What's the point ?

[William Kelly]

That is very sad.

I'll tell you what's "sad." Getting 17 messages from you over a 16 minute period. I've just had notifications to my private e-mail telling me that you sent 17 messages to me. Don't blame the software because I've messaged people yesterday and today on the forum and it's fine.

In fact the messages have the same content but have two different subject headers, "That's all" and "I'm done", so you're obviously just trying to fill mine and Dean's EF Inboxes.

Please, live up to your message "subjects" and sling your hook away from me? I've had my fill dealing with creepy, weird people on this forum.

17!

This guy is out of control

And im with Lee on this, no way its the forum software sending messages over and over because I recieved two other messages yesterday and they only sent one time and my replies were sent one time

What are you trying to do? Fill up mine and Lee's inboxs so we cant get any important "CT" messages?

This guy is using some backwards tactics for sure

McAdams gave him his mission as follows, find two outspoken CTs and fill their inboxs up so they can not talk with other CTs, if we keep this going we will shut down the CT network!

FWIW, Francois asked me an apparently sincere question 1x and I tried to respond, but was unable due to some glitch between AOL and his French email provider. AOL said the email address from which I'd received the email did not exist. So it could very well be some technical thing...

I'd be willing to accept that Pat, if it was normal e-mail and not the EF messenger and if he hadn't written two of the damn things with separate subjects. If it was one, with one subject and some content, that then ends up in my Inbox 17 times, then fine. But it wasn't, it was two, with two different subjects with the same crap written in them. One of them turned up 7 times and the other one 10.

Does he think I'm an idiot who needed two separate messages with different titles but telling me the same idiotic thing?

Lee, I don't think McAdams gave anyone any mission, or anyone tried to fill up your box on purpose.

I think he did it by accident, or a moment of fatique.

I don't think McAdams, or DVP or DR, or Dale Myers, or any of those crackers are disinformation agents or conduct themselves like those real dizinformation agents who are trained in the arts of propaganda and intelligence techniques like real disinformation agents are, like Issac Don Levin, Priscilla Johnson McMillan, Edward J. Epstine, Gus Russo, Max Holland, and I suspect, were financed by disinformation organizations like Mailer, Posner and Bugliosi.

They're Disinformation Idiots, not Agents.

And their purpose isn't to fill up the mail boxes of the opposition, the purpose of the real disinformation agents is to prevent the assassination from ever being properly investigated and those responsible officially prosecuted as the Constitution requires, and so far they're winning.

Bill Kelly

[Dean Hagerman]

Bill

Just so you know I was being sarcastic about McAdams sending him over here to fill up my inbox (im sure the guy just kept hitting send because the message wouldnt go through)

I need to start putting spoilers with (sarcasm) and (just a joke) in my posts from now on

[William Kelly]

BILL:

Didn't you call Jim Gordon a disinformation agent because he questioned Doug Horne's book?

Jim,

I don't think everyone who questions Doug Horne's book is a disinformation agent. Hell, Costella called Horne one. Nor do I recall Jim Gordon or what he said about Doug Horne's book. And I'm pretty carefull about how I use the word disinformation and got into an argument with Prof. Fetzer of his own definition that can be used to describe anybody he disagrees with, rather than the intentional decption that can be associated with a domestic or foreign intelligence agency or asset, the classical meaning of the word.

I think we should have an accurate order of battle, identify who the players are on the field, and properly label them as to who and what they represent, and prepare for battle, not just argue for the sake of winning an internet debate.

As professor Linebarger says, because real disinformation agents use black propaganda as a popular technique, it is possible, using his STASM formula, to trace the disinformation back to its source, and we have successfully used this formula for tracing the origin of almost all of the disinformation that we have identified that says Castro was behind the assassination. Almost every source for this disinfo can be traced back to the CIA, including Russo and the German film maker and everybody who made this claim before them.

Maybe McAdams is an official disinformation agent, who is paid and trained by the CIA or some other domestic intelligence agency, but I don't see it. Nor do I see it in Ken Rahn, or the other crackers I mentioned - DVP, Reitze, Meyers, et al.

McAdams was very offended when I called him a Disinformation Idiot rather than a Disinformation Agent, but I just don't see a connection, or an Modus Operandi, other than his using the alias to infiltrate COPA, which is only one of a number of indications of a Covert Operational Personality.

And as I said earlier, if we are going to apply the term disinformation to every Lone Nut who comes down the pike, then what are we going to call those who we know and have identified as real disinformation agents like Levine, Epstein, Johnson, Russo, et al?

I think we should be more precise and not so general, especially in attempting to describe those who are on the field playing against us.

BK

Edited July 22, 2010 by William Kelly

[William Kelly]

Bill, here is the exact quote:

"I think that in misrepresenting Doug Horne's true beliefs, James Gordon has exposed himself as a disinformation agent intent on discrediting Doug Horne's work, and that everything else he says should be ignored, and that everything else he has to say is worthless propaganda."

It does not get much more sweeping than that. You actually called him an agent, and said everything else he says should be ignored because its propaganda.

The thing is, Gordon was actually being accurate. He criticized the book for not having an index, for containing Zapruder frames in B &W that are blurred, for reviving much of Lifton's theories which were difficult to prove back then--including skullduggery on the plane, advocating a rather large, complicated conspiracy and cover up, entertaining the idea of 4 shots to the head with Greer also shooting Kennedy, buying into the whole Murchison party confection including McCloy and Hoover being there, and portraying Kellerman as being involved in the preparation for the assassination.

Having read all five volumes now, and taken almost 90 pages of notes, all the above is true. Except for the idea of 4 shots to the head. Horne actually argues for five shots to the head.

I actually think you owe him an apology.

Jim,

I can't recall why I would say something like that about James Gordon, and do indeed owe him an appology, though I'll have to back and reread what he said and see who he is because I really don't recall him or what he said. But that sounds like I was pretty pissed at him.

And I will appologize to anyone I have called a Disinformation Agent who doesn't work for or represent a domestic or foreign intellgence agency or network, and will have to come up with another name for them.

I don't think I owe John McAdams an appology for calling him a Disinformation Idiot rather than a Disinformation Agent.

BK

[John Dolva]

I remember that post and the few preceding it at the time (in other topics as well). I took it as you being ascerbic (for reason) and took your meaning to be something along the line of scientific language like reagents, catalysts et.c. . I don't think an apology is necessary.

The clarification is imo sufficient and heeding the caution re def is generally wise, imo.

[William Kelly]

I remember that post and the few preceding it at the time (in other topics as well). I took it as you being ascerbic (for reason) and took your meaning to be something along the line of scientific language like reagents, catalysts et.c. . I don't think an apology is necessary.

The clarification is imo sufficient and heeding the caution re def is generally wise, imo.

Hi John,

Well I did look up that quote and I indeed said those words, but in context I was just kidding, overly exagerating Gordon's false misrepresentation of Doug Horne's work, very early in that part of the game when it was important for people to pay attention to what Doug was really saying and not that Greer killed JFK with a pistol from the front seat.

Of course if Horne had said that he could be easily discredited, but as Jack White says, if you read the entire thread, Gordon's descriptions of IARRB was slight and superficial.

And Tink, who some have called a real Disinformation Agent himself but most certainly isn't one, picked up on my attempted pun and continues the nitpicking of some of Horne's acceptance of questionable sources. And I can't defend Doug for that.

But Gordon is not a disinformation agent, unless he works for Scotland Yard, and I have sent a PM to him appologizing for saying so, even if it was in jest.

Bill Kelly

Edited July 22, 2010 by William Kelly

[John Dolva]

Hi Bill,. Thanks for the reply, all's good, (as if it never was otherwise), (though I have high regard for Ian Griggs), B cool, John

[David S. Brownlee]

After all these years, I ask myself : "What's the point ?"

I myself believe in Oswald's sole guilt.

Well it's pretty hard to argue with you dude...if you don't understand what the point is (see recent history)...and you don't understand that the killing shot on JFK was from the right front - and you don't understand that the killing shot on RFK was a contact shot from just behind the right earlobe ( a shooting point that S/S could have never been - and you don't understand that the kill shot on MLK was supposedly from a ground floor bathroom stall - while MLK was actually on a second floor balconey and every person around him was pointing upwards...

Well then I guess you don't understand the point - or much of anything.

[Karl Kinaski]

Why John lets these goofs on here puzzles me.

Becaus he knows that laughter is the best medicine? (Don't be angry with "Francois" the jester -ribbit...ribbit...)

KK

[John Simkin]

Hello everybody,

After all these years, I ask myself : "What's the point ?"

Indeed, here we are in 2010 and it seems nothing has changed since 1963.

There are those who believe in Oswald's guilt, and those who think there was a conspiracy.

And nobody listens to anybody. Everybody clings to their beliefs.

I myself believe in Oswald's sole guilt. And after more than twenty years of researching the assassination, and being myself an author, I know as much as anybody here.

Indeed, the more I listen to James DiEugenio, the more I realize that Oswald really did it.

The more I read Jim Fetzer's nonsense, the more I realize that conspiracy theorists have NOTHING of substance.

To me, conspiracy theorists have failed to prove their point, which is understandable, since Oswald killed JFK alone, and facts show that.

But it is also clear that so-called "lone-nutters" have failed too in their endeavor. I mean, excellent books by authors such as Jim Moore, Gerald Posner, Dale Myers, Mel Ayton, Larry Sturdivan or Vincent Bugliosi have failed to put an end to the heated debate, and have failed to "silence" believers in a conspiracy.

There are still forums such as here where people keep writing posts after posts.

And it is a war. I mean, recently Jim Fetzer was at war against David Lifton. But everybody knows that no two conspiracy theorists agree on anything. Each theorist has his own theory. Groden doesn't agree with Lifton, who doesn't agree with Fetzer, who doesn't agree with anybody else, etc., etc.

It has lasted for almost fifty years !

So I ask myself : "What's the point in writing posts here ?" I already know that whatever I write won't change a thing.

Sadly enough, facts don't matter here. Personal theories are all that so-called "researchers" care about.

That is very sad.

/François Carlier/

François,

Would you be interested in this idea of two-people debates on various aspects of the JFK Assassination?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16251

[Greg Parker]

Thanks Greg.

That's okay, Jim.

I recalled seeing that memo. But I couldn't find it. The two boxes were found almost three weeks after the murder near an abandoned gravel pit.

But maybe Gary Mack will come up with one of his rehearsed witnesses who will say they saw Oswald near that gravel pit.

Not unless it's a late arriving witness. I've read all the original reports. Ear witnesses to rifle fire and eye witnesses to cars and people but none could put LHO in that mix. Here are the boxes http://www.maryferre...973&relPageId=3 . As can be seen, they were the original Italian make. IIRC, weren't those bullets purchased for the US Army, but never used for some reason or other? Long time since I've looked into that area...

He will then call a press conference: "One of the great mysteries of the JFK case is solved!"

It would be solved - but not in the manner that would help lift the spirits of François. It would prove a conspiracy because you have Oswald practicing in company with others; you have him able to take the rifle in and out of the Paine's garage, which seems highly unlikely to have been accomplished without detection/knowledge of others in the house; but most telling is that you have knowledge that JFK is coming past your place of employment before that was allegedly decided.

Aynseworth will be there for the local papers. Francois will be the French reporter on hand.

I'm still waiting for him, Gary and all those over at the other forum to admit they got this awfully wrong.

[Pat Speer]

Hello everybody,

Boy, I was only away for a few hours, and I now can see that a lot has been written against me.

I'll try to answer as well as I can.

To begin with, I certainly do not consider myself as a "regular" on the McAdams newsgroup. I have seldom posted there in the past years. I used to write posts on alt.conspiracy.jfk, but I haven't visited either newsgroup for months. And I swear I haven't the faintest idea what Pat Speer is referring to.

Since it is now easy to check on old posts, I wish he could go back and see whether he has confused me with someone else ?

As for personal messages, it is my understanding that we all should separate private messages and public posts. If I write to someone a private message, I don't expect them to let everybody know. I would never do such a thing. Anyway, I did send a short message (a three-sentence message), with no swear-word nor any rude or incorrect word to two people. I sent it only once, of course. I do not know why one of the recipients talked about 9 messages, or one message sent 9 times ? I do not understand. Is this web site running correctly ?

Regarding the language, yes, I confess I am French, born in France and living in Paris. I am not as good in English as you all are. I won't deny it. I am still good enough to be able to debate, discuss, read and write. Don't worry.

As for the Kennedy assassination proper, it does seem as if you (and by "you" I mean most of the members who posted on this thread) cannot accept the fact that someone (in this case : me) is of another opinion than yours.

What must I do ? Must I agree with James DiEugenio ? Must I say that Oswald had nothing to do with the assassination ? Or can I write what I do believe strongly ?

On top of that, let me, once again, state that I have spent years of my life trying to get to the truth, with an open mind. I even started as a Lifton fan, and believed in a conspiracy then (and was even in the newspaper claiming that). Then I learned a lot and realized I had been wrong. I now firmly believe that Oswald was the lone assassin.

SO my question to all of you is : can I try to defend my position, or must I say that I agree with you ?

In any case, rest assured that I will always speak my mind. I may be seen as arrogant (though I am not), but I sure am honest and frank.

Well, it's getting late over here and I have a lot to do. I shall answer Bill Kelly, James DiEugenio and another member tomorrow.

/François Carlier/

My description of Francois as a regular on the McAdams newsgroup is perhaps an exaggeration. While he's been posting over there since 1999 and while he's made 93 posts since July 09, he's only made 10 so far this year. So perhaps he got bored with the same ole same ole over there.

Francois asked me to double-check these numbers. When I did, I realized that the numbers provided were for Francois' activity on ALL google groups, and not just alt.assassination.jfk. So I apologize. He is correct. As he has posted only 82 messages on the McAdams-moderated newsgroup in 11 years, he can hardly be called a regular.

While this pretty much destroys my pet theory that he'd come over here as revenge for my and Bill Kelly's incursions into alt.assassination.jfk, it doesn't particularly add to his credibility. While he has posted only 82 messages on alt.assassination.jfk, a moderated newsgroup where people are expected to be civil to each other, he has posted over 400 messages to alt.conspiracy.jfk, where some of the most aggressive LNs and CTs gather in order to insult and attack those on the other "side".

One can only hope he came here, then, in search of a higher level of discourse. If so, I hope we can provide it.

[Pat Speer]

After all these years, I ask myself : "What's the point ?"

I myself believe in Oswald's sole guilt.

Well it's pretty hard to argue with you dude...if you don't understand what the point is (see recent history)...and you don't understand that the killing shot on JFK was from the right front - and you don't understand that the killing shot on RFK was a contact shot from just behind the right earlobe ( a shooting point that S/S could have never been - and you don't understand that the kill shot on MLK was supposedly from a ground floor bathroom stall - while MLK was actually on a second floor balconey and every person around him was pointing upwards...

Well then I guess you don't understand the point - or much of anything.

David, while I agree with your basic point, the boarding house from which Ray supposedly fired his shot on King was on a hillside looking down on the Lorraine Motel, and not on the same level.

[Greg Parker]

Greg:

Looking at the box, that was not even the same manufacture was it?

No. But I don't think any of the participants knew that. I'm sure all they had was evidence card that was posted.

That was made in Italy. The alleged ammo used that day was of American origin by WCC.

How could Gary Mack think that was going to fly?

I think they believed/hoped that if anyone actually bothered to find the evidence they themselves failed to produce, it would actually support them.

These remarks on the other forum show how confident they were:

They did find two empty cartridge boxes in his things, I wonder what he did with the rest of the ammo? Mike Williams Nope these were two empty boxes collected from his belongings. You can look back through the exhibit Q numbers and find more about them. I always wondered why they were not in evidence, maybe they just thought they were useless because they were empty? Fact is the man certainly had in his possession at some point, more than 4 rounds of ammo. So what did he do with the other rounds? Mike Williams It's always interesting to see how CTs process new information in their minds. Ian, you have to just assume the boxes were real boxes and that yes, they contained ammunition. Along with that assume he shot most of what he had. If the boxes were of American manufacture, they would have had 20 rounds in each, in theory that puts 40 rounds in his possession. That gives him 6 full clip loadings to shoot with 4 rounds left over at the end, exactly how many he seems to have brought with him. No proof of course, just another odd coincidence I guess. I would also guess he probably had more than 2 boxes to practice with. If those boxes were original Italian stuff from WW2, they would have held 18 rounds in each box. Geoff Nis Also interesting is that there is testimony indicating it would have taken Oswald just a few rounds to zero the scope. Since we only have one clip in evidence it is logical to believe that these were 20 round boxes. The European ammo, if I recall correctly, came in 18 round boxes with 3 clips, in other words the box held 3 clips of ammo, with 6 rounds in each clip. I had a pic of these type boxes someplace. Mike Williams Hell maybe he ordered it from another source, and they just never found the paperwork. I have to agree with Geoff on this one. Who cares, he obviously had the ammo. Mike Williams

Under repeated calls for actual evidence that the boxes belonged to Oswald, we get this:What evidence Rob? There is no evidence Rob, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Except to you of course. In 1963 there would be no record of ammunition sales made, period. Walk in, buy what you want, pay for it, and walk out. No record of who you were. Being surplus ammunition, there would be no specific records of inventory, just that x amount of 6.5mm Carcano ammo was all of, or part of, a wholesale order purchased by a store for reselling. They were under no laws or ATF rules to record who bought what ammunition, not what caliber, not the amount, NOTHING. Zero. Get it? Why do you, along with other CTs, continue to hammer away at the mistaken belief you have that somewhere, there MUST have been a record of Oswald buying the ammunition? Or that somewhere there MUST have been a store clerk or owner who would remember selling him 6.5mm ammunition? Geoff Nis

Sometimes errors are only in the eye of the beholder involving a matter of interpretation; sometimes they're clear cut. This is the latter, and as such, the error should be acknowledged. And I also think since François has proven Pat wrong about his posting history at McAdam's group and drew an apology from Pat, so François should apologise to you for saying you were mistaken about no ammo being found among Oswald's possessions.

Well, if you can do stuff like Inside the Target Car, and JFK: The Ruby Connection, I guess you can. (The latter portrayed Ruby as having no connections. LOL)

[Pat Speer]

Pat, there is very little difference between the two. To me they are quite similar. The whole McAdams gang is over there also

Francois is one of that crowd. I know this for a fact from dealing with him before.

Jim, in my experience, there is quite a difference. Not necessarily in content, but in civility. The LNs at alt.conspiracy.JFK will say things like all CTs are traitors and should be killed. The LNs at alt.assassination.JFK, the McAdams-moderated newsgroup, some of whom are the same guys as those on alt.conspiracy.JFK (only on their best behavior), will say things like all CTs are kooks. From a distance that may not seem to be much of a difference.

But as one who's received emails from the alt.conspiracy crowd, in which the senders have informed me that my infant son is doomed to an eternity in hell because I dare consider the possibility Oswald was innocent, and things equally as vicious, it seems a world of difference.

McAdams is most certainly wrong about a lot of stuff. And he is, IMO, not beyond lying about the evidence in order to avoid admitting he was wrong. But I've never got the feeling that he wishes those on the other side--with the possible exception of Mark Lane--ill will. He thinks you're a kook. But I don't think he hates you. This is not true of some of those on alt-conspiracy.JFK.

They genuinely hate us, or are at least intent on acting as if they do.