My feelings are very close to those of Charles and Jan. Why label at all? It turns the whole thing into a question of who is right, them or us, when the question should be: what are the facts, and what do they tell us (or not tell us). Or as Jim put it: I deal in facts, and the conclusions that flow from them. If I have to refer to the people who have dedicated their talents, money, time and sometimes lives to unearthing some part of the truth of the matter, I refer to them as researchers or scholars or critics of the official position. But I prefer not to engage in the kind of discourse that repeatedly says: "LNs say this" or "CTs say that" (even if we found some more neutral label for the latter group). It is simply a distraction, and reinforces the ping-pong game that those who wish to diminish such efforts are wont to encourage.
"Sorry, conspiracy theorists,
modern forensic science shows
that John F. Kennedy was likely killed
by "one guy with a grudge and a gun'
said the agent of alias and slander
[ATTACH=CONFIG]5043[/ATTACH]
The one guy wasn't up there
never owned that gun
and per his wife bore no grudge
Professor Poobah would have us believe
The killer awoke before dawn
He put his boots on
He took a chin from the ancient gallery
And he walked on down the stairs
Oh, but wait
He was not on the stairs
Was not at the window
Bore no GSR or grudge
And most assuredly could not have fired any then-known projectile
Effecting frontal wounding
From behind
which coincidentally
is where Poobah keeps his head
beware of a giant popping sound
when the box office passes sentence
on Parkland
The Surgeon Genreal of the Navy: (Rear) Admiral Edward C. Kenney
The Commanding Officer of the entire Bethesda Naval Medical Center: Vice/ Rear Admiral (Dr.) Calvin B. Galloway
The Commanding Officer of the National Naval Medical School: Captain John H."Smokey" Stover, Jr.,
The Director/ Commanding Officer, Bethesda Naval Hospital: Captain/ Dr. Robert O. "Jiggs" Canada, Jr., USN
The POTUS' personal physician: Rear Admiral Dr. George G. Burkley
The Commanding Officer of the Military District of Washington, D.C.: Maj. Gen. Philip C. Wehle
The Chief of Staff USAF: 4-star General Curtis E. LeMay
The Chief of Naval Operations: Admiral George W. Anderson Jr.
Kenney and Canada call Humes in the late afternoon: 1 HSCA 324: Dr. Humes---"I was summoned from my home late in afternoon of that day by the Surgeon General of the Navy and the Commanding Officer of the Navy Medical Center , and the Commanding Officer of the Naval Medical School , and much to my surprise, was told that the body of the late President was being brought to our laboratories and that I was to examine the Presdient and ascertain the cause of death."
Mr. Specter. What specific experience have you had, if any, with respect to gunshot wounds? Commander Humes.
My type of practice, which fortunately has been in peacetime endeavor to agreat extent, has been more extensive in the field of natural disease than violence.However, on several occasions in various places where I have been employed, Ihave had to deal with violent death, accidents, suicides, and so forth. Also Ihave had training at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, I have completeda course in forensic pathology there as part of my training in the overallfield of pathology.
The Surgeon General of the Navy... with any and all surgeons, doctors, pathologists and forensics specialists AT A TEACHING HOSPITAL specifically asks for and gets the WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE to perform the autopsy....
If an accurate and thorough autopsy was desired....
- Elsie Boehm Closson, Galloway's secretary:
7 HSCA 16, footnote 128---" Admiral Galloway instructed Elsie B. Closson, his secretary, to type the autopsy report and the supplemental report because he believed he needed a typist with a top secret security clearance.
Admiral Kenney, along with Humes, Boswell, Dannis David, Obersole and O'Connor are there when a shipping casket is brought to the morgue almost 90 minutes before the world would know an autopsy was occurring.
Who would be in a position to tell the Surgeon General of the Navy Kenney, Commander of the Naval Complex Galloway and Commander of the School Stover... who to choose to do the president's autopsy... ?
The Chief of Naval Operation - the man who would have been Chair of the Joint Chiefs was sent to Portugal after problems during the Cuban Missle Crisis - of which Anderson was in charge. ??
The NEW Chief David McDonald? USAF General LeMay? McNamara ?? McGeorge Bundy ??
The LABELS are what these men hid behind... issued orders from... and pulled off coup d'etat... with everyone looking ANYWHERE but at them...
How about "Conspiracy Realist"....
Peace
DJ
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Albert Rossi Wrote:My feelings are very close to those of Charles and Jan. Why label at all? It turns the whole thing into a question of who is right, them or us, when the question should be: what are the facts, and what do they tell us (or not tell us). Or as Jim put it: I deal in facts, and the conclusions that flow from them. If I have to refer to the people who have dedicated their talents, money, time and sometimes lives to unearthing some part of the truth of the matter, I refer to them as researchers or scholars or critics of the official position. But I prefer not to engage in the kind of discourse that repeatedly says: "LNs say this" or "CTs say that" (even if we found some more neutral label for the latter group). It is simply a distraction, and reinforces the ping-pong game that those who wish to diminish such efforts are wont to encourage.
But see, then in that LA Times article it then gets worse.
After not telling us the methodology or data used in the Nova experiment, they say they "have little hope that they will change those people's minds, no mater how good their science is...'That's because conspiracy theories make people feel safe.' McAdams says.
"There are a lot of advantages in believing in a conspiracy theory. People are proud to say, 'I'm skeptical. I don't buy the official version" he aid. "People don't fell comfortable believing that small, trivial causes--or sheer accident--can change history. They'd rather believe that dark forces are at work."
"I think there's something frightening about the idea of compete randomness--that you could just walk out of the house and get hit by a bus," said DeNooyer. "Its more comforting to think there's big, vast plan involved."
DeNooyer is the guy directing this dog and pony show. McAdams had them all on the same page. I wonder if McAdams was asked to explain why he lied about his name back at A COPA conference in the nineties. Or why he called Gary Aguilar a drug addict online. Nope.
Boy does this show sound a like a stinker or what. Boy and this DeNooyer guy must be a real sucker if he is falling for McAdams BS. Well, at least its not Robert Stone with Max Holland.
See, if you are doing nothing except using cheap smears in advance, and reveal not one iota about your process, then obviously the whoel thing is set up for the former and not the latter.
The above is the story on Rush. He reminds me of the late Mike Sullivan. Sullivan was the Frontline producer who did the horrendous Who was Lee harvey Oswald? in 1993 with Russo and Myers.
See, Myers tried to say that was an open ended inquiry. In other words it was not scripted from the start.
Well Sullivan just t died a few weeks ago. Myers finally wrote that Sullivan wanted to actually talk about the crime circumstance first before beginning.
LOL! ROTF!
With Russo and Myers informing him of the "circumstances" where was the show going?
We had to wait twenty years for that revelation.
Here, with McAdams on board, where was Rush going to go?
We should question him on Facebook now as to where he got his info. Because McAdams is not at all an MD.
13-08-2013, 03:34 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2013, 03:55 AM by Albert Rossi.)
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:"People don't fell comfortable believing that small, trivial causes--or sheer accident--can change history. They'd rather believe that dark forces are at work."
Let's ask McAdams if he is an atheist. Because the same argument can be used against religion. A positive answer there will lose the majority of his potential audience, who think that atheists are worse than rapists, according to a Canadian poll I read last year.
By the way, just to be clear about what I meant a few posts back. I think it's absolutely imperative to publish books which debunk this stuff. Because in books you have an apparatus called documentation. I just think trying to debate with these guys in any kind of rigged, supervised and packaged for TV context is rather futile. I suppose it must be done to reach a wider audience. But it always comes out badly because the deck is stacked.
I think we should take pride in the facts that first, regardless of all the propaganda in the last 50 years the overwhelming majority of people in the US and throughout the world believe the assassination was a conspiracy and second, the film "JFK" got Congress to pass the Records Collection Act. So, Hanks, and PBS, and O'Reilly, and Mack and McAdams, etc. can write/broadcast whatever crap they want to - the truth wins out.
Most people may not know the facts about the assassination but their gut tells them that the status quo is not true.
