Mike Rago Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) Read what Weisberg has to say about Pool and you will understand why no one uses this guy. I don't even think he was there. HIs testimony has no authority. I realize you are talking to Lee , however , I do not think in terms of whether to use people or not to use people. I just evaluate the evidence. Edited October 12, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 (edited) DiEugenio is one who hijacks the threads. I would not trust anything you say in one of your books or articles. Not a thing! I remember when I first read your article on Gary Mack. "Mr. Dunckel as you call him". When I first read it I accepted it because it was written by DiEugenio. I now realize that one should take a very close look at things written by DiEugenio and not just accept them. I believe that a lot of people now realize this about your work. Edited October 12, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 DiEugenio is one who hijacks the threads. I beg to differ. And you'd cut a lonely figure if you asked whether other members agreed with you. Lee's right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) The Single Bullet Theory would have been a lot easier to pull off if CE 399 DID NOT EXIST. CE 399 does not help the Single Bullet Theory at all. That bullet was not planted . It would have been a whole easier to argue the Single Bullet Theory if CE 399 did not exist. The conspirators did not plant that bullet. CE 399 created BIG problems for Specter. (Blaming Tomlinson when you should be blaming Specter.) CE 399 illustrates that there is no such thing as a perfect crime! Edited October 15, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 You need to control your hatred. I have read enough of your crapola on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) As I said, you need to control your hatred. It is disgusting. Edited October 15, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) The Single Bullet Theory would have been a lot easier to pull off if CE 399 DID NOT EXIST. CE 399 does not help the Single Bullet Theory at all. That bullet was not planted . It would have been a whole easier to argue the Single Bullet Theory if CE 399 did not exist. The conspirators did not plant that bullet. CE 399 created BIG problems for Specter. (Blaming Tomlinson when you should be blaming Specter.) CE 399 illustrates that there is no such thing as a perfect crime! Again, CE 399 did not help the conspirators at all. It would have been much easier to argue the SBT if CE 399 did not exist. This thread was not created by me. This thread was created by Tom Scully. He created the thread and he created the title and he put someone else name on it. Edited October 16, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 ''It would have been much easier to argue the SBT if CE 399 did not exist'' - I've read that a number of times and I don't get it at all. I don't know if there is an answer to what it means. It's a bit of a shallow level of logic, if logical or with any meaning at all, logic, isn't it? Is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) If all you had was a wounded Kennedy and a wounded Connally and bullet fragments it would have been very easy to argue the Single Bullet Theory. The presence of an almost pristine bullet does not support that theory. And they needed that theory to explain wounds to both Connally and Kennedy from a lone assassin. The theory was more important than the bullet that is why they pressed on with that theory even in the presence of that bullet. That bullet created problems for Specter, big problems. All one has to do to see that bullet created problems for Specter is to read the testimony. The bullet was found on the day of the assassination, to the surprise of everyone I would say, in particular the assassins. Edited October 15, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 I don't think they got the trajectories right. (in fact JJ's quite amazing scenario makes more sense) Mike yoiu are a relatively new member at thius forum. You get quite a lot of latitude. Don't expect it to go on forever. So the bullet fragments shot Kennedy and Connally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 You need to go back and re-read what I said John. I did not say the bullet fragments shot Kennedy and Connally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) Let me be clear, I do not think you made in any points. Basically your statements are akin to saying "if a bullfrog had wings it could fly". Everything you said was armchair quaterbacking. There was nothing of substance there. You blame Tomlinson for Specter's mistakes. You do not believe Tomlinson. You do not believe Wright. You do not believe Pool You do not believe Johnsen You do not believe Crowley. You do not believe your own eyes. I do not think you made any points except that you are making up your own scenario that is completely disjoint from what actually happened. Edited October 15, 2012 by Mike Rago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 Because there is no 302 you do not think the FBI interviewed him or the Secret Service. You think Tomlinson lied about that. I do not think that is something that someone would lie about. I do not think he lied and I do not think that a reasonable person would think he lied about it. You are trying to create a world that did not exist at that time. Thanks to Jack Ruby we never had a real, adversarial trial. If you look at any adversarial trial you will see many places where exact investigative procedures were not followed. I suspect way more so then than now. All you are discovering are the flaws in a system and trying to exploit them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Rago Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 You are not interested in evidence otherwise you would not throw so much of it away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl Kinaski Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) You are not interested in evidence otherwise you would not throw so much of it away! Piss off you utter tool. How the hell you have been allowed to post such complete garbage for this long is quite simply beyond me. You are a disgrace and you insult every member here by posting the drivel you post. I'll second that. Rago should be banned and all his posts erased. How about a member-vote? KK Edited October 15, 2012 by Karl Kinaski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now