Anthony Summers

[David Josephs]

When researching the theory of evolution, would you also go to a Creationist website to cross-reference information? I shouldn't think so.

Isn't that akin to saying - while researching the conspiracy of the JFK assassination would you go to the WCR to cross reference info? We'd EXPECT you to RK...

The KEY to the conspiracy is in the inability of the McAdams' out there to spin sh!t into gold without relying on FAITH...

Creationsim sadly adds FAITH to the equation... FAITH in the stature of the Warren Commissioners to tell US the truth is the only thing a WCR apologist can hang his hat upon.

If one doesn't understand the depth of the argument against, how can one be effective countering it?

We must also differentiate from the EVIDENCE as offered and the COMMENTARY that may come with it.
McAdams can't make an FBI report any less suspect - all he can do is offer his spin...

Yet at the top of the home page he offers this: (I am NOT defending the man, only that the site can be a valuable resource to discover the tactics and POV of the opposition)


Regardless of what you believe, several web sites, mostly conspiracy-oriented are worth checking out. And you may also want to check out my list of recommended books on the assassination
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sites.htm


I would never read Bugliosi's book - why bother when we have the WCR/HSCA/ARRB and others - or any other book that offers OPINIONS on the evidence.
The evidence speaks LOUDLY enough for itself.... and nothing McAdams or DVP or anyone else can do about it other than SPIN IT and L-I-E about it.

Sun Tzu: http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html
All warfare is based on deception.

To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

I will try to answer your points in order. My replies in BOLD

1) The Warren Commission Report was discredited decades ago, so no, I don't feel the need to cross reference information with it. The case for conspiracy is proven. Debating and/or analysing the contents of the WCR at this stage is a complete waste of time as far as I'm concerned.

Fair enough RK... Where did the first generation of critics get their ammunition for discrediting the WCR ?? and would you say that you/we are completely familar with the 1500 warren commission documents from which the exhibits and conclusions were taken?

Do we need THAT site for this info, no. But disregarding the body of evidence that proves conspiracy seems to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater... The WCR itself reveals the depth of the conspiracy... and puts on paper what the CIA/FBI/SS and other did to cover their tracks.

2) Your point here seems quite confused. First you say that McAdams et al don't rely on faith, then you say that they do ("FAITH in the stature of the Warren Commissioners to tell US the truth...") Which is it? For what it's worth, I don'tbelieve that McAdams and co. have "faith" in the Commission members at all, but I dothink they rely upon the public's faith in authority and the media to effectively promote their version of events.

I think you may have misunderstood or I miscommunicated here... we agree - WITHOUT visitors' faith in the Commissioners and the Gov't, WCR apologists have nothing to go on other than misrepresentation of the EVIDENCE in their COMMENTARY. the evidence itself does not change, only the perception and context in which it is presented.

3) I think we all understand the depth of the argument against conspiracy: it is about as deep as a puddle of piss. The more we debate with people who have NO interest in establishing the truth the more effectively the lie is perpetuated.

Sadly RK I don't think we do... and is the raison d'etre for this forum. What awaits us as the layers of the onion are peeled away? What lays behind the scenes BEFORE we get to the SPONSORS, that require 50 years of cover-up? The argument is never "against conspiracy" but "against other CT conclusions".

"Establishing the truth" - you honestly believe that there is a TRUTH out there that can be discovered... interesting. What if I tell you that one of these truths is the reality of Harvey and Lee with the full knowledge of HOOVER and ANGLETON and that "program" was then and remains one of a few TRUTHS requiring 50 years of cover-up? Or that via (Boston) Banks and related Insurance companies the SPONSOR level was preparing for the profits of SE Asian Wars and Drugs and this network of SPONSOR LEVEL activity permiated every industry on the planet.... we got a glimpse of it with the BELL/TEXTRON scenario.

So let's say a Rothschild Int'l banker tells the Morgan/Rothschild backed Prudential Life/First Bank of Boston to provide the loans to TEXTRON for BELL and more.
and then we find that JFK's actions on a variety of fronts is going to make this and many other investments more of a burden than a sure fire investment.

To these people at this level, JFK is but one small piece in a very large pie... the TRUTH of the SPONSOR is much different than the TRUTH of the Facilitator/mechanic and one we can find evidence of most everywhere we look...

Which TRUTH do you want ?

4) All of the evidence is available online without providing traffic to LN websites. Point taken... yet the weakness of their arguments are in their presentation AT these sites. The TRUTH movement against Tobacco only worked because they made people more aware of the lies they were told.... and presented the TRUTHs.

5) I give him no credit whatsoever providing links to "conspiracy-oriented" websites. Again, appreciated and understood.

6) I agree with you completely that the evidence speaks loudly enough for itself, and I reiterate my previous point that all of the evidence that anybody needs is available on sites that acknowledge the fact of conspiracy. I see your point RK and agree... I guess since I/we know the difference I/we can go to these places to find what we need (his presentation of the witnesses with links to their testimonies is a convenient tool) I think it also serves as a place from whichi to pull the WCR apologist's argument without the same kind of treatment we get there - as in "THIS is what the CTs say here, and THIS is what they mean there" while we use the actual evidence itself

RK - I am curious to know how you would end this sentence:

"The WCR has been discredited and we know there was a conspiracy because ________....."

what do you see as the universal truths, and how are they differentiated between SPONSOR, Facilitator and Mechanic?
(i.e. "the body arrived at Bethesda at 6:35" is a Facilitator truth but has little to do with leading back to the SPONSORS or the BIGGER WHY of the cover-up)

Nice talking with you, I greatly appreciate your approach
DJ