-told-you-so, but ...

I told you so.

CD

Indeed you did, sir!

And I have to say I'm shocked -- shocked! -- by the degree of mendacity that

has accompanied said accusations.

Pardon me, I must fetch my vapors...

Class, today we're going to look at a particular word that has come up a lot

lately.

The word is "theory"...

the⋅o⋅ry

[thee-uh-ree, theer-ee]

–noun, plural -ries.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to

well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual

fact.

For the slower kids in the class, we'll also look at the word "conjectural"...

con⋅jec⋅tur⋅al

[kuhn-jek-cher-uhl]

–adjective

1. of, of the nature of, or involving conjecture; problematical: Theories

about the extinction of dinosaurs are highly conjectural.

In the context of this thread, the debate ended when the lie repeaters

went from -- "All 9/11 conspiracy theories are unreasonably complex" to

"The simple 9/11 conspiracy theory can't be proven."

If blowing smoke while back-pedaling were an Olympic event -- Brazil

takes the gold!

Fixed.

Somebody doesn't seem to realize you can only win one medal per

event...

In the context of this thread, the debate ended when the lie repeaters

went from -- "All conspiracy theories are unreasonably complex" to

"The simple conspiracy theory can't be proven."

If blowing smoke while back-pedaling were an Olympic event -- Brazil

takes the gold!

Cliff,

With every word you type in response to "Colby," you play into "his" hand.

You're on the side of the angels. You might want to stop to think about the pros and cons of doing the other side's work.

CD

Charles,

But if at the end of that process I stand as a better educated and more

forceful advocate for "the side of the angels," then it's a risk I'm willing to

take.

If you respond to them directly, by definition you endorse their bona fides as honorable, well-informed observers.

These people are doing the work of JFK's killers. They are the enemy. To engage them on their terms is to deliver victory to them.

That's all these charlatans want.

Don't do it. I'm beggin' ya.

CD

Charles,

Although my relish for point-by-point rhetorical combat is nearly Pattonesque

("God help me, I love it so!") I will take your good counsel.

Gentle reader, please read Michael Ruppert's Crossing The Rubicon,

specifically Chapter 19 -- "Wargames And High Tech: Paralyzing The System

To Pull Off The Attacks", pg. 333+.

Also, for information on ISI's Lt. Gen. Ahmed see CTR pg 118-120.

Detain Cheney!