Discussion:
Meathead is going to tell us who killed JFK
(too old to reply)
JE Corbett
2023-12-08 15:06:54 UTC
Permalink
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/jfk-assassination-symposium-alec-baldwin-rob-reiner

But he's not going to spill the beans all at once. We're going to have to listen
to all ten parts of his podcast to find out.

Oh, boy. I can hardly wait.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-08 15:35:05 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 07:06:54 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/jfk-assassination-symposium-alec-baldwin-rob-reiner
But he's not going to spill the beans all at once. We're going to have to listen
to all ten parts of his podcast to find out.
Oh, boy. I can hardly wait.
Let's see if he offers more evidence than you do.

(That'll be easy!)
Steven Galbraith
2023-12-08 16:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/jfk-assassination-symposium-alec-baldwin-rob-reiner
But he's not going to spill the beans all at once. We're going to have to listen
to all ten parts of his podcast to find out.
Oh, boy. I can hardly wait.
He's done interviews where he's essentially repeated the Jefferson Morley claims about Oswald and CIA agent George Joannides and AMSPELL. Reiner says Joannides trained Oswald and blah blah blah. You can google and find the rest of the gibberish. Remember this theory: "they" framed a pro-Castro person (Oswald) in order to blame Castro and justify an invasion of Cuba in retaliation. Then "they" conducted a fake investigation that *cleared* Castro of any role. Huh? In this world that makes no sense; in conspiracy world it does.
This is simply more of the reverse engineering by the conspiracy advocates. They start with their conspiracy belief and then find information to support that theory. It's why, again, we have 100 different theories on what happened. Each conspiracist is simply projecting his or her own grievances onto this event and using it to promote those complaints. Same old same old....
JE Corbett
2023-12-08 16:25:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Galbraith
Post by JE Corbett
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/jfk-assassination-symposium-alec-baldwin-rob-reiner
But he's not going to spill the beans all at once. We're going to have to listen
to all ten parts of his podcast to find out.
Oh, boy. I can hardly wait.
He's done interviews where he's essentially repeated the Jefferson Morley claims about Oswald and CIA agent George Joannides and AMSPELL. Reiner says Joannides trained Oswald and blah blah blah. You can google and find the rest of the gibberish. Remember this theory: "they" framed a pro-Castro person (Oswald) in order to blame Castro and justify an invasion of Cuba in retaliation. Then "they" conducted a fake investigation that *cleared* Castro of any role. Huh? In this world that makes no sense; in conspiracy world it does.
This is simply more of the reverse engineering by the conspiracy advocates. They start with their conspiracy belief and then find information to support that theory. It's why, again, we have 100 different theories on what happened. Each conspiracist is simply projecting his or her own grievances onto this event and using it to promote those complaints. Same old same old....
It must suck being a new conspiracy hobbyist and trying to come up with a new angle nobody has thought of yet. That's why
the theories keep getting more and more bizarre.
Steven Galbraith
2023-12-08 16:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by JE Corbett
Post by Steven Galbraith
Post by JE Corbett
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/jfk-assassination-symposium-alec-baldwin-rob-reiner
But he's not going to spill the beans all at once. We're going to have to listen
to all ten parts of his podcast to find out.
Oh, boy. I can hardly wait.
He's done interviews where he's essentially repeated the Jefferson Morley claims about Oswald and CIA agent George Joannides and AMSPELL. Reiner says Joannides trained Oswald and blah blah blah. You can google and find the rest of the gibberish. Remember this theory: "they" framed a pro-Castro person (Oswald) in order to blame Castro and justify an invasion of Cuba in retaliation. Then "they" conducted a fake investigation that *cleared* Castro of any role. Huh? In this world that makes no sense; in conspiracy world it does.
This is simply more of the reverse engineering by the conspiracy advocates. They start with their conspiracy belief and then find information to support that theory. It's why, again, we have 100 different theories on what happened. Each conspiracist is simply projecting his or her own grievances onto this event and using it to promote those complaints. Same old same old....
It must suck being a new conspiracy hobbyist and trying to come up with a new angle nobody has thought of yet. That's why
the theories keep getting more and more bizarre.
True. You have to give credit to Morley for this one. It's very "sexy": CIA and spies and intrigue and secrets. Very seductive.
None of what Morley/Reiner claim has a thing to do with November 22, 1963 and the actual murder of JFK. It's just a series of Rube Goldberg type connections - CIA over here, spies over there, intrigue here, secret meetings: then you push the button and the bells ring and the hamster wheel spins and a ball drops and at the end JFK is dead.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-08 16:35:06 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 08:32:00 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
Post by Steven Galbraith
True. You have to give credit to Morley for this one. It's very
"sexy": CIA and spies and intrigue and secrets. Very seductive.
Was Joannides connected with Oswald?

Yes or no.

Or, as you ALWAYS do - you can run like the coward you are.
Post by Steven Galbraith
None of what Morley/Reiner claim has a thing to do with November 22,
1963 and the actual murder of JFK.
Support that.

But you won't.
Bud
2023-12-08 21:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ben Holmes
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 08:32:00 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
Post by Steven Galbraith
True. You have to give credit to Morley for this one. It's very
"sexy": CIA and spies and intrigue and secrets. Very seductive.
Was Joannides connected with Oswald?
Yes or no.
Will conspiracy crackpots ever take this anywhere?

No, they never will.
Post by Ben Holmes
Or, as you ALWAYS do - you can run like the coward you are.
Post by Steven Galbraith
None of what Morley/Reiner claim has a thing to do with November 22,
1963 and the actual murder of JFK.
Support that.
But you won't.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-09 17:57:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 13:31:58 -0800 (PST), Bud <***@fast.net>
wrote:

So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?

Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.

It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it. (Without immediately denying it.)

So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-08 16:32:19 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 08:25:19 -0800 (PST), JE Corbett
Post by JE Corbett
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/jfk-assassination-symposium-alec-baldwin-rob-reiner
Logical fallacies deleted. It must suck always trying to find new
logical fallacies to post.
Ben Holmes
2023-12-08 16:27:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 08:11:42 -0800 (PST), Steven Galbraith
Post by Steven Galbraith
Post by JE Corbett
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/jfk-assassination-symposium-alec-baldwin-rob-reiner
But he's not going to spill the beans all at once. We're going to have to listen
to all ten parts of his podcast to find out.
Oh, boy. I can hardly wait.
He's done interviews where he's essentially repeated the Jefferson
Morley claims about Oswald and CIA agent George Joannides and AMSPELL.
Reiner says Joannides trained Oswald and blah blah blah. You can
"they" framed a pro-Castro person (Oswald) in order to blame Castro
and justify an invasion of Cuba in retaliation. Then "they" conducted
a fake investigation that *cleared* Castro of any role. Huh? In this
world that makes no sense; in conspiracy world it does.
This is simply more of the reverse engineering by the conspiracy
advocates. They start with their conspiracy belief and then find
information to support that theory. It's why, again, we have 100
different theories on what happened. Each conspiracist is simply
projecting his or her own grievances onto this event and using it to
promote those complaints. Same old same old....
I find it amusing that you can't admit that George Joannides was quite
the dishonest choice for the CIA to work with the HSCA.

You clearly aren't interested in the truth, are you?
Hank Sienzant
2023-12-08 22:52:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven Galbraith
Post by JE Corbett
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/11/jfk-assassination-symposium-alec-baldwin-rob-reiner
But he's not going to spill the beans all at once. We're going to have to listen
to all ten parts of his podcast to find out.
Oh, boy. I can hardly wait.
He's done interviews where he's essentially repeated the Jefferson Morley claims about Oswald and CIA agent George Joannides and AMSPELL. Reiner says Joannides trained Oswald and blah blah blah. You can google and find the rest of the gibberish. Remember this theory: "they" framed a pro-Castro person (Oswald) in order to blame Castro and justify an invasion of Cuba in retaliation. Then "they" conducted a fake investigation that *cleared* Castro of any role. Huh? In this world that makes no sense; in conspiracy world it does.
Or as I asked a couple of conspiracy speakers in 1991 or 1992 in Dallas at a symposium, “Why would put Oswald in the *company of anti-Castro Cubans* (the Sylvia Odio sighting) if ‘they’ were going to frame him as a *pro-Castro lone nut*?

The answer I got (after a short conference between the two): “we don't know, but it worked!”
Post by Steven Galbraith
This is simply more of the reverse engineering by the conspiracy advocates. They start with their conspiracy belief and then find information to support that theory. It's why, again, we have 100 different theories on what happened. Each conspiracist is simply projecting his or her own grievances onto this event and using it to promote those complaints. Same old same old....
Ben Holmes
2023-12-11 15:24:30 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 8 Dec 2023 14:52:44 -0800 (PST), Hank Sienzant
<***@aol.com> wrote:

You've claimed that the "A.B.C.D." in the Autopsy Report is the
description of the *location* of the large head wound.

Yet you refuse time and time again from QUOTING the preceding
paragraph that describes what this ACTUALLY is. Why is that?

You've also claimed that the prosectors dissected the throat wound.

Why do you continue to refuse to cite any evidence for this?

Why have you CONSISTENTLY run away each time I raise this issue?

Now you've quite stupidly insisted that the bullet entered JFK's back,
and exited the back of his head.

More cowardice, more stupidity, more dishonesty.

Are you proud of yourself?

Loading...