Michael Griffith

This is just hogwash, jaw-dropping hogwash, and you know it. You keep skipping over the fact that Prouty appeared on Liberty Lobby's nutcase radio show 10 times in four years. That goes way beyond "limited contact with the organization." And he was certainly "cognizant of the circumstances" when he did so. Oh, yes, when Prouty was confronted with having had a book published by the IHR, he conveniently claimed he regretted it. Gee, that's not what he said just after the book was published. He publicly praised Carto and Marcellus for having the guts and courage to republish his book. And he was certainly "cognizant of the circumstances" when he did so. So now your claim is that the IHR falsely listed Prouty as a speaker at their upcoming conference?! Really? Really? I doubt you actually believe that. I notice you ignored Prouty's racist "Jewish sergeant" remark in his letter. I guess you could not even think of a flimsy excuse for that comment, so you ignored it. I also notice you ignored Prouty's sleazy dodge of "I'm no authority in that area" when he was asked point-blank about Willis Carto's Holocaust denial. And notice that Prouty didn't even say, "Oh, I wasn't aware that Willis denied the Holocaust." No normal, sane, credible, educated person would say "I'm no authority in that area" when asked about Holocaust denial. But Prouty did. I know it is pointless to say this, but I am astounded that the moderators are still allowing these false denials and evasions about Prouty's obscene, disgraceful associations and nutty claims to be posted.

I didn't answer your question??!!! Holy cow, you once again just brushed aside as meaningless the fact that Prouty spoke at an IHR conference and expressed worry about having a Jewish sergeant running an air-combat targeting computer! You call those disturbing, damning facts a "nothing burger"! Who in the devil are you people? Huh? This is not normal. This is aberrant. This is crazy. Reasonable, credible, normal people do not ignore clear evidence of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial on the part of someone they've been quoting and citing--they repudiate that author in a split-second. They don't keep defending him and ignoring the ugly truth about him. Yes, I know who Mae Brussell was. Do you? You could start by spelling her name correctly. She was a fringe conspiracy theorist who frequently floated wild and extravagant theories, so naturally Prouty said he liked most of her research. However, Prouty also said she didn't have the whole picture and didn't have the experience to understand all the things she knew, but that he could fill in most of the gap, etc., etc. Furthermore, given Prouty's habit of exaggerating and fabricating, we don't even know how much he really knew about Brussell's writings and broadcasts. Prouty's qualified praise of Brussell does not change the facts about his anti-Semitic statements and his long and close associations with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. An expression of support for Brussell does not cancel out his ugly "Jewish sergeant" comment, his speaking appearances at not one but two anti-Semitic conferences, his sleazy dodge when asked about Holocaust denial, his numerous appearances on Liberty Lobby's nutjob radio show, his recommendation that people read The Spotlight, his public praising of Carto and Marcellus, his having a book republished by the IHR, his sleazy defense of Scientology and Ron Hubbard, etc., etc.

WC staffer Wesley Liebeler blew gaping holes in the WC's claims about Oswald's pre-assassination target practice: There is a great deal of testimony in the record that a telescopic sight is a sensitive proposition. You can't leave a rifle and scope laying around in a garage underfoot for almost 3 months, just having brought it back from New Orleans in the back of a station wagon, and expect to hit anything with it, unless you take the trouble to fire it and sight the scope in. This would have been a problem that should have been dealt with in any event, and now that it turns out that there actually was a defect in the scope, it is perfectly clear that the question must be considered. The present draft leaves the Commission open to severe criticism. Furthermore, to the extent that it leaves testimony suggesting that the shots might not have been so easy out of the discussion, thereby giving only a part of the story, it is simply dishonest. 5. Why do we have a statement concerning the fact that Oswald's Marine records show that he was familiar with the Browning automatic rifle, .45-caliber pistol and 12-gage riot gun? That is completely irrelevant to the question of his ability to fire a rifle, unless there is evidence that the same skills are involved. It is, furthermore, prejudicial to some extent. 6. Under the heading "Oswald's Rifle Practice Outside the Marines" we have a statement concerning his hunting activities in Russia. It says that he joined a hunting club, obtained a license and went hunting about six times. It does not say what kind of a weapon he used. While I am not completely familiar with the record on this point, I do know for a fact that there is some indication that he used a shotgun. Under what theory do we include activities concerning a shotgun under a heading relating to rifle practice, and then presume not to advise the reader of the fact? 7. The statements concerning Oswald's practice with the assassination weapon are misleading. They tend to give the impression that he did more practicing than the record suggests that he did. My recollection is that there is only one specific time when he might have practiced. We should be more precise in this area, because the Commission is going to have its work in this area examined very closely. 8. On the top of galley page 51 we have that statement about Oswald sighting the telescopic sight at night on the porch in New Orleans. I think the support for that proposition is thin indeed. Marina Oswald first testified that she did not know what he was doing out there and then she was clearly led into the only answer that gives any support to this proposition. 9. I think the level of reaching that is going on in this whole discussion of rifle capability is merely shown by the fact that under the heading of rifle practice outside the Marine Corps appears the damning statement that "Oswald showed an interest in rifles by discussing that subject with others (in fact only one person as I remember it) and reading gun magazines." (LINK) Even assuming Oswald did the target practice claimed by the WC, he still would have had nowhere near the expertise and experience of the three Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test. Yet, those riflemen did not come close to duplicating Oswald's alleged shooting feat, even though they fired at stationary targets from only 30 feet up. Some seem to believe that being under "life and death stress" would have enabled Oswald to shoot far better than he normally would shoot. The opposite is true. Read some military history and you will find numerous accounts of soldiers who missed enemy combatants at close range precisely because they were under "life and death stress."

In other words, you and your fellow Prouty apologists don't care that Prouty expressed concern about a Jewish sergeant running an air-combat targeting computer. That was raw, naked anti-Semitism. The self-evident fact that his letter was private makes his racist comment all the more damning and revealing, but you guys are so determined to defend this anti-Semitic nutjob that you don't care. Similarly, you folks don't care that Prouty actually spoke at a Holocaust-denial conference held by the Holocaust-denying IHR. You folks just don't care because if you repudiate Prouty, you repudiate your main source for the nutty, obscene theory that Ed Lansdale played a key role in the JFK murder plot because JFK was supposedly going to abandon South Vietnam after the election. You guys keep using the pitiful line that these "slams" come "from Epstein, Anson, and McAdams," but you know that's a dishonest dodge. These "slams" come from Prouty's own mouth and from the pro-Prouty publications of Liberty Lobby and the IHR. The fact that McAdams and Anson, etc., became aware of this information and repeated it is no excuse for dismissing it. Fact is fact, regardless of who reports it. The ADL has documented the fact that Prouty appeared on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times in four years. Are you suggesting that this "slam" can be ignored because the ADL reported it? That is ridiculous. Such misleading spin shows a total lack of objectivity and credibility. No educated, objective person who reads Prouty's ARRB interview will agree with such nonsense. Instead, they will see that the ARRB interviewers were cordial and respectful toward Prouty, that Prouty repudiated numerous bogus claims that he'd been making for years, that he refused to identify the man who supposedly recognized Lansdale in a Dealey Plaza tramp photo, and that Prouty failed to produce the notes he'd claimed in writing that he'd taken of his alleged "stand down" call with the 112th and offered no explanation for why he had failed to safeguard these putatively historic notes (and I'd point out that the ARRB interviewers did not press him on this point, although they should have). I must say that one can't help but wonder about how you folks feel about anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, given the way you have responded to the evidence of Prouty's anti-Semitism and his close associations with the IHR and Liberty Lobby. Your apparent lack of concern about anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial is especially troubling because many of you have also repeated extremist attacks on Israel, the same attacks that have been made by neo-N-azi groups and Muslim extremists for years. Could this be an indication of why you don't seem to care that Prouty made anti-Semitic comments and spent years palling around with anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers, even to the point of speaking at two of their conferences, appearing on one of their radio shows 10 times over a four-year period, recommending one of their newspapers, and having one of his books republished by the IHR?

Here is the documentation that Prouty spoke at the October 1990 IHR conference along with three (other) Holocaust deniers--it comes from the IHR's own magazine, The Journal of Historical Review: LINK And here is the letter that Prouty wrote in 1981 in which he expressed concern about what would happen if a "Jewish sgt." (i.e.,, sergeant) were running the targeting computer during air combat operations--the Jewish sergeant remark appears on the first page (next to the red arrow): LINK Seriously, how can anyone in their right mind cite Prouty as a source knowing that he spoke at a Holocaust-denial conference, and that he voiced concern about a Jewish sergeant running an air-combat targeting computer? This is in addition to his speaking at a Liberty Lobby conference, appearing on Liberty Lobby's radio show 10 times in four years, recommending The Spotlight, having a book republished by the IHR, etc., etc.

Oh, wow. Pathetic. Just pathetic. When someone makes such a sick statement, people will naturally reject everything else the person has to say. This is just about as bad as saying in 1940 that "Hitler is a great leader for his country."

None of this irrelevant evasion changes the fact that Prouty clearly took Stalin's nutty theory seriously, just as he thought it was a real possibility that the Secret Team murdered Princess Diana. The guy was a nutjob. As for Len Osanic's comment, I think it goes way beyond childish to whitewash or ignore Prouty's appearance at the 1990 IHR conference and his "Jewish sergeant" remark. This is serious, ugly stuff. If Osanic knew Prouty so well, was he aware that Prouty spoke at one of the IHR's Holocaust-denial conferences? Was he aware of Prouty's ugly "Jewish sergeant" remark in one of his letters? Was he aware that Prouty recommended Liberty Lobby's anti-Semitic newspaper and appeared 10 times in four years on Liberty Lobby's radio program? How can any person ignore this stuff and hope to maintain a shred of credibility?

Yeah, as if firing at the most powerful man on Earth would have made it easier. In the interest of time, I didn't even mention the firing times of the three Master-rated riflemen. Here they are: Hendrix: 8.2 seconds and 7.0 seconds (two sets) Staley: 6.75 seconds and 6.45 seconds (two sets) Miller: 4.6 seconds, 6.15 seconds, and 4.45 seconds (three sets; he was the only one to fire three sets) Yet, we're asked to believe that Oswald either (1) went two for two in 5.56 seconds after wildly missing his first, closest, and easiest shot at some point before Z166, or (2) went two for three in 5.56 seconds because he didn't start firing until JFK reemerged into view from beneath the oak tree at Z210. An even more unlikely scenario has him firing while his view of JFK was obscured by the oak tree between Z166 and Z209, and then going two for two in 5.56 seconds after Z209. Any way you slice it, he would have had to go two for two in 5.56 seconds or two for three in 5.56 seconds. None of the Master-rated riflemen in the WC's rifle test were able to duplicate any version of this alleged feat. I should add that the three riflemen were allowed to do dry-run practice with the rifle before the test. The targets were standard head-and-shoulders silhouettes and were about 2 square feet in size. And, again, the riflemen were firing from only 30 feet up and the targets were not moving. As for Oswald's alleged target practice in the months before the assassination, WC staffer Wesley Liebeler shredded that myth in his internal memos to the Commission (LINK).

Just shaking my head in disbelief. Even assuming all these things happened, which I doubt, the Insiders behind this alleged inside job would have had to be astonishingly powerful to have arranged to have Muslim terrorists strike the Twin Towers and the Pentagon with airliners so they could use the attacks as cover for controlled explosions in the Twin Towers to supposedly carry out the most gigantic theft in world history. Occam's razor screams against this convoluted, unbelievable theory. Many children's fairy tales are more believable than this yarn. And what in the devil does any of this have to do with the JFK case?

It is already very obvious that the liberal MSM is going to smear RFK Jr. every which way because they fear his candidacy is a threat to Biden. Does RFK Jr. have the guts to talk about Biden's obvious cognitive decline? Just last week, Biden forgot that he had visited Ireland in mid-April, just two weeks earlier. A child at a White House event for kids asked Biden to name the last country he had visited. Biden could not remember and began to stumble, saying he'd visited so many nations he couldn't remember the last one. Then, another kid called out "Ireland," to which Biden responded. "Oh, yes!" This was as bad as his troubling memory lapse in September, when he forgot that Congresswoman Jackie Walorski had died a month earlier. At a press conference to thank the sponsors of a bill, one of whom was Walorski, Biden looked into the audience and asked if Walorski was there, adding that he thought she was going to attend the event. When nobody answered, he said, "She must not be here." Right. Because she had died a month earlier. Are you kidding me? This is a perfectly valid issue. It goes to the core of the man's fitness for office. Some Democratic candidates raised the issue very bluntly in the early part of the 2020 Democratic primary, but they fell silent once Biden won Super Tuesday. His cognitive decline has only gotten worse since then. RFK Jr. has every right, if not a moral obligation, to raise this issue.

I will be posting documentation of Prouty's "Jewish sergeant" remark and of his speaking at an IHR conference today or tomorrow. I just need to upload the documents to my Google Drive so I can link them.

Just to clarify, I am more of an eclectic centrist military buff. Many conservative military buffs do not consider me to be a fellow conservative because of my views on the nuking and fire-bombing of Japan and on the Nanking Massacre. I've been banned from two military history forums for expressing the view that nuking Japan was unnecessary and immoral, that the fire-bombing of Japan was excessive and immoral, that the Chinese markedly exaggerated the death toll of the Nanking Massacre, and that Chinese generals had little moral authority to complain about Nanking given that they killed at least 400,000 of their fellow Chinese when they deliberately breached dikes along the Yellow River to slow a Japanese advance. These positions are very unpopular with the majority of conservatives, especially regarding the nuking of Japan. Some of the replies I received from conservatives regarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most furious and vituperative I've ever received on any subject.

Yes, indeed. Other Marines who also saw Oswald shoot said he was a poor shot, such as Sherman Cooley and James Persons. Cooley said the following in an interview with former Rockefeller Foundation fellow Henry Hurt: If I had to pick one man in the whole United States to shoot me, I'd pick Oswald. I saw the man shoot. There's no way he could have ever learned to shoot well enough to do what they accused him of doing in Dallas. (Reasonable Doubt, New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985, p. 99) Persons told Hurt that Oswald's lack of coordination was part of the reason he was a "very poor" shot: He [Persons] also remembers that Oswald possessed a lack of coordination that contributed to his being very poor in rifle marksmanship. (Reasonable Doubt, photo page 14, caption) Hurt interviewed over 50 former Marines who had seen Oswald shoot. Virtually all of them said Oswald's rifle proficiency was laughable (Reasonable Doubt, pp. 99-100). Moreover, members of the gun club that Oswald joined in Russia said he was a poor shot (G. Robert Blakey and Richard Billings, Fatal Hour, New York: Berkley Books, 1992, p. 139). David Ferrie said Oswald was a horrible shot.

Suppose someone told you that John Doe scored a 66 on an advanced calculus test. Suppose you learned that Joe Doe had never studied calculus and had never scored higher than a B on a basic algebra test. Suppose you learned that three math experts who had studied calculus for years only scored a 33 on the same advanced calculus test that John Doe took, except that the calculus test that the experts took was actually somewhat easier than the test that John Doe took. Logically, you would suspect that John Doe either did not actually score a 66 or that he got unbelievably lucky. If you learned there was credible evidence that John Doe was not the one who took the test, you would see his score as raising strong doubt about who took the test. This is pretty much exactly where we stand with the evidence on Oswald’s marksmanship and the alleged shooting feat. On Oswald’s best day at a Marine Corps rifle range, firing at stationary targets with a semi-automatic rifle, he barely managed to score in the second of three qualification categories (Sharpshooter). The last time he fired for record in the Marine Corps, he scored in the lowest of the three qualification categories (Marksman). Yet, he allegedly pulled off a shooting feat that three experienced Master-NRA-rated riflemen were unable to duplicate in a rifle test conducted for the WC by the Department of the Army. The three riflemen in the WC rifle test were not only Master-rated but had participated in national rifle competitions. Furthermore, instead of firing from an elevation of 60 feet, as Oswald allegedly did, they fired from an elevation of 30 feet. Instead of firing at a moving target, as Oswald allegedly did, they fired at stationary targets. They were allowed to take as much time as they wanted for their first shot, a luxury that Oswald would not have had. Significantly, they used the same rifle that Oswald allegedly used. As anyone can see from looking at the targets from the WC’s rifle test (CE 582, CE 583, and CE 584), the expert riflemen missed the head and neck area of the targets 19 out of 21 times (and one of those two hits was near the very top of the head, noticeably higher than where Oswald allegedly hit JFK in the head). The targets were paper targets on target boards. The targets resembled the top half of a human silhouette, basically from the middle of the back to the top of the head. The Army’s Ronald Simmons told the WC that he assumed the riflemen were aiming for the center of the target. The hits on the targets suggest that all three riflemen were aiming at the center of the target (which raises the question of why they were not told to aim for the points where Oswald allegedly hit JFK). Yet, even allowing for this center-of-target aiming point, the Master-rated riflemen came nowhere near duplicating Oswald’s alleged shooting feat. On the first-shot target (CE 582), most of the shots landed in or near the middle area of the target, with two noticeable misses. Only one of the shots landed in the head. With the exception of the hit in the head, all the shots hit several inches below the point where Oswald allegedly hit JFK in the upper back/lower neck. On the second-shot target (CE 583), not one of the shots hit the middle part of the target. Not one. Four of the shots missed the target completely, and three others nearly did so. One of the shots hit almost at the very top of the target, far from the aiming point but equating to a hit near the very top of the head. On the third-shot target (CE 584), once again, not one of the shots landed in the middle part of the target. One of the shots missed the target by about 3 inches. Several other shots landed near the bottom edge of the target. Obviously, these results do not resemble Oswald’s alleged shooting feat. Moreover, it is important to note that none of the riflemen missed so badly that they missed the boards to which the targets were attached, yet Oswald allegedly missed the entire gigantic presidential limousine (6.5 feet wide, 21 feet long) with one of his alleged three shots. Indeed, the only way to expand Oswald's alleged firing time from 6 seconds to 8-9 seconds is to assume that he fired before Z166 and that, incredibly, he somehow missed the entire limousine with his easiest and closest shot. Finally, it should be noted that Simmons stated that the rating of Master was far above the military rating of Sharpshooter: Mr. SIMMONS. There is really no comparison between the rating of master in the NRA and the rating of sharpshooter in the Army. (3 H 450) So, could Oswald have gone two for three in 6-9 seconds firing with a bolt-action rifle from the cramped sniper’s nest on the sixth floor? Theoretically speaking, it is possible that he did perform the shooting feat attributed to him by the WC, just as it is theoretically possible that you will win millions of dollars if you play the lottery three times. But, it is extraordinarily unlikely. We cannot prove that Oswald could not have done the shooting, but the WC’s own rifle test shows that it is wildly improbable that he did so.

Humm, well, that's curious. I've discussed the Liberty case at great length in military forums. The very few conservatives I encountered who claimed the attack was deliberate were on or near the fringe of the spectrum. They were not your average mainstream conservative. It's been a few years since I followed or took part in discussions on the Liberty, but I doubt things have changed much as far as the demographics of who stands where on the issue on the Right, especially given the fact that the overwhelming majority of conservatives are pro-Israeli. For decades now, the case of the Liberty has been a favorite topic among Holocaust deniers, including the IHR, and among anti-Semitic folks who stop short of Holocaust denial. In recent years, they've been joined by some folks from the Far Left.

Oh, boy. So not only do we have a bunch of 9/11 Truthers in this forum, we also have a pack of anti-Israeli extremists. The attack on the Liberty was an accident. See the link on my The Case for Israel website: The Case for Israel (google.com) The link will take you to a site that presents an exhaustive analysis of the incident and plenty of evidence to support the analysis. Holocaust deniers and Muslim terrorists have been accusing Israel of purposely attacking the Liberty for years. Now they've been joined by the Far Left. Anyone who says that the Israelis "could not possibly" have mistaken the Liberty for an Egyptian ship has read little or no military history. The annals of military history are full of much worse cases of accidental friendly fire.

Did you not read my previous post? Or, do you not think it's a big deal that Prouty spoke at an IHR Holocaust-denial conference, in addition to speaking at a Liberty Lobby convention? And do you not think it matters that Prouty expressed concern about what would happen if a "Jewish sergeant" happened to be manning a targeting computer during air combat operations? That doesn't scream anti-Semitic to you? Let's just summarize Prouty's aberrant history: -- Appeared 10 times in four years on Liberty Lobby's radio program. -- Spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention and at an IHR conference, the latter of which included several Holocaust deniers as fellow speakers. -- Recommended that people read Liberty Lobby's newspaper, which repeatedly attacked Jews and Israel and accepted ads from neo-N-azi groups. -- Attacked critics of Scientology and of Ron Hubbard and denied that Scientology was an exploitative cult. -- Had a book republished by the IHR's publishing arm, the same publishing arm that published numerous Holocaust-denial books. -- Expressed concern about "Jewish sergeants" running targeting computers during air combat operations. -- When asked about Carto's Holocaust denial, said, "I'm no authority in that area." -- Publicly praised Carto and Marcellus for having the IHR republish his book. -- Blamed high oil prices on the Israelis. -- Said that Princess Diana may have been killed by the Secret Team. -- Took seriously Stalin's nutty theory that Churchill had FDR poisoned. -- Falsely claimed that he played an important role in presidential protection and that this was why he was sent to the South Pole, and eventually admitted to the ARRB that there was nothing sinister about the trip, contrary to what he'd been saying for years. -- Refused to identify the person who had supposedly told him that he recognized Ed Lansdale in one of the Dealey Plaza tramp photos when questioned by the ARRB. -- Failed to produce the notes he'd claimed in writing that he'd taken during his mythical "stand down" phone call from the 112th MI Group when asked for them by the ARRB. The only rational, credible, sane conclusion: Prouty was an unreliable source who made numerous false claims, who made several nutty claims, who expressed anti-Semitic views, who spent years associating with Holocaust deniers, and who was arguably a genuine nutcase.

Oh my goodness. This is embarrassing, bizarre, and ridiculous. You realize that Muslim extremists and terrorists have made this same obscene claim from time to time, right? Congratulations. The idea that David Ben Gurion, Levi Eshkol, Golda Meir, and the Mossad would have even considered assassinating JFK over Dimona is one of the nuttiest theories ever concocted by the human mind. This is the kind of lunacy you get when you embrace the claims made by anti-Semitic nutjobs such as Fletcher Prouty. People who peddle this nonsense forget that in the 1950s and 1960s, many conservative Republicans--not all, but quite a few--were very cool toward Israel, if not downright anti-Israeli, for a number of reasons, one of them being that Israel was a socialist state run by avowed socialists. If you read Israeli books and newspapers from that period, you'll find out that Israelis were wary of the Republican Party precisely because they were aware of the fact that so many Republicans held a negative view of Israel and questioned the wisdom of supporting Israel. And how does this nutty theory fit with the evidence from the Lafitte datebook that has the main plotters being former N-a-z-i-s and other fascists?

Here are two items of evidence of Prouty's sleazy anti-Semitic associations that I have not discussed yet: 1. It turns out that Prouty spoke at another anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying conference. We've already discussed the fact that he spoke at a Liberty Lobby convention and even took part in a panel discussion with Bo Gritz during that convention. Now, come to find out that Prouty spoke at an October 1990 conference held by the Holocaust-denying IHR. Other speakers at the IHR conference included Holocaust deniers Robert Faurisson, Doug Collins, and Mark Weber. Try to imagine how a serious, credible person would even get invited to an IHR conference to appear along with several Holocaust deniers, much less how a decent, credible person would accept the invitation. Just think about that angle alone. 2. It turns out that in 1981, Prouty wrote a letter to an associate in which he expressed concern about Jews running weapon-system computers. The letter was discovered in the National Archives. Here's the most damning part of the letter: "The AWACS goes to a space satellite and from the satellite back to a massive computer in Southern California. Here the data is rapidly analyzed and instructions sent back to the satellite, then back to AWACS, then over to the F-15's terminal and into the fire control system. . . . "But what about the computer in California? Suppose the guy running it is a Jewish Sgt.?" Humm, so Prouty was worried about what would happen if a Jewish sergeant happened to be running the targeting computer for F-15 combat operations. This explains why he gave the shamefully evasive answer of "I'm no authority in that area" when asked about Willis Carto's Holocaust denial. Enough already. Fletcher Prouty not only had close, long-term relationships with anti-Semitic, Holocaust-denying persons and groups, but he himself was anti-Semitic.

The Moon landings and Holocaust denial have just as much to do with JFKA research as does 9/11 Truther nuttiness: nothing. That's the point. But the moderators obviously don't mind discrediting this forum by allowing 9/11 Truther nonsense to be posted in it, even though it has nothing to do with the JFK case. "Exploding refrigerator theory"? I notice you ignored the huge A/C units that were on each floor and that contained dozens of pounds of freon, which explodes under high heat. You know I wasn't saying that the refrigerators themselves exploded. You know I was referring to the freon tanks in the refrigerators. Those tanks, and also the large tanks of freon in the huge industrial-grade A/C units on every single floor of the Twin Towers, exploded when fire reached them. Just one industrial-grade A/C unit can require up to 60 pounds of freon. Take just a 50-pound freon tank to an open field and light a fire under it--and run. See how loud and powerful the resulting explosion is when the tank blows up. This would have been happening with the freon tanks of every one of the industrial-grade A/C units reached by fire in the Twin Towers. Finally, I again point out that the 9/11 Truther controlled-demolition theory makes no sense. Why would the alleged insiders have felt the need to blow up the Twin Towers after they were catastrophically damaged by the hijacked jetliners? Would your average American have been any less enraged by the 9/11 attacks if the Twin Towers had not collapsed? No, of course not. Hundreds of the people who died in the Twin Towers died from the impact of the airliners when they crashed into the buildings. Over 1,300 of the people who died in the north tower were at over above the point of impact and were unable to escape because all three stairwells were destroyed by the airliner's impact and the resulting explosion. In the south tower, over 600 of the people who died in the building were at or above the point of impact, and only one of the stairwells was usable after the airliner's impact. In other words, even if the towers had not collapsed, the death toll of people in the towers would have been at least 900, at the bare minimum. Plus, 125 Americans inside the Pentagon died when Flight 77 crashed into it. The 246 passengers of the hijacked airline flights also died. So even if the Twin Towers had not collapsed, the total death toll from the attacks would have been at least 1,300. It just makes no sense that the supposed insiders would have felt the need to demolish the Twin Towers. They would have had no rational, conceivable motive for doing so.

You snipped my questions and did not answer them. Let me ask you again: Do you believe the Moon landings were faked? Do you believe the Holocaust happened?

It's not rudeness. If something is nutty, it is not rude to call it nutty. The idea that the Secret Team/High Cabal killed Lennon is nutty. The idea that 9/11 was an inside job is nutty, just plain nutty. This forum has degenerated into a home for every nutty, crackpot theory ever to occur to the minds of some men.

99% of the scientists who've examined the evidence agree with me. You're the one peddling pseudoscience. Leaving aside the scientific debunking of the 9/11 Truther claims, logic alone screams against them. It makes no sense whatsoever that any American plotters would have felt the need to blow up the Twin Towers and WTC 7. Nobody in their right mind would have thought that the American people needed more reasons to be infuriated over the 9/11 attacks. No rational person would have thought, "Gee, if we don't blow up those buildings, the American people won't be enraged enough to support a massive military response." I ask you seriously, not sarcastically, Do you believe that the official narratives about the Moon landings and the Holocaust are false? Do you believe the Moon landings were faked? Do you believe the Holocaust has been grossly exaggerated or did not happen? Again, I'm not being sarcastic. I'm asking in all sincerity because people whose reasoning skills lead them to believe the 9/11 Truther claims are liable to also reject the official narratives about the Moon landings and the Holocaust.

I think this is misguided and unfair. Even German generals who were plotting to kill Hitler in 1939 voiced the same obligatory pro-Hitler sentiments that Foertsch's brother voiced. There were plenty of evil, vicious German generals, but I don't think Foertsch was one of them. I think Foertsch was on the lesser of two evils side of the balance sheet when it came to most Wermacht and SS generals. "The Soviet military tribunal" was an obscene joke. The Soviet army was just as brutal as the SS and more brutal than the German army. The Soviets had no moral standing to be judging anyone for war crimes. They were arguably the worst of the WWII war criminals. They wiped out numerous cities and slaughtered hundreds of thousands of civilians. The Soviet occupation of Manchuria was far more brutal than the Japanese occupation had been. Stalin and his henchmen should have been tried for war crimes, right alongside high-ranking N-azi officials and many SS and Wermacht generals.

This AI appears unaware of the fact that the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that two gunmen fired at JFK, that one of the shots came from the grassy knoll, that Oswald had a relationship with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie, that the WC's investigation was deficient, that Jack Ruby had considerable Mafia ties, that Ruby's shooting of Oswald was not a spontaneous act, that Ruby did not enter the DPD basement the way he claimed he did, that Ruby probably had inside help getting into the basement, and that the presidential protection for the Dallas motorcade may have been uniquely insecure.