42nd anniversary and where are we?

[Owen Parsons]

Mr. Wilson or whoever?

Please don't let the facts get in the way here, Mr. Garrison....

if you really want to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy, discuss this.

Believe me, I really do not mind being called "Mr. Garrison."

I have come to the conclusion (after your "Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone" thread) that you are not in the business of critically discussing any of the various Wilson-related (I say "Mr. Wilson or whoever" because its more a network of linked and uncontradictory articles and opinions than the work of one man, though he seems to be the most prominent) articles you post. Right now I am much more interested in you and your agenda.

Now: What do you think of the Peterson case?

Edited November 13, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Lynne Foster]

Mr. Wilson or whoever?

Please don't let the facts get in the way here, Mr. Garrison....

if you really want to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy, discuss this.

Believe me, I really do not mind being called "Mr. Garrison."

I have come to the conclusion (after your "Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone" thread) that you are not in the business of critically discussing any of the various Wilson-related (I say "Mr. Wilson or whoever" because its more a network of linked and uncontradictory articles and opinions than the work of one man, though he seems to be the most prominent) articles you post. Right now I am much more interested in you and your agenda.

Now: What do you think of the Peterson case?

You are stubborn. I already told you that you are trying to divert attention from the Kennedy assassination by discussing things that I know nothing about.

I think your extreme, political views are getting in the way here.

[Owen Parsons]

Mr. Wilson or whoever?

Please don't let the facts get in the way here, Mr. Garrison....

if you really want to discuss the assassination of John F. Kennedy, discuss this.

Believe me, I really do not mind being called "Mr. Garrison."

I have come to the conclusion (after your "Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone" thread) that you are not in the business of critically discussing any of the various Wilson-related (I say "Mr. Wilson or whoever" because its more a network of linked and uncontradictory articles and opinions than the work of one man, though he seems to be the most prominent) articles you post. Right now I am much more interested in you and your agenda.

Now: What do you think of the Peterson case?

You are stubborn. I already told you that you are trying to divert attention from the Kennedy assassination by discussing things that I know nothing about.

I think your extreme, political views are getting in the way here.

The only person being stubborn here is you in not answering a simple question. If you really know as little about the Peterson case as you imply, posting your opinions on what little you do know should be no problem. This is the last question I'm going to ask you.

What, pray tell, are my extreme political views (my alleged secret hatred of Kennedy aside)?

Edit: You can find a whole list of links on the Peterson case just from the Wilson McAdams FAQ reprint alone.

"Scott Peterson Trial: Timeline 1/30/03 DIVERTING BLAME

2/21/03 EARLY REPORTS

3/03/03 PLANTING LACI'S HAIR

3/16/03 SUSPICIOUS MINDS: KEY REPORT

3/21/03 AMBER FREY

4/04/03 MEDIA SPIN

4/10/03 SMOKING GUN?

3/16/03 MARK GERAGOS

6/03/03 WAS LACI SHOT?

9/23/03 JAILHOUSE SNITCHES

10/05/03 FRAMING SCOTT PETERSON

09/20/03 ANATOMY OF INQUISITION

10/20/03 LARRY KING LIVE TAKEOVER

11/22/03 CONNER PETERSON

01/14/04 CENSORING THE TRUTH

02/06/04 THE REAL SCOOP

02/16/04 VIVIAN MITCHELL DIES

02/18/04 WHO IS FRAMING SCOTT

08/22/04 AMBER FREY TAPES

09/20/04 AMBER FREY'S LIES

10/22/04 TAMPERING WITH THE JURY

12/27/04 AND JUSTICE FOR ALL --DENIED."

What is your opinion of all this?

Edited November 13, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Lynne Foster]

You are too weird.

I rest my case.

By the way, are you also proud of the fact that your hero, Jim Garrison, was the "official" version of Jack Ruby?

[Owen Parsons]

You are too weird.

I rest my case.

By the way, are you also proud of the fact that your hero, Jim Garrison, was the "official" version of Jack Ruby?

Jim Garrison was not "the 'official' version of Jack Ruby." You can imply Garrison had David Ferrie killed all you want, but that doesn't make it so. Where does David Ferrie fit in your Hoover-Johnson assassination theory anyway?

I really hope I haven't been "too weird." My question, which you have not yet answered, is do you agree with the Wilson-network viewpoint that Scott did not murder Laci Peterson?

Edited November 13, 2005 by Owen Parsons

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Mat Wilson's online disinfo book?

I think Jim Garrison, Gerald Posner, John McAdams and the like, promote disinformation.

I haven't read any disinformation by Mat Wilson.

Actually;

John's (McAdams) site promotes factual research to support a conclusion, as opposed to the "WAG" theory of problem resolution which has been utilized by many in regards to the subject matter.

It would benefit virtually any "new & untainted" researcher to review much of John's site, and thus hopefully avoid the pitfalls of entering the many "rabbit holes" which lead only to dead ends; fantasy land; Alice in Wonderland; etc; etc; etc;

Unfortunately, it appears that many of the human species are somewhat like various members of the "fowl" family.

Once "imprinted" with BS, they appear to be incapable of self determination between BS and "good stuff".

Not unlike watching too many "RAMBO" movies, watching Mr. Stone's "JFK" has "imprinted" many a person with fresh; pure; & unaltered BS.

Tom

P.S. "WAG" = Wild-Assed-Guess

*******************************************************************************

"fresh; pure; & unaltered BS."

I believe the word is "unadulterated", Purv. Correct me if I'm wrong.

We took our kids to see the movie, therefore, we saw only the "R" rated/unaltered BS version.

You must have gone to see the "X" rated/"unadulterated" BS version.

Mama warned me about you "ex"-Playboy Bunnies when I used to spend all of my time (& money) in New Orleans.

Tom

P.S. Wasn't N.O. the one with the "checkered" dance floor & the "Showroom" on the second floor?

Can't keep them straight between Denver; Miami Beach; New Orleans; etc;.

CRS syndrone!

I do recall having all the tools stolen out of the trunk of my car while it was parked in the Parking Garage just down the street from the N.O. Club, while I was inside the club until about 3:00AM one night/morning.

One rememembers such items as losing all of his "Craftsman" tools.

[Lynne Foster]

You are too weird.

I rest my case.

By the way, are you also proud of the fact that your hero, Jim Garrison, was the "official" version of Jack Ruby?

Jim Garrison was not "the 'official' version of Jack Ruby." You can imply Garrison had David Ferrie killed all you want, but that doesn't make it so. Where does David Ferrie fit in your Hoover-Johnson assassination theory anyway?

I really hope I haven't been "too weird." My question, which you have not yet answered, is do you agree with the Wilson-network viewpoint that Scott did not murder Laci Peterson?

The only thing I agree with 100% is the following article I recently read. A picture of one of the grassy knoll gunmen is more than I ever thought I would find on the Internet, this is absolutely incredible, as far as I am concerned.

As for Laci Peterson, I don't know anything about her, I don't have time to review all the links that you wish to point out, to divert the truth.

[Frank Agbat]

A fiver says that these linked sites will be selling a book or a video of some sort soon...

[Lynne Foster]

A fiver says that these linked sites will be selling a book or a video of some sort soon...

What's the point?

Richard Nixon was propelled to power by destroying Alger Hiss. do you have any doubt that he was in fact involved in the Kennedy assassination?

Is there anything that Richard Nixon did that did not involve targeting the "enemy"?

Why is Nixon's involvement being ignored here?

That's the bet that is puzzling, unless it's all political.

[Frank Agbat]

A fiver says that these linked sites will be selling a book or a video of some sort soon...

What's the point?

Richard Nixon was propelled to power by destroying Alger Hiss. do you have any doubt that he was in fact involved in the Kennedy assassination?

Is there anything that Richard Nixon did that did not involve targeting the "enemy"?

Why is Nixon's involvement being ignored here?

That's the bet that is puzzling, unless it's all political.

Why don't you stop spamming and experience the joys of the SEARCH feature on this forum?

We've discussed RMN and his merry men many times...

And politics? Of WHAT politics, exactly, are you speaking? Considering the WIDE variety of political views on this forum, that must be one BROAD brush you are painting with.

[John Dolva]

As I ponder the fact that we are fast approaching the 42nd anniversary of the privatal event that shaped US politics from then til now, I cannot help but wonder if we are any closer to the truth. Certainly there has been a lot of progress and sharing of terrific information on this forum. We have had times of excitement, like the 70's and the Church Committee, paving the way for HSCA, which ultimately bombed, but then ARRC got a lot of new records released. People are getting old and some are talking. (Some are also lying for their 15 minute of infamey...)

Bill Kelly's idea of a Grand Jury is so very inticing, but how do you make that happen?. YOu need some powerful people to accomplish this. And even then they get overruled by the evil powers that be.

There are several conferences next weekend, but that's preaching to the choir.

How can we actually affectualte CHANGE? Can we even? I know it's felt very futile for me. I have openly argued this case with professionals at the hightest order and they cling to the LN cover story. "Don't mess up my thinking, dude" . To realize a conspiracy means then DOING something. And people feel powerless. Even people IN power.

So what are we all feeling as we approach another sad aniversary?

Dawn

Appropriate topic, Dawn.

Some of my thoughts:

The world we live in is sometimes not a pretty place. There's no need to look further than the Kennedy assassination to know it.

'Confusion' and 'Fear' are atmospheres that are not valuable to those seeking the truth except in so far as considering the sources that seek to create or perpetuate same.

Some of the thinking behind such attempts can be understood by studying the KUBARK document.

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0397/kubark06.htm

In the long run, I believe mature adults who behave according to principles of universal respect will have a greater influence. The people we remember today such as the two Kennedy's, MLK, the latter version of Malcolm X, Che, Romero etc. are the ONLY reason why their assassins would ever in any way be remembered.

The important thing (I think) with regards to the assassins and their apologists is that the historical parasites and the vultures that follow in their wake only have as much influence over our future as we choose to give them.

It's still 12.30.

[Terry Mauro]

As I ponder the fact that we are fast approaching the 42nd anniversary of the privatal event that shaped US politics from then til now, I cannot help but wonder if we are any closer to the truth. Certainly there has been a lot of progress and sharing of terrific information on this forum. We have had times of excitement, like the 70's and the Church Committee, paving the way for HSCA, which ultimately bombed, but then ARRC got a lot of new records released. People are getting old and some are talking. (Some are also lying for their 15 minute of infamey...)

Bill Kelly's idea of a Grand Jury is so very inticing, but how do you make that happen?. YOu need some powerful people to accomplish this. And even then they get overruled by the evil powers that be.

There are several conferences next weekend, but that's preaching to the choir.

How can we actually affectualte CHANGE? Can we even? I know it's felt very futile for me. I have openly argued this case with professionals at the hightest order and they cling to the LN cover story. "Don't mess up my thinking, dude" . To realize a conspiracy means then DOING something. And people feel powerless. Even people IN power.

So what are we all feeling as we approach another sad aniversary?

Dawn

Appropriate topic, Dawn.

Some of my thoughts:

The world we live in is sometimes not a pretty place. There's no need to look further than the Kennedy assassination to know it.

'Confusion' and 'Fear' are atmospheres that are not valuable to those seeking the truth except in so far as considering the sources that seek to create or perpetuate same.

Some of the thinking behind such attempts can be understood by studying the KUBARK document.

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0397/kubark06.htm

In the long run, I believe mature adults who behave according to principles of universal respect will have a greater influence. The people we remember today such as the two Kennedy's, MLK, the latter version of Malcolm X, Che, Romero etc. are the ONLY reason why their assassins would ever in any way be remembered.

The important thing (I think) with regards to the assassins and their apologists is that the historical parasites and the vultures that follow in their wake only have as much influence over our future as we choose to give them.

It's still 12.30.

*************************************************************************

Some of the thinking behind such attempts can be understood by studying the KUBARK document.

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0397/kubark06.htm

Thanks, John.

[Tim Gratz]

Lynne wrote:

Richard Nixon was propelled to power by destroying Alger Hiss. do you have any doubt that he was in fact involved in the Kennedy assassination?

Ms. Foster,

Hiss was as guilty as hell. That fact is now beyond dispute.

And even if Nixon had framed Hiss (now a preposterous claim) what possible connection is there between that and your equally preposterous claim that Nixon was a conspirator in the Kennedy case? In a court of law, evidence of past crimes are allowed only, for instance, to show a pattern. There is no nexus between a claim that someone framed someone for perjury and a claim that twenty years later he murdered someone. It's like trying to argue that someone robbed a 7-11 because ten years earlier he was ticketed for speeding.

Edited November 18, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Dawn Meredith]

.

So what are we all feeling as we approach another sad aniversary?

Dawn

Appropriate topic, Dawn.

Some of my thoughts:

*************************************************************************

Some of the thinking behind such attempts can be understood by studying the KUBARK document.

http://www.parascope.com/articles/0397/kubark06.htm

Thanks, John.

John,

I concur with Terry and thank you for this link. Don't have time to read it all this morning as I dash out to court, but will finish it later.

I think also all this running around and saying "Who did it?" is missing the point. Our government and history books have presented us with fiction. I think the best way to attack this is what is known as the KISS method ("keep it simple, stupid"). Several years ago I wrote up a little two page document that I called "What do you believe and why do you believe it?". It gives the overview and description in detail of the magic bullet theory. I shared this with several people who knew nothing about this case and they all were astounded. "No way" was the general response. While we'd all love to know WHO killed Kennedy, what the general public needs to learn is who did NOT do it. That the assassination fiction foisted on them is in fact a pack of lies about a patsy who worked for several branches of US intelligence.

Getting the sheeple to accept that they have been lied to for 42 years is not as difficult as it would seem, since polls have always shown that most people do not accept the WC.

I would like to see kids grow up and teach history correctly on this case. In high school, in universities. And see journalists refuse to cave in to Op Mockingbird standards; develop some damn journalistic integrity.

Of course I would also like to see actual justice in my lifetime: Like some indictments!!

Enjoy Dallas (and DC) everyone. Wish I could go.....please ask Joan to come back next year for the many of us who can't get there this year.

Dawn

[Owen Parsons]

Lynne wrote:

Richard Nixon was propelled to power by destroying Alger Hiss. do you have any doubt that he was in fact involved in the Kennedy assassination?

Ms. Foster,

Hiss was as guilty as hell. That fact is now beyond dispute.

And even if Nixon had framed Hiss (now a preposterous claim) what possible connection is there between that and your equally preposterous claim that Nixon was a conspirator in the Kennedy case? In a court of law, evidence of past crimes are allowed only, for instance, to show a pattern. There is no nexus between a claim that someone framed someone for perjury and a claim that twenty years later he murdered someone. It's like trying to argue that someone robbed a 7-11 because ten years earlier he was ticketed for speeding.

Certain individuals would like the public to think that Hiss was "guilty as hell," and it is most certainly a cornerstone of the Buckley faith. Doesn't make it true, however.

Interested readers should check out this link.

Edited November 19, 2005 by Owen Parsons