-
Posts
8,563 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Cliff Varnell
-
-
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 pointof 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.
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 forthe 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 moreanimated 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.
-
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 theOchoas [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 theMedellin 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 hadyet 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 DEATHThe 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 1999Poster 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 threadI 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!
Fetzer/White know where the back wound was
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Cliff Varnell
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
Glad to see you finally admit you're an LNer.
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.