ROBERT HANSON - Anatomy of a Disinformationalist

[Edward Prichard]

Wow what a bunch of strange cats here. I asked for simple responses about Horne not about my views. I finally have Horne's 5 vol. but won't get to them because I work fulltime at a very stressful job. When a friend said he had read them last yr. I asked for them for Xmas. My friend said the worst part of the book was the Greer part & I agreed with him based on his report. I am not going to totally dismiss Horne until I can make-up my own opinion with help from people here who may have read them. What do they put in the water in New Zealand? I think you must be an agent of that NZder that has the blog New Zeal.

WTF does my being from NZ have to do with anything lol. But yes. I agree with your friends analysis it is by far the worst part of Hornes book.

I would concur, Mr. Severson. This character seems too wound up and ready to pounce at any moment to be a bona fide researcher. You do not find this type of behavior tolerated in ANY serious, research-based community--and it is immediately discrediting. (Although NZ is a wonderful country.)

As for Volume V of Horne's book, it is as good as the rest--and I have read the entire V volume set. Of the SA Greer trajectory, Horne first states that "the tentative possibility does exist" but then goes on to use stronger language allowing the reader to understand that he is "even more convinced".

I've been researching the arguments for and against this theory--other than the ad hominem arguments--and have yet to find a single reasonable explanation for all of Greer's reported actions. As Horne states "everything fits together perfectly" when one considers Greer as the shooter. I look forward to your own review.

[Seamus Coogan]

Wow what a bunch of strange cats here. I asked for simple responses about Horne not about my views. I finally have Horne's 5 vol. but won't get to them because I work fulltime at a very stressful job. When a friend said he had read them last yr. I asked for them for Xmas. My friend said the worst part of the book was the Greer part & I agreed with him based on his report. I am not going to totally dismiss Horne until I can make-up my own opinion with help from people here who may have read them. What do they put in the water in New Zealand? I think you must be an agent of that NZder that has the blog New Zeal.

WTF does my being from NZ have to do with anything lol. But yes. I agree with your friends analysis it is by far the worst part of Hornes book.

I would concur, Mr. Severson. This character seems too wound up and ready to pounce at any moment to be a bona fide researcher. You do not find this type of behavior tolerated in ANY serious, research-based community--and it is immediately discrediting. (Although NZ is a wonderful country.)

As for Volume V of Horne's book, it is as good as the rest--and I have read the entire V volume set. Of the SA Greer trajectory, Horne first states that "the tentative possibility does exist" but then goes on to use stronger language allowing the reader to understand that he is "even more convinced".

I've been researching the arguments for and against this theory--other than the ad hominem arguments--and have yet to find a single reasonable explanation for all of Greer's reported actions. As Horne states "everything fits together perfectly" when one considers Greer as the shooter. I look forward to your own review.

Bob or is it really dick. I can say pretty much what I want here to you because the moderators and the people that run this sight generally feel the same way about the garbage your pulling. Now, why not go too that mythical and mystical forum up there in the sky. The one thats going to accept your Greer did it BS. How about the small fact that Greer had to fire through both Connally and his wife? Ever think of that one? Oh yes and you'll come back. Fools like you who start debates and preach sermons always do.

[Gil Jesus]

I've taken a lot of heat for not adding any "Greer shot JFK" to my Youtube channel. The truth is that I simply don't believe it.

I regret to say that I was one of those "suckers" to buy a copy of William Cooper's "Limo Driver Killed JFK" video. When I finally viewed it, I was shocked to see how "bleached out" the video was, IOW, way overexposed to light. When I viewed it next to the digitally enhanced version, I could see why. Cooper had "bleached out" the film so badly that the sunlight reflecting off of SA Kellerman's forehead appeared to be a "gun" in the hand of Greer. In addition, the way Cooper's version had Greer shooting, was left-handed over his right shoulder, a tough shot with a handgun IMO.

Cooper was a fraud and a nutcase who died in a shootout with sheriff's deputies who came to arrest him.

"....local police with a warrant for a couple of aggravated-assault warrants ( Bill was certainly guilty ) went up in force to Bill Cooper's house, letting on to be teenagers drinking and partying, with the radio turned up loud. Bill came out of his house and drove over to them, demanding that they get off of his mountain. Two officers jumped Bill in his car. Bill backed it up, shoved one officer out and shot the other one twice in the head with his forty-five, but did not inflict any life-threatening wounds. Bill ran toward his house, whereupon the entire contingent gave Bill what he had been asking for -- his martyrdom.

This was not a federal ninja action, nor a rogue-cop riot. Bill had gone over to Dr. Scott Hamblin's house and wagged a gun in his face, and seems to have done the same to another person as well. The officers wisely went prepared, as Bill had broadcast hundreds of times that he would not surrender and would kill anyone who came after him."

http://www.cyberclass.net/cooperupdate2.htm

I find it difficult to understand why anyone with any common sense, who is interested in the truth, would support a video that has been altered in order to present a visual falsehood that is not supported by any physical evidence or eyewitness account.

We call that perpetrating a fraud.

IMO, William Cooper's fraudulent video has done more damage to the search for the truth than anything since the Warren Report. I'm afraid that it will continue to do so for years to come thanks to his many followers.

Nothing serves the agenda of secrecy more than disinformation.

[Edward Prichard]

The truth is that I simply don't believe it.

Edited by Charles Drago to remove disinformation and repetitive photographic material.

[Gil Jesus]

The truth is that I simply don't believe it.

You must be aware that Cooper was not the originator of the theory.

Newcomb / Adams, Circa 1973, and Horne, Circa 2010 have provided a thoughtful analysis and remain convinced:

I don't believe it because it's just not supported by the evidence.

Why would the SS kill Kennedy in broad daylight and in front of witnesses when the CIA had a chemical that could have been added to his food, caused a heart attack and left no trace of itself in his bloodstream ?

C'mon, Now.

[Edward Prichard]

I can say pretty much what I want here to you because the moderators and the people that run this sight generally feel the same way about the garbage your pulling.

Sounds like the same rationale as a coverup. The conclusions are already determined and while there will be tolerance for haranguing, there will be no tolerance for controversial information--and the authorities will see to that.

This is not my "garbage". It is the "garbage" of two pioneering researchers named Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams. Have you ever heard of them--or do you just not want to--because you seem to be either ignorant or ignoring my references to their work?

You appear to excel at making a fool of yourself. If you cannot bring yourself to show proper decorum, I would suggest you simply refrain from further comment and allow a mature discussion to develop on this controversial subject.

[Edward Prichard]

I don't believe it because it's just not supported by the evidence.

Why would the SS kill Kennedy in broad daylight and in front of witnesses when the CIA had a chemical that could have been added to his food, caused a heart attack and left no trace of itself in his bloodstream ?

Generalities will not do. See above exhibits, testimony, and literature that supports it, and tell me why specifically, in your view they do not. And what of the work of Newcomb / Adams and Horne? You seem to be tiptoeing around their investigations.

The answer to your question has already been provided--SA Greer's alleged actions were perhaps an improvisation or "plan B" when the sniper team failed. SAIC Kellerman and SA Greer's recorded actions in the Zapruder Film certainly make it appear that way, don't they?

Further, the JFK assassination was perhaps designed to have a broader effect than just the elimination of the executive. Would you not concur that perhaps the CIA desired to frame the leftist to justify another invasion of Cuba and understood that a heart attack would not suffice?

Frankly, I'm surprised that such elemental questions are being asked. It as if IQs suddenly drop when the Greer theory is raised.

This exchange serves only to underscore my earlier point that the theory is "radioactive". There must be truth to it, for their certainly seems to be a "conspiracy" to dispense with it as quickly as possible--even at the risk of appearing illogical, ignorant, hypocritical, and downright rude.

[Charles Drago]

Now Severson joins hands with "Prichard."

It's official. We have been infiltrated.

I'm working hard right now to flush this waste product.

[Magda Hassan]

It's not radio active. It's been done to death years ago. This 'theory' has been around for a long time and has been debunked a long time ago. It is a dead duck and no one really wants to waste their time going over very old ground....

[Edward Prichard]

Where specifically has it been debunked? The contemporary effort below certainly was full of false statements and hallow assurances and therefore cannot be considered serious. Anywhere else?

[edited by charles drago to remove disinformation.]

Tsk, tsk, Mr. Drago.

Mr. Marrs' disinformation should be allowed to remain:

[Edited by Charles Drago. This entity "Pritchard," writing as "Robert Hanson," previously fabricated quotes, attributed them to me, and posted them on another forum. There is every reason to believe that the entity is attempting to do the same thing here and now with a piece allegedly written by Jim Marrs. "Pritchard" will not be allowed to play out his disinformation game on my watch.]