Tom Neal

1 minute ago, Ron Ecker said:

I have nothing further to say to Tom Neal. Just for the record. He can make up anything or say anything more about me that he wants. I will not respond.

Good. Since I have only *responded* to your BS, I don't have to bother with you any more.

Just now, Ron Ecker said:

What's pathetic is your complete lack of a sense of humor. That's a terrible way to go through life.

With your record on Hillary that was funny? Only in your world.

Going through life with a lack of integrity is worse than anything...

On 11/24/2016 at 11:14 AM, Ron Ecker said:

She calls the money she has raised "a miraculous feat." What's so miraculous about money from the Clinton Foundation? Ha ha ha ha.

 

Standard Ecker response. No evidence at all, so it must be true. Anything to hang a "bad" on a Clinton. Pathetic.

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

You know Tom, I except this kind of baloney from the king of propaganda Varnell.   I actually thought you were smarter than that.

And I thought you had class, Jim. We disagree so you insult my intelligence?

I voted MY conscience just as you did. You give yourself credit for that, but you insult me for doing the same thing.

Additionally, Hillary's "win" in the popular vote is the 2nd reason to trash the Electoral vote system. The first reason was the election of Bush II, and Trump will be WORSE than W. Every vote FOR Hillary is another reason to remove a system that was never intended to be permanent.

16 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

 

16 hours ago, Ron Ecker said:

 

Mr. Ecker, you now DENY stating that "Bill Clinton is a proven rapist who belongs in prison?"

That is EXACTLY what you stated, and YOU KNOW IT.

13 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Tom,

I am definitely on your and Cliff's side. And I have problems with some of Jim D.'s earlier comments.

But regarding Jim's seeming throw-away vote, I believe his rationale was that his vote doesn't matter because his state is solid blue. And so he voted his conscience and went with a third party candidate. I think he also said he would have voted for Hillary had his vote counted.

I got all that.

On General Principle's I still think it was the wrong thing to do. Nothing is guaranteed, especially in an election where all 11 Intelligence agencies agree that THIS election was being hacked by another country as stated in the final debate. If it was right to do in CA, then why not in OTHER states that were expected to go to Hillary but did not? Where do you draw the line?

A 3rd party vote is arguably a vote FOR Trump and IMO doesn't differ from not voting at all. However, voting for Hillary was 100% a vote *against Trump* and can't be spun post election. The latter vote is a statement, but to me the 3rd party vote doesn't SCREAM "Anyone but Trump!", and that's the only way my conscience could be clear. i.e. I did EVERYTHING possible to keep him OUT.

BTW,

Please chime in on my response to Ecker's defense of Trump as "rapist" in my previous post and let everyone know that we are not Fox "News" - we fact check...

On 11/16/2016 at 6:35 PM, Ron Ecker said:

Your continual description of Trump as a "pedophile rapist" doesn't do a great deal for your credibility.

Has Trump ever been charged with rape? A lawsuit alleging that he raped an underage girl has been dropped. A judge has nonetheless scheduled a "status conference" to be held on the allegation on December 16, 2016.

That means that Trump is guilty, right? He's a pedophile rapist.

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

Not too long ago this very same Mr. Ecker stated unequivicaly that "Bill Clinton is a PROVEN rapist and belongs in prison."

Ecker's above defense of Trump is the same defense that was provided by NUMEROUS posters re Clinton in response to Ecker's above statement. Ecker refused to accept this as proof that Clinton was not a PROVEN rapist, but the identical rules clear Trump completely. What a difference a name makes.

I see several posters on this thread who participated in the above Ecker thread. Please make yourselves known and remind everyone that this is who Ecker is, lest anyone actually pay attention to what he says.

Clinton was in tears watching his daughter speak at the DNC. That's a dad who loves his daughter. Trump watches his daughter and tells everyone that "she's so hot, if she wasn't my daughter I'd date her." Trump stated that he introduces himself to women by grabbing them "by the p___." What do you suppose he would do 'on a date' with his daughter? Funny how Ecker defends the pervert, and condemns the dad...

Reminds me of when Trump and Hillary are on stage together, and HILLARY is called "The l*i*a*r". Compared to Trump HILLARY is singled out as "the l*i*a*r"??? 

Ecker is a guy who is smug about the fact that he hasn't voted for 50 years because the election process is corrupt, and he won't have anything to do with it, yet on this thread he can't shut up about this election. It's a chance to slam Hillary and deify Trump because Trump is not a Clinton. He validates this same election process by telling everyone that Trump is the President so "give him a chance."

HYPOCRITE much?

If LHO's name was revealed to actually be Lee Harvey CLINTON, Ecker would assume the role of 'Lone Nutter Supreme' and would  receive fan mail from DVP...

 

 

On 11/22/2016 at 1:50 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

 

Hear hear!

Why did overt fascism come to America?

People like Jim D. need to look in the mirror.

Thanks, Cliff. And I am with you 100% on everything you have been posting - keep up the good work!

Tom

On 11/20/2016 at 0:48 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Dear God!  How did the American people actually allow themselves to elect this guy?
 

They didn't *quite* elect him - the Electoral College did. The same system that put GWB in the Whitehouse instead of Al Gore. This last minute addition - that was suppose to be temporary - was regarded as a safety net by our Founding Fathers.

You couldn't be more right about the Supreme Court. That alone was MORE than enough of a reason to vote for Hillary. Either Hillary or Trump were going to occupy 1660 Pennsylvania Ave - no one else. Anyone here who voted for a 3rd party candidate (sorry Jim D. but IMO you were DEAD WRONG when you cast your vote) or didn't vote at all because their conscience wouldn't allow them to vote for Hillary, bears responsibility for everything the Supreme Court does for at least the next decade. More voter suppression, more Citizen's United... I can't go on, it's too sickening.

Anyone who has a "clear conscience" because they didn't vote for Trump or Hillary is deluding themselves, or they don't know what an actual conscience is...

I voted for Bernie, then Hillary. She was unquestionably the better option. Trump? As ignorant as Reagan, worse than "W"...

Tom:

Martinez says that Castro killed JFK?

Wow, he must still be working for the Agency.

Hi Jim:

Here's the quote:

00:52 "The assassination of Kennedy, was directed, organized and... with the cooperation of the government of Cuba of Fidel Castro."

Including the word "cooperation" is interesting and of course, what was he going to append to the phrase "organized and.."??? Performed? Carried out?

Sounds like the same TIRED old CIA line to me...

Tom

I don't think its valid.

It does not fit the description by Duran, or the other witnesses.

From all that I have seen, and from what I have heard, Howard was a big, burly, dark guy.

Martinez starts his interview at 00:52 secs stating that Castro assassinated JFK, so it doesn't seem that anything but CIA propaganda will emerge from his interview.

They indicated just how weak the evidence was that Oswald was in Mexico City...

From comment regarding the posted interview of Eugenio Martinez:

"By fingering Lawrence Howard, the contract killer, as the person who appeared at the Cuban and Russian Embasies in September 1963 [he mentions Sylvia Duran], Martinez drops a bombshell. Not Oswald, not some fat, bald-headed Polish sailor."

Jim,

Considering the description of a blonde Oswald in Mexico City what do you think of Martinez' statement that it was Lawrence Howard that impersonated Oswald?

Here's the standard CIA line:

00:52 "The assassination of Kennedy, was directed, organized and... with the cooperation of the government of Cuba of Fidel Castro."

Tom

Douglas,

Thanks for posting this. It is quite a revelation that he identifies Lawrence Howard as the "Oswald" at the Embassy. The only description I recall was of a "blonde" Oswald which does not fit Lawrence which makes me wonder...

As a 30 year Florida resident with a reasonable command of 'Spanish' I have to say Martinez' accent is atrocious. More often than not I can't pick out a single word in an entire sentence, so I can only go by the Youtube comments.

Tom

My favorite "lesser known" assassination related flics are "Executive Action", "Flashpoint", "Suddenly" (1954 version) and the "Odessa File".

Hi Chris,

I can't believe I had forgotten about "Executive Action". Thanks for mentioning "Flashpoint" - I'd never heard of it. I just finished watching it on Youtube. Very well done, and quite plausible. Great explanation by Rip Torn at the end: "I just done what I was told." I can't help but wonder, how many of those who were actually involved would have *truthfully* made that statement?

Tom

My two favorites in the fictional assassination genre are The Manchurian Candidate and The Parallax View.

I'm pleased to hear someone else likes "The Parallax View" as much as I do. It should be required viewing, yet it's rare to encounter someone who's actually seen it...

Jim,

Have you read "The Double Man" by Senators William Cohen and Gary Hart? That's next in my stack, and I'm hoping it's as good as it should be based upon the storyline...

Tom

BTW Tom was not this the theme of the movie The Package?

Hi There Jim,

I have not seen that, so I googled it. Is that the 1989 movie with Gene Hackman and Tommy Lee Jones? It's certainly a GREAT cast, and the plot sounds good. I'm sure going to try to find it and have a look.

In the assassination genre my favorites are "The Parallax View", "Seven Days in May" and "The Manchurian Candidate."

Are the any others I should watch?

Tom

Good one Tom.

There was more to unite the CIA and KGB than to divide them. Not trying to put words in your mouth, just my way of reading this.

Hi Paul,

Well said. That is EXACTLY what I think. It's an aspect of the assassination that seems to have escaped scrutiny.

Could this be a better way to view the friendship between Angleton and Philby?

Now you're reading my mind as well as my words. Background-wise Angleton is a better fit with Philby and the other defectors, than with the top CIA people. As he said, he only got his lofty position because he promised not to polygraph Dulles and the others - not because he earned it. Did Philby play Angleton for a fool, or was Angleton only playing the fool?

Where's the safest and most effective place in CIA for a mole to hide? In charge of the mole hunters, of course. Angleton's unsuccessful mole hunt did more damage to CIA than any mole could have, and he certainly is a suspect in the eyes of many.

Unless something new shows up in 2017, I don't think a viable candidate for Angleton's alleged mole exists. IMO, the Republicans are more likely to keep the files closed, than the democrats. The odds of a Trump presidency are declining rapidly, so hopefully Hillary will "free the files."

That's correct, Paul. The russians didn't want to kill JFK.

The thing about the Russians, imo, ...I think some were comfortable with JFK being taken out of the way.

Khrushchev and JFK *BOTH* had the "hardliners" in their military pushing for war. While JFK & NK were working together to prevent a war, the military in BOTH countries had a common goal: stop the peace process. Killing JFK had to be a more appealing solution to the USSR than assassinating Khrushchev, and of course NK was deposed about a year after the assassination IIRC.

I remain convinced that it was a domestic conspiracy, and I've seen no evidence that the KGB or soviet military was involved. But, if they could have "helped", I imagine there were individuals or groups that would have done so. Rather like Allen Dulles' assistance to the French Military Intelligence members in their campaign to assassinate deGaulle.

In actuality, Tom, this is not quite how it is. The term "tracheal cartilage" is actually another term for "tracheal ring". During the performance of a tracheotomy, the only thing necessary to retract, in order to access the tracheal rings, is the thyroid gland itself which, in many cases, overlies the upper trachea.[/font][/color]

Bob,

I don't believe I ever said the tracheal cartilage had to be retracted. I was speaking of the Adam's Apple and used the word "cartilage" referring to the cartilage immediately below the Adam's Apple. This is what has to be retracted. I pointed this out myself not too far back.

If I DID say the tracheal cartilage had to be retracted, please point it out to me and I'll correct the statement. I DO know the difference between the two.

""The first one you can feel - possibly. In most tracheostomy procedures the tracheal cartilage must be retracted to allow access to the upper tracheal rings. How can anyone feel them through this cartilage?"

The cartilage immediately below the thyroid cartilage (Adam's apple) is the cricoid cartilage, and it does not need to be retracted to perform a tracheotomy, as the tracheal rings start below the cricoid cartilage. Were you possibly thinking of the thyroid gland, which in many cases must be cut and retracted to expose the space between the 2nd and 3rd tracheal rings?

Bob,

You are absolutely correct on all counts. I was thinking of the thyroid cartilage. I know better than to have made any of these mistakes, but I sure did.

I will correct them tomorrow when hopefully old age will permit me to get it right. Thanks for pointing these errors out.

What I should do is stop posting here at all - a far too frustrating and irritating experience, when it USED to be rewarding! I was wondering why I've been making so many mistakes in my posts lately, and I just now realized I no longer care enough to take the time to get it right.

So it IS time to go...

hy·poth·e·sis

hīˈpäTHəsəs/

noun

noun: hypothesis; plural noun: hypotheses

a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

The "supposition" or "proposed explanation" is 100% speculation! By definition! As long as the supposition 1) conforms to the known evidence; and 2) is scientifically sound, then it is a scientific hypothesis. Look it up in Wikipedia.

If you don't understand this, and refuse to understand this, then you're out of your league and you don't even care.

Hypothesis:

"made on the basis of limited evidence"

Says the guy who can't read. "My hypothesis is only speculation, and I never claimed otherwise." "When did I use the word hypothesis?" he indignantly asked. In the title for example... I responded.

Speculation is a guess - it is NOT evidence. Of course you want everything BOTH ways.

Out of YOUR league? What league is that? The league who can't accept anything that doesn't agree with your very own speculation? The one who posts dictionary definitions and ignore the parts that say he's wrong? The one that states SPECULATION = EVIDENCE, after denying this yourself? The one that loves to dish it out, but can't take heat when you're on the receiving end?

You finally said something I can agree with, I am WAY out whatever league you are in, and PROUD of it!

But I think you just want to pester me. Well, stop it!

Stop it? What was that really clever comeback you used on me? "You're not my boss." I'll do what I want. I don't take orders from you. You just gave me an order, but me ASKING when you were gonna post your "sound hypothesis" in your world IS an order. Why don't you wikipedia "hypocrisy?"

Yes, you are SO (self)important that you can believe I only live to disagree with you. The fact that you have disagreed with every word I've said is completely lost on you, because it is fine when you do it.

Pester you? Stop posting nonsense as facts and I'll be the happiest guy ever when I can stop reading your nonsense and either let it stand unchallenged or post something sensible. You're only bringing this on yourself, so why don't you take your own orders, and *you* stop it.

Ray,

The only answer you got regarding your statement that you don't understand how a bone fragment made a 6mm round hole was something like "it may be 4mm" and "because it has to be." If you find this less than an actual answer, I sympathize. Since we are BOTH perplexed, possibly you can help me follow this theory. It goes something like this, I won't attempt to quote it because the bullet path only has a beginning and an end, but does include the "bone fragment" so at least you can see how it came to be. Personally, I don't have a theory for the throat wound that I found entirely satisfactory, so I have tried in vain to comprehend this incomplete theory. This makes me a bad person who is only bitching because this theory disagrees with the theory that I don't have. I don't understand this either....

Rather than wait until Mr. Larsen posts his "theory" I will show how it was explained to me.

Mr. Larsen's speculation originates with a bullet that enters the skull at the EOP (External Occipital Protuberance). It may or may not fragment, that is not clear. It then travels along the bottom of the skull until it somehow exits the skull and somehow finds its way to the vertebra adjacent to the throat wound. Upon impact with this vertebra a "long slender bone fragment" is broken off. It is propelled by the momentum transferred from the bullet/fragment along a horizontal path, tears the trachea, the skin and the shirt, but not the necktie...

After punching through the skull, skidding along the bottom of the skull, colliding with I don't know what, but it turns the bullet/frag trajectory from horizontal to almost vertical, vertical, or more than vertical. It then passes through the majority of the cervical vertabrae, or maybe it is supposed to have passed through muscle and tissue to the side and behind them until it strikes C6(?). IMO, it would hit at least several vertebra. Note that this "long slender bone fragment" must be lucky enough to break off with its pointed end facing forward, and its long axis precisely aligned with the path to the throat wound. If not it can't create the horizontal tear in the trachea nor leave a small round exit hole. After the collision, this bullet/fragment still retains enough momentum to transfer to the bone fragment adequate energy for it to tear the tough cartilage of the trachea through half of its circumference, pass through subcutaneous tissue, the skin and the shirt. At this point the bone fragment has enough energy to completely exit the wound as it pushes the tie upward and disappears. The latest revision is that this fragment made a "nick" in the tie. IMO, the odds of the many highly unlikely events required for the bone fragment to do what it is alleged to do are astronomical.

I have asked where this alleged nick is located, and I was promptly informed that I "already knew" and that I was just "playing dumb." I always say, "Some guy on the internet that I barely know, obviously knows what I think better than I do." so he must be right...

So here are the paths that I have selected in an attempt to get this bullet from the EOP to the throat wound. Trajectories between these paths don't work any better than the ones I depict. The green line is the path of the missile as determined by the doctors at parkland. Unless something has changed again, this path is not in dispute.

To me, if the path from EOP to throat wound can't be proven then this alleged "long slender bone fragment" can not exist. But no one on this thread agrees with me at all, so any support you may provide would be GREATLY appreciated. If you can come up with a working trajectory, please describe it. Despite all my efforts I can't make it work, so I have only comments against it. I doubt anyone will believe me, but I'd be just as happy if this theory was workable, as I would if it wasn't. All I want to do is learn what happened...

http://

The hypothesis has to create the "evidence" where there is none to go by. I'm pretty sure you know that.

This is true only in your universe, not mine. I don't know anyone else who presents sheer speculation as more than an unsupported guess. Why do you suppose you can't find any evidence?

You just like to bitch when someone else's theory contradicts yours.

Pot calls kettle black. Brilliant defense. What theory do I claim as mine? You yourself have commented more than once that I don't attach myself to any theory. Presenting actual evidence in support of a theory that someone else ridicules doesn't make it "my theory." It only means I disagree with the "ridicule" - something that people do when they can't actually provide a reason to refute the theory.

In your universe stating facts and evidence contrary to wild speculation and irrelevant responses is bitching. Not in mine.

Using the "quote name" feature AND putting your responses in larger font and in color does nothing to make your answers correct and my answers wrong. So what are you trying to prove?

I've asked you to present this "sound hypothesis" for months and months. Haven't heard even the vaguest description of it yet.

You're not my boss, Tom.

I'll get to it when I can.

What reason other than 'it isn't ready for presentation' could there be? If it isn't ready for presentation even now, then you concluded months ago that your theory is correct without any evidence to back it up. Not quite the Scientific Method is it?

Believe whatever you want. I don't care.

My point, which you continue to ignore, is that until you *do* present some evidence all you have is "a secret plan to end the Vietnam war."

I do not believe it was ever adequately demonstrated where the nick in JFK's tie actually was when the tie was knotted

Not only has it never been located with any degree of certainty, but what is traditionally referred to as the "nick" is much more likely to be the piece of cloth removed by the FBI Lab for testing. So where is this "nick" on the tie? There are a large number of white areas on the HIGHLY overexposed photo of the tie. Are they ALL nicks that penetrated the exterior cloth but not the lining?

I do not believe for one second the "slits" in the shirt collar were made with a scalpel, and that anyone could put that large of a slit in a shirt collar, with a scalpel, without cutting the tissue beneath it.

I presume this is not directed at me, but if so, I have made the above statement many times along with the fact that Carrico demonstrated using scissors and Head Nurse if the TR Audrey Bell STATED that she used scissors. And yes the fact that "Blunt-nosed" scissors are used to remove clothing has been stated here on this forum, long before you, me or Mr. Larsen mentioned this fact.