13-02-2013, 09:45 PM
I call Bullshit Charles....
You
wrote:
"I shall take no part in denigrating or assuming a patronizing
stance toward our audience "
and yet:
"Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that the crime was committed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."
So which is it Charles... will anyone without the ability to wade thru the sea of data and come to our conclusion in the time alloted be considered "cognitively impared or a criminal"
How is this not denigrating or patronizing the undefined "audience" of ours?
your entire premise requires: reasonable access to the "evidence"... of which you make no
distinction about WHICH BS tainted/created/altered/planted evidence Joe Streetcorner
is to look at, UNDERSTAND, and to come to your mandatory conclusion.
(and by Joe Streetcorner you must know what I refer to... any of the millions
of people who are aware of the FJK dilemna but not familiar with the
"evidence" as you call it. All they've seen are the Discovery/History
Mock-umentaries which make it appear Oswald is guilty and it's a very simple
case... and they do it in a simple and direct way.... or is our audience the
lawmakers and mover/shakers in DC who are to put their entire political careers
in jeopardy by taking on the CFR? I still don't see who you think you are
talking to with all these Long Term / Short term proposals
As for the rest of your reply...
Hoover said what he said and wrote what he did... UNASSAILABLE EVIDENCE from the Director of the FBI that a conspiracy needed investigating.
If you have a way to refute or ASSAIL the quote and the conclusion that follows DO SO... Telling me what words I can and cannot use does not get it done.
So sorry to have confused you... We are told we have a 1000 piece puzzle, yet not only are all the pieces not there... but we have pieces mixed in from other puzzles that have nothing to do with the final picture of the one we are assembling. Not hard to follow and nowhere close to the absurd posts of Mr. Doyle. A simple metaphor describing the task of using the available evidence to construct a true picture.
I've read Salandria and Mantik. So what? You think our audience is going to understand Mantik? Oh right, you have yet to define an audience... Has the audience you wish to reach also read these men?
Do you honestly believe if the Pope read the Koran he will give up Christianity?
WHO do you think should read Salandria as any one of his essays illustrates the conspiracy.
Ra[B]ther, I wrote these pieces to explain how easy it was tocome to the truth of h[U]ow and why [/U]our national security state killed PresidentKennedy in order to perpetuate the Cold War. -V. Salandria[/B]
And you are aware then that Salandria does not tap Hoover at all:
J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI?
Let us enumerate the agencies who are candidates for having
accomplished this brilliant charade.
How about J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI? It is not plausible that the
Federal Bureau of Investigation-if it had been involved in the assassination
planning-w[B]ould have chosen as a patsy a person who Attorney
General Waggoner Carr of Texas would indicate immediately after the
killing was a paid FBI informer.[/B] And if J. Edgar Hoover had effectuated
the coup, then how could we explain that immediately after the assassination,
and persisting through today, there has been a yelping in the land
for Mr. Hoover's scalp? If 1. Edgar Hoover were the new ruling tyrant,
there would be far more reluctance on the part of our cowardly government
officials and the media to take him on. No, I think that we can say
with surety that the FBI did not kill President Kennedy.
The mere fact that you ask: "Was JFK killed by one gunman acting alone, or was JFK killed by conspirators?"
is non-sequitur. The question itself assumes there is an issue with the answer when if YOU read Salandria you know that is not the case.
Conspiracy is understood already Charles... THAT is our starting point. HOW and WHY we get that information out to any audience is our task here...
The pounds of flesh you want in your LT/ST Objectives are noble and all... but we have neither the money or expertise for that kind of sustained operation.
Phil answers your concerns very well... yet even in his answer we/"THEY" can argue facts and figures all day and night.
"THEY" can't move the bullet holes
"THEY" can't undo Hoover's declaration of his knowledge of a EVIDENCE generated by the CIA, that suggests a conspiracy (or the illusion of one)
"THEY" can't undo the lies from Mexico City and the conclusion that there either WAS a conspiracy involving Oswald, or it was created to look that way.
Experts on both sides can and will argue the details - as Salandria predicted - you've read the HSCA conclusion...
Yes Virginia, there was a conspiracy, except our government, who agrees with that conclusion IN WRITING
cannot name a single other entity who conspired WITH Oswald... yet it appears that Hoover was right after all
C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to
it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a
result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other
gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.
1. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy.
2. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy.
3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved
in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved.
4. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group,
was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but
that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that
individual membersmay have been involved.
5. The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency, were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy.
You
wrote:
"I shall take no part in denigrating or assuming a patronizing
stance toward our audience "
and yet:
"Anyone with reasonable access to the JFK assassination evidence who does not conclude that the crime was committed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime."
So which is it Charles... will anyone without the ability to wade thru the sea of data and come to our conclusion in the time alloted be considered "cognitively impared or a criminal"
How is this not denigrating or patronizing the undefined "audience" of ours?
your entire premise requires: reasonable access to the "evidence"... of which you make no
distinction about WHICH BS tainted/created/altered/planted evidence Joe Streetcorner
is to look at, UNDERSTAND, and to come to your mandatory conclusion.
(and by Joe Streetcorner you must know what I refer to... any of the millions
of people who are aware of the FJK dilemna but not familiar with the
"evidence" as you call it. All they've seen are the Discovery/History
Mock-umentaries which make it appear Oswald is guilty and it's a very simple
case... and they do it in a simple and direct way.... or is our audience the
lawmakers and mover/shakers in DC who are to put their entire political careers
in jeopardy by taking on the CFR? I still don't see who you think you are
talking to with all these Long Term / Short term proposals
As for the rest of your reply...
Hoover said what he said and wrote what he did... UNASSAILABLE EVIDENCE from the Director of the FBI that a conspiracy needed investigating.
If you have a way to refute or ASSAIL the quote and the conclusion that follows DO SO... Telling me what words I can and cannot use does not get it done.
So sorry to have confused you... We are told we have a 1000 piece puzzle, yet not only are all the pieces not there... but we have pieces mixed in from other puzzles that have nothing to do with the final picture of the one we are assembling. Not hard to follow and nowhere close to the absurd posts of Mr. Doyle. A simple metaphor describing the task of using the available evidence to construct a true picture.
I've read Salandria and Mantik. So what? You think our audience is going to understand Mantik? Oh right, you have yet to define an audience... Has the audience you wish to reach also read these men?
Do you honestly believe if the Pope read the Koran he will give up Christianity?
WHO do you think should read Salandria as any one of his essays illustrates the conspiracy.
Ra[B]ther, I wrote these pieces to explain how easy it was tocome to the truth of h[U]ow and why [/U]our national security state killed PresidentKennedy in order to perpetuate the Cold War. -V. Salandria[/B]
And you are aware then that Salandria does not tap Hoover at all:
J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI?
Let us enumerate the agencies who are candidates for having
accomplished this brilliant charade.
How about J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI? It is not plausible that the
Federal Bureau of Investigation-if it had been involved in the assassination
planning-w[B]ould have chosen as a patsy a person who Attorney
General Waggoner Carr of Texas would indicate immediately after the
killing was a paid FBI informer.[/B] And if J. Edgar Hoover had effectuated
the coup, then how could we explain that immediately after the assassination,
and persisting through today, there has been a yelping in the land
for Mr. Hoover's scalp? If 1. Edgar Hoover were the new ruling tyrant,
there would be far more reluctance on the part of our cowardly government
officials and the media to take him on. No, I think that we can say
with surety that the FBI did not kill President Kennedy.
The mere fact that you ask: "Was JFK killed by one gunman acting alone, or was JFK killed by conspirators?"
is non-sequitur. The question itself assumes there is an issue with the answer when if YOU read Salandria you know that is not the case.
Conspiracy is understood already Charles... THAT is our starting point. HOW and WHY we get that information out to any audience is our task here...
The pounds of flesh you want in your LT/ST Objectives are noble and all... but we have neither the money or expertise for that kind of sustained operation.
Phil answers your concerns very well... yet even in his answer we/"THEY" can argue facts and figures all day and night.
"THEY" can't move the bullet holes
"THEY" can't undo Hoover's declaration of his knowledge of a EVIDENCE generated by the CIA, that suggests a conspiracy (or the illusion of one)
"THEY" can't undo the lies from Mexico City and the conclusion that there either WAS a conspiracy involving Oswald, or it was created to look that way.
Experts on both sides can and will argue the details - as Salandria predicted - you've read the HSCA conclusion...
Yes Virginia, there was a conspiracy, except our government, who agrees with that conclusion IN WRITING
cannot name a single other entity who conspired WITH Oswald... yet it appears that Hoover was right after all
C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to
it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a
result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other
gunman or the extent of the conspiracy.
1. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy.
2. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy.
3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved
in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available
evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members
may have been involved.
4. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available
to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group,
was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but
that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that
individual membersmay have been involved.
5. The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
Central Intelligence Agency, were not involved in the assassination
of President Kennedy.