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.
Call me a liar of you will, but it seems to me that the House committee is saying that a conspiracy killed the President of the United States. And still, you are a nut to say so.
Why was it done?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
127 comments:
Why was it done? Who knows. I have a theory to offer, but i dont do close enoughs.
Call you a liar? I have without hesitation and have shown you the 9-11 lies you perpetrated. You are a govern-mental (i do mean 'mental') conspiracy nut...lol
The difference is that you have mentioned that the JFK conspiracy involved the US government. Now its just a 'conspiracy' that killed him? Well DUH!!!
Now. Your own link doesnt show the governments role in this conspiracy, it still shows that some people conspired to have him killed (mafia part of my theory) and yes a few rogue elements within (my theory).
Just like i said about 9-11. Somehow it doesnt fit into your Governmental conspiracy theories.
I mean, if you could link the assassination of JFK, to the government, would it show a history of killing their own civilians liken to 9-11? Me thinks thats what you are trying to say without saying it.
Did the commitee say the Government played a role?
BIGDOG
Why don't you just say you don't know? We already know you don't do "close enoughs", you do "nowhere nears".
Marcus
I'd be glad to do you again....lol
I got some new stuff up guyz. here is the link.
http://wwdefender.blogspot.com/
Hey Jerry just so you know. MTJ will post your link to your blogsite if you ask him. That way you are not spamming each thread with your blogspot.
He will I didn't know that. I going to do that. Thanks for the info.
Also how do I ask him? Do I email him?
Ask him through email.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/
releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html
Oh look the investigation on WTC7 is done. Some would say an investigation wasnt thorough enough. MTJ even wanted a simulation done to show such collapse. For you nut jobs viewing pleasure. A 'conspiracy' did it...lol
!@!CHOP!@!
Marcuth...I can't wait to thee you again tonight.
Peter Puffer
If only I could be a slave to the Man like BIGDOG. Sigh.
Drew
p.s. BIGDOG is waiting with baited breath for Real ID and the chip under his skin. Oh and hey Chad!
Korean rap sucks.
I don't think Koreans even know how to Rap.
Drew is always insinuating things. Like Jerry needing a black woman to love on...e.g. Like BIGDOG being a slave to "the MAN'.
Hmmmmm.... yet another lie from a liberal douchebag...oh excuse me insinuation from a goof. In fact, i have called for smaller governmant on many levels and you know this Drew.
If you are refering to the MAN as the WHITE MAN; (somehow with your other racist insinuations towards Jerry, why not think this way). The only white man i serve is myself and my family. But Drew would like to insinuate otherwise.
Drew you ignorant fuck (EG), oh and dont worry the other one may drop soon, lets hope so. BTW your voice chnages tone on air, how old are you? I have long sense held back certian opinions towards you because of your 'know what i mean' style at the end of you every sentence. Why dont you say what you mean instead of insinuating your BULLSHIT and then asking 'know what i mean'. NO!! your ignorant fuck, i dont know what you mean.
Now to the mother of all fucktard comments.
"p.s. BIGDOG is waiting with baited breath for Real ID and the chip under his skin. Oh and hey Chad!"
First off Chad was on air when you posted this and probably wouldnt read your 'hey Chad'. Bwaahhhhhhhhhahah!!
Secondly you should ask me how i feel about ID chips instead of INSINUATING i would like them under my skin....You know what i mean...LMAO!!!!
Drew keep your implicatures to yourself. There are some excercises you can do to help your boys drop and straighten out your voice fluctuations. Know what i mean...HAHAHAHA!!!
!@!CHOP!@!
BTW MTJ. I would like for you to somehow replay your first part of the show. When you discussed. "a certian person who will go unnamed" and this post of yours.
I will call in (after you get back from you anniversary kickn it...lol) and we can discuss on air the live version/account of the way you portraid this post and my comment.....somehow ive got it all fucked up ...etc. Thats why im asking you to replay it. So i can refilter what you said.
Lets see if your boys needs a dropkick. In fact post a link here, for me to hear it again. Some of the shit you said, if i remmember correctly, would show once again how you leave information out to make your rhetoric smell better.
You conveniently left out the fact you called yourself a "liar, if you will". Then proceeded calling yourself "a nut to say so".
I obliged your shot across my bow, compounded on what you said about yourself. Now given our past conversations and knowing your techniques to lie and twist things. I know the comments was a shot across my bow and i commented on your differences in conspiracy (other than government) killed JFK and how somehow you dont draw any lines; (Well DUH!! was one of my comments). A conspiracy killed JFK....Well DUH!!! by definition your show is a conspiracy. You and KKFI conspire to have your smell on air. (oh ye quickly, the disclaimer)...lol
You cant link the JFK assassination to the US government. Its that simple. You would like people to believe otherwise. Insert your diatribe: "JFK conspiracy shows history of a shadow government, in our government, and somehow you want to twist 9-11 into it. "Call me a liar" and "your a nut to say so". Now lets wrap it up into a neat little package and call it conspiracy and imply the government did it.....hmmmmm prove it nutjob....HAHAHAHAHA!!!
!@!CHOP!@!
BTW you have 2 weeks to get ready and please post the audio. Dont be like the BBC and misplace that show....lol
Who cares if the government DID IT. Same as 9/11.
If the government ALLOWED it to happen and then ACTIVELY COVERED IT UP isn't that crime enough?
Lets say you kill someone, and I watch, and then help you get rid of the evidence....isn't that crime enough?
-Miles
BigDog doesnt mind the denver murals on my new blog
-Miles
Prove the cover up Miles. You cant. Prove they allowed it to happen. You cant. They have nothing to cover up. You just dont like the answers from the investigations you said never happened.
If you could, i would be on your side concerning this matter.
Richard Gages only reply to the final report through email. Ill post it for you.
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08
/richardGageAE911Truthwtc7
comments.pdf
His only 2 concerns was demonstrated in his email. Yet somehow he goes on tour and does a two hour show for money and now only has two concerns....Hmmmmmmm!!! you got some explaining to do. Seems to me his demonstartions are repleat with concerns. Now that the investigation are done Gages only has two concerns. Read it for yourself.
"The 9/11 Commission was set up to fail"
-Lee Hamilton
Why set up the investigation to fail, if not to cover something up?
Marcuth?
Again, I ask you, how can you possibly believe that every safeguard of the pentagon did not protect that building on September 11, 2001.
That is the proof. The fact that that building was hit IS the proof that they allowed it to happen.
..and, regarding all of your comments about "Prove the Government" this and that...
It's like I've been trying to explain. The Government is not an independent entity. They work for their constituency, unfortunately, currently, this is not you nor I.
The people who they DO work for can range from Bankers, Corporate Heads, Mafia, etc.
The funniest part of all of this, BigDog, is that you refuse to even ask what if.
What if it IS true, then what does it mean for your paradigm?
You always point to the interesting coincidences because the context is pointless to you. I mean there is a difference between outright action and suspicion.
If I was a betting man, then I would bet you wouldn't take this tone if there were contexts to suspect someone was harming one of your family.
You wouldn't need absolute proof in the face of convenient explanations to dangerously suspicious evidence.
9/11 or no, honestly, I don't care one way or another...9/11 is a symptom not the problem.
There IS a government conspiracy, whether it had jack shit to do with JFK or 9/11 does nothing to change that ultimate proven fact.
When you try to use the facts of 9/11 and JFK to prove conspiracy you're putting the cart before the horse.
Instead, look at all the other evidence of a conspired movement to work against the interests of the American People....Then figure in the way it is proven that this conspiracy operates to what you know about JFK and 9/11 and use your common sense.
Hey mild I comment on your blog. that stuff in Denver in airport is pretty messed up.
I also following your blog now.
I didn't know you had a blog even this is great. welcome to spreading the truth.
Miles = another Art Bell democrat
Mike
come on mike miles is a good guy. He is pretty reasonable sounding person.
I don't get this Art Bell is Democrat thing.
Art bell is a libertarian he has stated few times on his show.
Jerry, you need to find some older people who lived under the Soviet regime. Then, you will understand what the left is and why these people should be shot, not treated as equals. These libs are the intellectual descendents of the very people who caused the deaths of 100,000,000 people in their own countries during the 20th century. Read "The Black Book of Communism." They already have the blood of 50,000,000 American babies on their hands.
Haven't you noticed their odd praising of China from time to time?
Mike
Your right does won't shed one tear for 50 million death babies that have been aborted. All bitch about the human rights of third people and polar bears. the left is for hypocrites.
I don't know about the Art Bell Libertarian thing, he has talked about gun grabbing quite a few times on his show, but alas, that was the 90's when the media was pitting everyone against militias.
Although I do reject that I am a "Democrat"
The Democratic party (and by extension, the majority of the Republican party) is still the one group of people who still think that somehow giving government more money and power is the way to fix our problems.
Dang Mike, I figured as much as you listen to Ben's show you'd understand by now the flaws I see in having political parties to begin with.
I'm laughing at the Republican Party right now because after refusing to work with the Ron Paul revolutionaries for so long, they are now waking up and realizing that their party is screwed up and maybe they need new direction.
One only needs to read the top 3 responses at The GOP's Own rebuild the Party site to see where they went wrong this election season.
Miles said: "The 9/11 Commission was set up to fail"
-Lee Hamilton
Why set up the investigation to fail, if not to cover something up?
--------------------------------
WOW so here it is once again taking someones words and twisting them to create a meaning for your agenda. I call this a lie and/or misrepresentation.
Kean and Hamilton did say they were set up to fail; they did not say that they did fail. Kean and Hamilton didnt say the were set up 'to cover up' either. You are projecting your agenda into these quotes. This is the liberal way of dealing with issues; without any acknowledgment from you. Those men do not believe that the commission did in fact fail.
In fact the 9-11 committee was set up to examine why we went into Iraq and how to stop anymore attacks and better use of the intellegence. Hence Max Cleland's resignation, without any recognition from you, Cleland's concern was that the commission was not looking into the stated reasons for the Iraq War.
---------------------------------
More fucktard quotes:
"That is the proof. The fact that that building was hit IS the proof that they allowed it to happen."
HAHAHAHAHA!!! really???? Every safegaurd??? Are you saying there is a missle defense system on the roof of the pentagon, anti-aircraft gunnery, oh are you talking about how we scrambled jets to intercept #93 and Shanksville. How Cheney said the(shootdown,not standdown)orders hasnt changed. There is a powerfull 'what if' for you. You would like people to believe it was a standdown order, given by Cheney, 'what if' it wasnt. Well it wasnt. Mineta never heard anything saying to 'standdown' he knew it was the default order, but Mineta did ask Cheney if we did indeed shoot down the Shanksville plane. How so? if he hadnt given the orders to change the default orders.
So if the default order was not to shootdown until orders come form the appropiate channels, that would inidicate to a rational thinker, that an order had to be given to the contrary. Confirmed by a young mans concern also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?
An order was given by Cheney and it was not the default order already in place or the young man wouldnt have needed to ask; it was an order that contradicted the default order. Mineta projected his definition and confirmed his statements saying "When I overheard something about 'the orders still stand' and so, what I thought of was that they had already made the decision to shoot something down."
Contray to your belief miles the Vice President's role in ordering NORAD to stand down on 9/11 is a fallacy. That order was made by default in 2001, only orders from Cheney would have deemed concern from a young mans re-entrance (50,30,10 miles out) and questioning Cheneys given orders wich contradicted the default order. 'What if' the plane was the intercept plane? Oh theres that what if again.
Mineta said: "I remember later on when I heard about the Shanksville plane going down, the Vice President was right across from me, and I said, 'Do you think that we shot it down ourselves?' He said, 'I don't know.' He said, 'Let's find out.' So he had someone check with the Pentagon. That was about maybe, let's say 10:30 or so, and we never heard back from the DoD until probably about 12:30. And they said, 'No, we didn't do it.'"
Oh look shootdown orders was on Minetas mind. Wich would indicate he knew that the default orders, to standdown, were changed or he thought they were changed. Minetas mindset appears locked in on how the default orders were contradicted by Cheney. Yet for some strange reason he thought we had shot Shanksville plane down going against the protocol of the default standdown order. How so?? he knew the default orders was to standdown. Was he thinking Cheney went against protocol? no he was thinking Cheney gave the orders to shoot them down contrary to protocol.
You havent taken the appropiate amount of time to investigate this shit on your own. It is obvious.
!@!CHOP!@!
Typo
"(note) he was thinking Cheney gave the orders to shoot them down contrary to protocol."
Who is twisting whose words here. Again, your radical aggression stepped in before you actually read what I typed.
I said that Hamilton said they were set up to fail.
I never said Hamilton said they failed, however, they found really no fault which is fucked up considering they didn't look into issues when they knew they were clearly being lied to.
I never said Hamilton said they were set up to cover up.
This is where common fucking sense comes in.
Examine the facts.
Who set up the commission? What was the goals of the commission?
Take those 2 answers and then inject intent to create a failed result. What do you get? Common fucking sense says COVER UP
In the case of the Pentagon, I didn't mention any specifics...but here is one...The fact that the Pentagon sits in a triple no-fly zone. Here's another one. If the "Orders" that "Stand" were indeed "Shoot-down" orders then someone fucked up really bad. Not following orders from the VP (or failing the objective in a critical time of National Defense) should be serious enough to shake up the entire Defense Dept. Who was accountable? The world will never know.
Secondly, I harken back to "Why a cover up" in the issue of the Mineta testimony because ever since then, including in the commission, Cheney has consistently denied even being in the bunker with Mineta. Why would he do this?
Show me where cheney has denied being in the bunker with Mineta.
Does he say i dont remember? What exact quote do you have of this account of yours?
I did a google Cheny denied being in the bunker with Maneta. Only 6 hits maybe 7...and none showed Cheney denying anything let alone 'constently denying'.
Why would you make something up?
Typo
'consistently denied'
I jutht farted and thperm came out. Tee hee.
Marcuth
Now we're being picky about word choice...
how about "Conveniently remembers being elsewhere"
How about you show me where he says anything along the lines of Conveniently remembers being elsewhere and of course your other claim.
Im not being picky about word choice. You chose those words:
"Cheney has consistently denied even being in the bunker with Mineta. Why would he do this?"
and now you are bound by them. Now, prove your claim. Once again i believe this is the shit you lie about andor believe someone elses claims (Ben,PrisonPLanet...etc.) without validating them for yourself.
So, you now have two claims you need to validate for me. Chose your words wisely.
!@!CHOP!@!
Happy Thanksgiving everyone
Yepp....Happy Turkey Day!!
:)
LeanDOG
Whats wrong Miles. Run out of fraudulent things to say?
It's called a holiday you retarded jack off. Some people have more important things to do than preach common sense to the non-thinkers.
Which brings me to the other guy.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9368
“During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, ‘The plane is 50 miles out.’ ‘The plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got down to ‘the plane is 10 miles out,’ the young man also said to the Vice President, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’23
When asked by Commissioner Timothy Roemer how long this conversation occurred after his arrival at 9:20, Mineta said, “Probably about five or six minutes.” That, as Roemer pointed out, would have been “about 9:25 or 9:26.”24
During an informal interview in 2007, incidentally, Mineta reaffirmed that Cheney was already there when he arrived in the PEOC, saying “absolutely.” When he was told that the Commission had said that Cheney did not arrive until 9:58, Mineta expressed surprise and said: “Oh no, no, no; I don’t know how that came about.” Although Mineta said he “might have been mistaken on the 9:25,” he said that Cheney was definitely there before the Pentagon was struck, and “so was Mrs. Cheney.”25
Mineta’s 2003 testimony at the 9/11 Commission hearing created two problems for the official story of the day’s events. For one thing, it implied that Cheney---who, as he told Russert, was in contact with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld---knew that an aircraft was approaching Washington about 12 minutes before the Pentagon was struck. This implication directly contradicted the official claim, according to which Pentagon officials did not know that an aircraft was approaching their building. This claim was essential for explaining why because the Pentagon had not been evacuated, with the result that 125 Pentagon employees were killed. For example, one Pentagon spokesperson, having been asked why this evacuation did not occur, said: “The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way.”26
A second problem created by Mineta’s story involved the nature of “the orders.” Although Mineta assumed, he said, that they were orders to have the aircraft shot down, no aircraft approaching Washington was shot down. Mineta’s interpretation also made the young man’s question unintelligible. Given the threefold fact that the airspace over the Pentagon is categorized as “forbidden,” meaning that commercial aircraft are never permitted in it, that two hijacked planes had already crashed into the Twin Towers, and that still other planes had been reported hijacked, the expected orders, if an unidentified plane were approaching that airspace, would have been to shoot it down. Had Cheney given those orders, there would have been no reason for the young man to ask if the orders still stood. His question made sense only if the orders were to do something unexpected---not to shoot it down. The most natural interpretation of Mineta’s story, accordingly, was that he had inadvertently reported that he had heard Cheney confirm stand-down orders. "
Happy Thanksgiving
Still. You have shown no evidence of your two claims i asked validation for.
Happy African American Friday!!!
After looking further into this, I was wrong about the impact time of the plane hitting the pentagon. It was not Cheney altering his entry time into the bunker, it was the 9/11 commission, which still screams cover up to me. But whatever, I admit, I was wrong about Cheney differing from Mineta.
There still appears to be a slight difference, however, I'm not going to be picky on that point and I give you the win on this.
It still doesn't explain why the 9/11 commission's timeline for Cheney would be different, nor why this so-called "shoot-down" order needed a reaffirmation
We don't know, nor ever will know, what Cheney and Bush told that ridiculous commission. They didn't get to where they are leaving a trail of crumbs to be followed.
Marcus...are you an Art Bell democrat too?
Aren't you the guy that calls in to Ben's show and says, "Your show sucks", all the time? I'm sure that Ben mentioned, on one of his shows, that Art Bell does not think that our government was involved in the 9/11 attacks. That makes your pigeon hole look like a turkey coop, I guess that's why you still try to stuff it. C'mon, Mike, you can do better.
NO miles you are wrong and i do win. You lied and got burned. Thats what you get for believing others who are batshitnuts. Plus you are guilty as hell for not reading the 9-11 commisions report, i supposed you lied about that too.
If you would take carefull observation and study of this matter(wich you didnt), you would understand why Mineta testimony had no bearing in the report. His recolections were off. By all accounts and deducing evidences to a conclusion, (pg 40 9-11 commisiion report)says and i quote: "We have concluded, from the available evidence, that the Vice President arrived in the room shortly before 10:00,perhaps at 9:58. Mineta: "“might have been mistaken on the 9:25"
Plus Minetas testimony didnt jive with other accounts in the bunker. Josh Bulton, Lynn Cheney, Libby and others didnt exactly coloborate Minetas testimony.
So a logboook (The Vice President
entered the underground tunnel leading to the shelter at 9:37.209Once inside,Vice President Cheney and the agents paused in an area of the tunnel that had a secure phone, a bench, and television. The Vice President asked to speak to the President, but it took time for the call to be connected.
He learned in the tunnel that the Pentagon had been hit, and he saw television coverage of smoke coming from the building....The Secret Service logged Mrs.Cheney’s arrival at the White House at 9:52,
and she joined her husband in the tunnel.), phone calls, people in the bunker and tunnel taking notes. Gave us an idea of timming, not condusive to Minetas testimony.
Others testimonies were not included ,like Minetas, but yet didnt tell the same story. BTW Mineta is an X spook, can you trust him?
Cheney gave orders to engage the shanksville plane, it is that simple. The conversation Mineta said he heard, made it sound like the pentagon plane was (50 miles out) not shanksvilles. Minetas confusion and admitting error in his memory and giving the mass confusion and communication problems of that day. You want to hang your conspiratory hat on testimony from an X spook, who obviously was very confused on that day, as were many others. BTW Mineta also stated he thought it was a shoot down order. Not the way you nut jobs would like to spin it tho.
!@!CHOP!@!
BTW Miles i forgot to mention, kudos to you for being honest. My respect for you has grown some.
LeanDOG. Not so much after turkey day...lol
Although, I didn't knowingly, deceptively lie. I made a mistake, and owned up to it.
Again, the coverup is still there though, just not Cheney, it's the 9/11 commission.
As far as Mineta being an X spook, he was the one perpetrating the idea that the "Orders" were shoot down, so no, I don't 100% trust him either, but as my wrongness pointed out, his story kinda aligned with Cheney's version of events. As Marcus said, who knows what Cheney said to the commission, but it is suspect that Cheney's timeline of events from "Meet the press" is so different from the commission report.
The coverup of the 9/11 commission DOES exist, just as the warren commission. which is what my intent in this thread was to point out.
Dood. You havent even read the 9-11commission report. I would think that one who claims there is a cover up would have read the damn thing 3 or 4 times. Gages email shown only two concerns about wtc7. Is that it?? is that all the concerns you have also Miles?? I thought this was about a knew investigation and Gages email is NOT repleat with concerns???
I mean...are you serious??
I knew what your intent was, but you spun off at the handle when i even mentioned how Hamilton didnt say cover up...etc.
Sorry Minetas testimony didnt jive with everyone elses story, including forensic evidence of Cheneys wifes arrival.(logbook)
If you knew of Cheneys shootdown orders and so on. How is it you still try to convey your mis-information?? To the informed you lose respect. To the un-informed, well they lose out because of you and your ilk. Then i get called rude and uncivil because i point out your lies, i mean a mistake. BTW the only mistake you made was trying to get away with your twooofer BS!!
Guyz I got some new stuff up on my blog. You really look at this. It has something to do with Passé Comitatus Act and the pentagon deploying 20,000 troops in the US. Its something you might find interesting and even scary.
http://wwdefender.blogspot.com/
Sorry Bigdog, you inject your own interpretations of opposing arguments.
How do you have a clue what I have or haven't read?
Additionally, I don't know where you're trying to take this fucking argument but your tactic is suspect.
You argue 2 points that weren't being debated.
First, I never mentioned the content of Gage' email. I am not Gage. Do not group everyone's concerns with what one person has to say.
Secondly, I was arguing the same thing about Mineta's testimony, you called me a liar, I re-looked into it, Admitted I was wrong and then YOU ARGUE THE SAME FUCKING THING I WAS WRONG ABOUT.
Mineta had Dick Cheney's time approximately right (if you go by what Cheney said on Meet the Press), and it was the 9/11 commission that was WRONG!
the 9/11 commission is a fucking joke at every level.
Twisting the argument by bringing up unnecessary strawman points will not make you look more intelligent.
Again, I never said Hamilton never directly used the words "Cover-UP" however, if you look at who set up the commission, and if they "set it up to fail...." You don't ask why? Why would the 9/11 commission be set up to fail?
The administration tried to block the investigation, then they tried to control it.
he knew they were set up to fail because they weren't the "First choice" and they weren't allowed proper access to evidence and testimony.
If these points don't say COVER-UP in big red flashing letters, then I'm sorry Big Dog, You have lost all sense of reasoning and there is no point in continuing this conversation.
Oh and another thing. You get called Rude and Uncivil not for what you bring up, but the way in which you choose to frame your arguments.
Your posts are full of insults and self-ego stroking. Ending 50% of your arguments with "!@!CHOP!@!" implies that you feel some sense of success in your own ego after every thought that comes across your beer stained brain.
You twice called into question the validity of Mineta, who apparently was honorable enough to work in the Bush administration, which isn't saying much.
And the way in which you done it (calling him an "X Spook") I guess was meant to be an insult, but tbh, I've never heard the term. Sounds like something to do with X-Files and the like, which to me isn't that good of an insult.
If my assessment of what "X Spook" means is correct, then they, to me, make a lot more sense in the scheme of things than the majority of Fox-Educated moron zombies out there.
You say things like "NO miles you are wrong and i do win. You lied and got burned. Thats what you get for believing others who are batshitnuts"
The last time I heard anyone act like this over such a trivial "win" was in High School playing Magic: The Gathering. and my opponent won and got up and danced saying "haha, you lost, I owned you!!"
You get called rude and uncivil because instead of using tact and etiquette, you choose bravado and an uncouth attitude.
But I guess it's fitting since you defend Dick Cheney's position.
After all, he's the one who, while in the halls of gentlemen, told a sitting US legislator to "Go Fuck Yourself"
Why lie then Miles? I dont care if you admitted to being a mistake, i mean making a mistake. Why lie? Will you, can you answer this? If you truelly gave me an answer that explains this, then please enlighten me.
You are no better than the politicians you accuse of lieing, cover up (denotes lieing) and last but not least, murderers. You even lied to me about calling them murderers and then later in another thread said they were. You denied saying it, then you said it, in a different post. Funny isnt it?
You accuse the government of murder, cover up...etc. You are worried about the 'halls of gentlemen'? Are you fucking serious!?! You believe the halls of gentlemen are all crooks and murderers, members of the new world order...etc. Now you are concerned about one man, saying go fuck yourself to his ilk. WOW you are totally grasping at anything, talk about strawman. What doesnt change? the fact you lied or believed someone elses lie and expoused your position to it. Nothing has changed...!@!CHOP!@!
HAHAHAHA!!! it is actually really simple. You lie, you get caught. You did mention cover up, you mention lots of things, and as i point out how wrong you are, i always enjoy a !@!CHOP!@!.. (up your BULLSHIT!!! at the knees)
I really dont care how uncivil i get or how rude i get explaining why you are full of shit. Maybe next time you wont lie to me and next time would be more deserved of respect and civility....LMAO!!! You keep lieing, like MTJ and i will continue to be uncivil in pointing it out...LMAO!!!
Oh and i do know you havent read the commission report. How you say? Easy. You didnt know anything about the timeline/evidences within, written in the 9-11 report. Because that report would have stopped your lies from spreading. It didnt, so you dismissed it and spread your lies anyways or you didnt read it. Unless of course you are a purposefull liar or you didnt read it. I chose the later and thats uncivil of me...DOH!!!
Secondly you keep saying cover up, implying cover up. I hold you to it and you cry about it. Truelly if it was set up to fail and it didnt fail what now? It didnt fail, its that simple. You just dont like the answers, if you have read them that is. Now i hold you accountable and thats uncivil....LMAO!!
High scool play you say. Did you even read your script?...HAHAHAHA!!
Oh thats right, now its all about high school games and my attitude pointing out your lies. NO SIR its all about how you have lied on countless occasions, i have pointed those lies out, and now you cry its all about highscool games im playing with you...HAHAHAHA!!!! did they teach you to lie in school? At my school you got in trouble for lieing.
So men and Marcus. Miles says its ok to lie, its ok to perpetrate lies. Its ok to accuse people of murder, with only lies to make such accusations. Interesting dichotomy you have put yourself in Miles.
In typical liberal fashion its not if you are guilty, its the seriousness of the accusations.
!@!CHOP!@! (in an uncouthed mannor of course) BTW there is nothing strange about me pointing out your obvious lies.
BTW i asked my son. Magic is a card game. I though it was a play or someshit.
Beer stained brain??? Miles im going to say one thing to you. I dont drink, i have been known to have a few beers/wine at a party but thats about it. BTW dont preach civility to me when you throw that out at me. Are you accusing me of being an alcoholic or something? However if it makes you feel better and covers up your lies then be my guest.
!@!CHOP!@!
The only thing deserving of a response in that whole idiocy of a post is the fact that it was Hamilton himself that said the commission was set up to fail.
If the members of the commission can see that and you can't, then that just shows your objectivity on the subject.
!@!DICE!@!
Lets continue to argue over 9/11 when there are 20,000 troops in the homeland
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002217_pf.html
It wasnt set up to fail, they thought it was. This was two peoples opinions and first impressions. Aks them now if they have failed thier mandate? I'll post that for you in a few.
I cant find anything that says they failed in anything. So if it was set up to fail and didnt fail. Well Miles that say alot about your state of mind. LOONEYTUNES!!!
Notice how odd ducks write books and then say something to sell them.
Solomons interview with Hamilton; about his book.
"Solomon: You write.. the first chapter of the book is 'the Commission was set up to fail.' - my goodness, for the critics - who suggest that it was indeed set up to fail as some kind of obfuscation - you certainly dangled a juicy piece of bait out there in the river. Why do you think you were set up to fail?
Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.
We had a lot of skeptics out there, who really did not want the Commission formed. Politicians don’t like somebody looking back to see if they made a mistake.
The Commission had to report right, just a few days before the Democratic National Convention met, in other words, right in the middle of a political campaign. We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. We knew the history of commissions; the history of commissions were they.. nobody paid much attention to 'em.
So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail. We decided that if we were going to have any success, we had to have a unanimous report, otherwise the Commission report would simply be filed."
Read the whole thing Miles. Linked below. How is it they failed? Guessing you believe it what was set up, to have an certian end result, and it didnt happen. Again you dont like the answers because it doesnt match your mindset...BATSHITNUTS!!! HAHAHAHA!!!
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html
You are injecting your mindset of failure, into Hamiltons (he thought they WERE set up to fail) impressions of the situation after they arrived late into the mix. He also states how people did cooperate, it just took longer, because of their skepticisms and also discussed how there is a continueing investigation into the lies from FFA and NORAD.
Oh look more investigations you are crying for and are not happening according to you...hmmmmmmmmmmmm....you got some explaining to do!!!
!@!CHOP!@!
BTW i saw Jerry post on the above. I responded on his blog.
With the utmost respect MTJ (NOT!!!) lol. Can you post the audio to the begining of your show. You know the one i asked for. You dont record your show. I thought NIKI did?
I really do want to make sure im hearing it right so i know i have the context correct. I know im asking you to shoot yourself in the foot but hey i have to ask...LMAO!!!
Strawman, Strawman, Strawman.
I asked for motive, Bigdog, not result.
I didn't ask IF they failed.
I asked WHY they would be "SET UP TO FAIL"
That is a quote from them.
I don't give a shit what they accomplished.
Hamilton said "Set up to fail"
WHY, BigDog, WHY would you set the commission up to fail?
I dont give a shit if you think they overcame the odds and succeeded in the face of failure.
(I think differently, but fuck it)
The point is you dodge the fucking question by bringing up these strawmen arguments that are not even responses to what I am asking?
Can you think of any motive in the world why someone would short-change the investigation into the events which began this "War on Terror" that we spend Trillions of dollars on each year?
The point is, the administration WANTED them to fail (even if you, them, and the fucking easter bunny thinks that they succeeded)
Why Cheney and Bush testify together without taking oath?
Why fight to get Kissinger on the commission?
Why not answer more than 30% of the family's questions?
Just face it, the parameters in which the commission was set up to operate, and the "goal" that was set for them, WAS the cover-up. If they succeeded...that pretty much tells me they succeeded to white-wash over real issues (building 7 anyone? Hamilton?)
Guess you will have to take up your failure claim with Hamilton. I posted his interview and he never mentioned once they failed. Looks like you dont like the answers you received from the investigations.
Poor itty bitty Miles....LMAO!!!
!@!CHOP!@!
Oh and Kissinger was removed and replaced by Hamilton. What do mean they faught to get him on it. I dont recall that. He was removed, i do recall that.
Is this another one of your lies?
I got sum new stuff of blog on my guyz.
http://wwdefender.blogspot.com/
Again, For the hard headed
The question is WHY
WHY set it up to fail?
can you answer that?
asked 3 times now, you can do it, third time is a charm.
Again, not asking the result of the 9/11 commission, Not asking IF it failed, I'm asking WHY it would be "Set up to fail"
Motive, not result.
Motive, not result.
Motive, not result.
or just admit you can't answer the question without admitting cover up BigDog.
...and "Oh and Kissinger was removed and replaced by Hamilton. What do mean they faught to get him on it"
How did he get "On" it in the first place?? Oh yeah, the Administration put him there against the protest of the families and then gave in to the demands because they knew the families wouldn't take the commission seriously as an impartial investigation with good ol' Henry at the helm
Marcus spewed: WHY set it up to fail?
can you answer that?
asked 3 times now, you can do it, third time is a charm.
HEY DUMBASS!!! i posted a link to the guy that said it and expalined what he meant and how his position changed over time. READ his thorough explaination in the interview. I even posted a lil snipit of his explaination. He answered his own critique/opinion in the beggining, wich later changed. They didnt fail and they didnt cover anything up. If Hamilton had said, even after his book was written, they failed and didnt meet their mandate because they (Bushies) were trying to cover things up. Then you would have a case and i would support your position. I'll reitereate: The lies by NORAD and FFA are being investigated (Judiciary) because they found the were not honest in their explainations. (perjury comes to mind)
They (Bushies) didnt fight to get Kissinger on. They may have appointed him because of his experience. However you have lied once again. Showing your dishonest practices once again. The real story goes. They (Bushies) appointed him and the families fought to have him removed. There is a big difference in the characture of your claim. Sure sounds better for your cover up position if your claim was true. It isnt and you know it....considering the next quote of yours.
"or just admit you can't answer the question without admitting cover up BigDog."
I dont have to answer, Hamilton did. There was no cover-up concerning the 9-11 comm. mandates. There was no CD. There was no standdown orders coming from Cheney. There was no damage to WTC7...etc. Every position you have hailed your Bullshit from, has been thoroughly debunked. There was plenty of investigations and you just cant stand that their answers dont support your position.
Well i hope you dont kill your father like one other 9-11 nutjob did just recently. You all are batshitnuts.
So im hearin BDS again:
BDS: "Bush stole the election, Bush fucked up Katrina, he fucked up Iraq and Afgh, he fucked up the economy, he fucked up America. Yet he orchestrated the biggest one day murdering spree of all time, on his own citizenry, and successfully blamed it on 19 men in a cave, with no whistleblowers coming forward...WAHOOOOO!!! hes is smarter than you give him credit for.
Miles for once in your life tell the truth and stop these lies you hear from other people and take as gospil. You are so full of credulousness its sickning.
A. I'm not Marcus so you're a liar!!!
(using your logic of any mistake automatically makes a person a liar)
B. You still dodge the question, so just admit you can't answer it without admitting that you're wrong. I mean it's black and white text, I don't see how it is so hard for you to comprehend the question. I didn't ask if Hamilton modified his reasoning, I didn't ask if the 9/11 commission succeeded in its mandate. I asked for you to do a mental exercise for
one second and ask yourself "If someone was setting up a 9/11 commission, and they set it up to fail, what motive would one have for doing it that way?"
C. Again, on all the other points, you've reduced the argument to attacking me and why I take my point of view instead of the issue at hand, so there is no reason to debate any further,
D. You're as ignorant as the Media "Bush flew the planes"....."Bush had a plunger under his desk wired to the buildings" Reducing our argument to "Bush did it" only discredits your cause.
It discredits your cause. You are a disgrace to intellectual honesty.
"If someone was setting up a 9/11 commission, and they set it up to fail, what motive would one have for doing it that way?"
It doesnt matter what the answer is, the fact is it didnt fail. Your implications are 100% rhetorical, unless in fact it did fail. They failed in setting it up to fail. I can agree to that to a point. The only motive is what you are implying and it isnt factual.
Prove they succeeded in its failure, and you have a case. The fact is you dont have a case and there was no cover up because the set up to fail didnt happen. You can say cooperation was slower than what some would have liked. I can agree to that also. But cover up? NOPE!!! and you will have to do better than two mens opinions on the commision selling a book.
You have mind issues. I defer to Hamilton and you say it isnt good enough are someshit. Then i guess his expalination doesnt deserve anymore merit than his opinion at the onset of his tenure.
A. Yepp. However my mistake is more legit than your lies, the ones you have been expousing for a few years now. See, one time, verses all the time, shows a mistake happens less frequent and for a few years shows a pattern of deceit. You sir fit that later. I laso want to point out my last sentence addressing you Miles.
"Miles for once in your life tell the truth and stop these lies you hear from other people and take as gospil. You are so full of credulousness its sickning."
Yepp kinda shows my mistake wasnt a lie. Yet i havent had any problem pointing out yours.
!@!CHOP!@!
So refuse to answer the question?
q
u
e
s
t *dodge*- BIGDOG - *dodge*
i
o
n
Prove the cover up first. Its just that simple. Show me something that said they failed in their mandate and show me something that proves there was a cover up. I bet you dont even know their mandate. OMG thats what it is. You dont know...HAHAHAHAH!!!!
I answered it. So did Hamilton.
"You have mind issues. I defer to Hamilton and you say it isnt good enough are someshit. Then i guess his expalination doesnt deserve anymore merit than his opinion at the onset of his tenure."
No, it just isn't relevant to the question being asked. You can twist it, skew it, flip it, flrp it, but Hamilton's "opinions" on the result of the commission's findings do not change his statement that they were "set up to fail" and that someone would have motive to set the commission up in such a manner
q
u
e
s
t *dodge*- BIGDOG - *dodge*
i
o
n
t
r
u*dodge*- Miles - *dodge*
t
h
Just answer the question!!
I'm not going to go round and round with your circular logic.
Either follow up with a real answer to my real question, or admit you can't answer it without implying a cover-up.
Don't Defer me to Hamilton, Don't repeat some tired old line from politicians or the Media. Just think about the question, what it means, and then answer it to the best of YOUR ability.
I don't give a shit if you think it to be rhetorical, even rhetorical questions have relevance when proving motive of a cover-up.
I did i said no cover up!!!
"But cover up? NOPE!!! and you will have to do better than two mens opinions on the commision selling a book."
Their oppinion are accusations dood and are not proveable unless they did fail. I cant believe you are subverting the system of innocent until proven guilty for your fucking cause. You sir have got the process all wrong. NOW PROVE COVER UP OR FUCK OFF!!!...LMAO!!!!!
You believe there was and i dont. Stubborn kid. NOW PROVE IT!!! i gave you the interview of the very man and what his thought process was and how his oppinion changed. You havet read any of it. So why bother.
You clearly lied about Kissinger and got that all wrong also.
WHY WAS IT SET UP TO FAIL?
q
u
e
s
t *dodge*- BIGDOG - *dodge*
i
o
n
I dont know why. I dont make up accusations without proof.
I didn't ask what the answer WASN'T
I asked what the answer WAS
If it is rhetorical, then how are you making accusations?
t
r
u*dodge*- Miles - *dodge*
t
h
Anonymous said...
I dont know why.
t
r
u*dodge*- Miles - *dodge*
t
h
t
r
u*dodge*- Miles - *dodge*
t
h
t
r
u*dodge*- Miles - *dodge*
t
h
Mild said...
Either follow up with a real answer to my real question, or admit you can't answer it without implying a cover-up.
Anonymous said...
I dont know why.
Let the observers be the judge
Yes lets observe the evidence you have of the cover up.
Dont subvert our legal system and prove your case.
Let your evidence be the judge.
t
r
u*dodge*- Miles - *dodge*
t
h
My evidence is that the powers that be set up the commission to fail.
Reported by Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 commission.
And I have yet to hear one good reason why someone would do that, if not to cover-up the truth about the crimes of Sept. 11
Just as the last official government word on the Kennedy Assassination says......"Conspiracy"
My work here is done.
You see, You look at these events as a judge and jury.....I'm still at the police investigation stage.
But these events are but small blips on the bigger picture.
You can toss around words like "Conspiracy Theory" and "Nutjob"
Yet, you refuse to accept what ramifications the truth can hold for you.
20,000 troops in the homeland BigDog.
By Design.
It's not a response to the "Katrina" cries for Fed emergency management. (If it was, it wouldn't be 3 and a half years later for a plan)
9/11 isn't the conspiracy, JFK isn't the conspiracy, these events are merely SPECULATED to be the WORK OF THE KNOWN CONSPIRACY.
The New World Order is VERY real. The CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral, Bohemian Grove....these things DO exist. These people set their agendas for what they want the world to look like.
Then they put their plans into place with a beautiful marriage of Government, Media, Corporations, and Banks.
The Bankers fund it all, put their puppets in the government, the media spins it nicely so you don't have to use your own thought on the matter, while the corporations allow for a control grid of drugs, GMO food, and other ways for us to "go to sleep"
You can call this post crazy, call me crazy, call me looney, call whatever, I don't care.
This is textbook world history, these events have happened over and over again throughout time.
When they are devalue your 401k and put troops on the streets, you can call me a Tin-Foil hat wearer, while YOU stand in the FEMA bread lines.
They are bringing in 20,000 troops to run your life, and if that isn't good enough to shut you up, they got Mexican and Canadian troops at the ready.
And yes, 100% of this is either based on rhetorical, historical, or circumstantial evidence but when millions of examples of such evidence are across news wires consistently, There is no burden of "Proof"
This is real life. Not some episode of "Matlock"
If a court rules wrong due to lack of proof, the consequences are limited to those involved in the case.
If you judge this wrong due to lack of "Proof," this is your LIFE and COUNTRY coming to an end as you know it.
Prepare anyway, and you are prepared anyway. There is nothing wrong with preparation.
But go ahead and use this time to attack everything I just said.
Verichip doesn't exist.
SPP is just a plan for storing goods.
The Combat Brigades are for motorist aid.
Blackwater and KBR are just friendly security guards who just happen to train for combat missions
The Council on FOREIGN RELATIONS does not discuss global policies
The Bilderberg Group does not exist
The mainstream media is not controlled by 6 companies
The mainstream Drug market is not controlled by 5 companies
The mainstream food market is not controlled by 7 companies
Banking is not controlled by the Federal Reserve, whose private ownership is not secretive
None of the above organizations lobby congress or have anything to do with the election of politicians.
"My work here is done."
Ummm....i still dont see any evidence of cover up.
Thats why you are done here.
!@!CHOP!@!
t
r
u*dodge*- Miles - *dodge*
t
h
...and if you believe anything at all in my last post, ask yourself if their motives synch well with what you want out of your life and country.
Again,
My evidence is that the powers that be set up the commission to fail.
Reported by Lee Hamilton of the 9/11 commission.
Take it for whatever you want, say that's not good enough. I don't care.
That's my answer.
Case Closed.
Argument Over.
The only closed case is your mind.
You are trying to convince me of a cover up, and a set up to fail commission, that didnt fail. It was set up to fail but it didnt fail arguement is circular and has 0 merit.
I have examined this issue thoroughly since and have reviewed it once again. Yeh i was stalling to re-evaluate your claims. I know now your claims are hogwash and you left at certian details, that when left out, would strengthen your position. MTJ does this also. To put things in pespective and to be more articulate in my questions and trying to remain civil with you.
First off Congress and Bush both appointed the 9-11 commission. There was a mandate set. I suggest you read up on its mandate first.
Help me understand:
1)Are you saying the mandate was designed in such a way to create a failed commission?
and
Can you prove to me the mandate created a failed commission. Did they fail?
Did Hamilton and Kean co-author a book two years afterwards?
Yes. In it they claimed "the commission was set up to fail" and listed a host of reasons for what created their oppinions during the commissions process. I posted Hamiltons interview for your reading pleasure. Those reasons (read up)...a late start, stalling for funding (congress) and time extension was granted (congress) and, he also mentioned lies from the FFA and NORAD even the PENTAGON and how the CIA not getting them documents in a timely manor. They are investigating (Judiciary) these acts of perjury FFA and NORAD..etc.
I say the system is handling it in accordance to our legal system. You know "innocent until PROVEN guilty". Two mens oppinion does not denote hard evidence, but only hearsay. Based on the fact the commission didnt fail, shows their oppinion isnt factual. You want to subvert the legal system imply failure when it didnt fail. Fine by me, but i can only deduce...#2.
2)Are you sure you are an American and support the constitution and our legal process? Its doesnt sound that way to me.
Did the commission fail?
NO. It didnt make everyone happy either. I believe hole heartedly this was all about politics and jockeying for position to re-gain seats and to tarnish the Repubs party. I called it a political document on MTJ show,long ago, and it still is today.
You talked exclusively that Bush and Cheney (BDS), did not testify under oath. This you considered part of the (coverup/"set up to fail"). Well i also want to point out neither did Clinton or Gore. Guess you wanted to leave that part out. BTW neither did Rice. So because everyone else testified under oath and they didnt.
Help me understand:
2) Are you saying that all five of those people mentioned, not under oath, are they the masterminds behind the conspiracy of 9-11 andor, Can you prove coverup?
Im so glad you did admit its over for you. I knew this was coming. Get tuff on a liberal and they flee.
!@!CHOP!@@!
A. I'm no Liberal. I don't believe in political labels, as most people don't fit into one category.
B. I never said I was a 9/11 "Expert"
C. I only wanted to make a point, point was made. I do not wish to get into a discussion on mandates and people.
D. This is a discussion between average guys meant as a mental exercise of common sense and thought processes, not a court of law with procedures and loopholes.
E. As far as anyone being the "Mastermind" I don't know. I don't know what happened on 9/11. In my heart, the only way it could have been Osama, is if he infiltrated our infrastructure and procedures to a level unseen by most intelligence agencies. Undetected. And in my heart, I don't believe that could be possible without certain powers that be allowing it to happen.
F. I thank you for trying to be civil in that post, and even posting supporting arguments for a cover-up. Again, I didn't intend for this argument to go that deep into actual facts and events,I said before, I'm not going to debate 9/11 constantly anymore, it just ain't my issue. I just wanted a little verifiable thought toward coverup to be acknowledged.
G. My mention of Bush and Cheney was merely due to the way they openly refused the oath. I honestly wasn't too aware at who took oath and who hadn't. I think they all should have taken Oath, Especially Clinton. I personally think Clinton is a criminal who should be locked away for treason for signing NAFTA without a mandate.
A. You are not a liberal. OK i take it back. You do act like one when challenged tho. No problem i except your word for it.
Still on the table...
Help me understand:
1)Are you saying the mandate was designed in such a way to create a failed commission?
and
Can you prove to me the mandate created a failed commission. Did they fail?
B. I'm no expert either and so are these people you repeat and get your nonsense from. However, i do know, i am more informed then a lot of people, especially in the field of metal erecting and structural steel. I guess that's why i have a hard on against Gage and Jones. I actually think you have more intelligence than they do, but you add to their dissemination's, when you repeat their shit without verifying it.
C. and D. Is this your way of poo pooing a discussion as to mandates. When in fact the mandate dictated how a bi-partisan commission gets set up (deduced to a political document IMHO) and the set up syndrome of going with experienced politicians. I don't get your problem with discussing it. The question i asked is still on the table (read up). So you poo pooed a legitimate questions as to how you discerned a cover up; without getting into a discussion about it. WOW!!!! Alright then!!
The question examines the content of what you are saying and is a very valid question. I am using common sense. I am also letting these lies be investigated and if anyone will be held accountable, if found to have perjured themselves.
You call the right of due process to a citizen of this country a loophole? (They are citizens first BTW). Is that what you are saying. Its sounds like you don't think your comments through. Why were some under oath if this has nothing to due with law. I didn't like the fact those other five were not under oath. However i don't get that either and didn't like it.
E. Who are these alleged certain powers? Can you be less vague.
That whole list of supreme beings??..;)
F. OK i accept your verifiable thought premise (opinion), to a point. I do not except a verifiable fact premise.
G. Yep i know.
I hate this civil shit....LMAO!!!
BIGDOG
A,c,d - I feel the mandate was flawed, as it did not look at 9/11 as a crime with evidence and motive. Instead, it dealt with timelines and recommendations. They had no teeth to do very much about refusal to cooperate, no teeth to hold persons accountable to failures in their jobs of defending this country. The Bush administration wasn't going to hold itself accountable and they set up the commission the same way.
The "Due process" argument doesn't apply here because again, I don't view discussing 9/11 as a court case, more of a police-style investigation, where we examine any angles and then look at any supportive lines of thought. I wasn't trying to knock the loopholes of our justice system, but if police started a case at the same angle as lawyers are forced to, we would definitely have less justice. I just respect the ability during an investigation, to inject opinion and conjecture to lead us down paths that we can't prove beforehand to see if we can't uncover more on a specific line of reasoning. In court cases, if one were to do that, there would always be objections for hearsay and leading witnesses (jury)
B. It goes into the same reasoning as above. I don't think that any line of thought should be "off limits" And I guess I can be a little guilty of believing people over "data," which I think, is our #1 difference when looking into these conspiracies. I just feel that I can make up data to support things, One can make a computer animation of an elephant walking through a hula hoop, but it doesn't make such "data" correct. In the end, when such data comes out, it's just a nice mental exercise to be critical of it using the best computer we have, our emotions.
E. Scroll up, I layed it out in my "conspiracy" post about the global conspiracy. I can't gives you names, or how deep into the conspiracy any one given person would be, as I'm not privy to that information. Which means I also can't verifiable delve into exactly who would have been involved in the final decisions about what should be done on the 9/11 commission.
F. and the only difference between "Fact" and opinion is what you can reasonably expect other people to buy. The point of the "Conspiracy" movement (or "Alternative" media/idea) is that we are consistently lied to by those who we trusted to give us honest unbiased information. So in order to be informed, we have to do our own investigations and ask our own questions. As the media and government lie about different things, and more people keep buying the lies and propaganda, our views will appear more and more the opposite of what is normally regarded as fact and truth. I see very little difference between fact and opinion except that facts can be presented in a false manor, but one's opinion is harder to change and sway.
These subjects...from 9/11 to aliens...exist as debate topics because of a lack of the facts, so our opinions are what we use to fill those gaps.
Honestly though, I am digressing and getting into philosophy and intents, which is why I wanted to end the conversation earlier. I thought though since you were giving in a little that I would at least answer your queries and respond on a viewpoint.
"The "Due process" argument doesn't apply here because again, I don't view discussing 9/11 as a court case, more of a police-style investigation, where we examine any angles and then look at any supportive lines of thought"
HUH??? You dont comprehend well do you? OH yes due process does take precedence when in fact the context of my statement was about perjury and those being held accountable and NOT about the commissions mandate itself. If they (FFA and NORAD) are found to perjure themselves then you have a strong point about that entity trying to cover shit up and should be held accountable. I prefer to wait until that process is done before i make a judgemnt and how the facts would indeed sway my opinion.
"F. and the only difference between "Fact" and opinion is what you can reasonably expect other people to buy."
This is the most liberal comment i have heard from you. Are you sure you are not a liberal.
Translation F: Its all about the seriousness of the accusations and, can you get people to buy into it. Dont worry about the facts, my opinion is different from the facts, do you buy it? Like i said i dont buy into your crap and its not civil of me to say so...lol
" As the media and government lie about different things, and more people keep buying the lies and propaganda, our views will appear more and more the opposite of what is normally regarded as fact and truth. "
HUH?? oh i get it now.
Anything the media or government says is a lie and anything opposite of what the media and government says is truth. Yeh..sure...ok then.
"I see very little difference between fact and opinion except that facts can be presented in a false manor, but one's opinion is harder to change and sway."
Facts are absolute by nature and should sway ones opinion. Opinions are not always based on facts, but are fillers in the chain of causation. I chose to use facts and knowledge to sculpt my opinion and you have chosen others opinions not based on facts and knowledge...but whatever is opposite of the reported facts.
Informed Opinions are founded on facts and some opinions are not informed, we both can agree to this? If facts dont sway ones opinion then they are ignorant of the facts and reside in thier paradigm of delusion.
So lets examine this. For example. I want you to take this statement of "facts can be presented in a false manor, but one's opinion is harder to change and sway."
I present this fact.
JFK was shot in the head.
1.Now present this fact in a false manor.
2.Then tell me your opinion about this fact and of course how you arrived at such opinion.
Nah, I'm just a realist.
"JFK was shot in the head.
1.Now present this fact in a false manor. "
The word "Head" can be interpreted in many ways. Sometimes the word "Head" is referred to the forehead and back of the head, leaving a difference between it and the face and neck, sometimes "Head" is referred to as everything above the shoulders.
The Trajectory of the bullet is also a factor in this.
Some believe that he was shot "In" the "neck", and the bullet escaped "Out" his "head."
Ultimately, what IS a fact? You said "Facts are absolute by nature"
What is nature?
You see this is a slippery slope argument and now we're talking about the fundamentals of life.
What is anything, what is proof of anything beyond one's own interpretation of what he or she can observe?
"Anything the media or government says is a lie and anything opposite of what the media and government says is truth. "
You twist my words man, I never said it like that.
Let me rewrite that statement to make it more like my beliefs.
"While the media government's information is more "True" in nature, there is a negative element that has been known to intentionally lie from time to time...yet there are compassionate people who are concerned about events that they cannot completely comprehend every aspect of, so therefore they make unintentional mistakes or jump the gun on linking fact to theory."
For Example, Alex Jones, I don't kid myself, I know he and I don't share much in common, but I know he seems passionately concerned with his nation. Even if he is the greatest fucking actor on the planet, it is my perception of him as someone who uses their heart when discussing world events.
When I hear Bush, Clinton, or the other elitists discuss the geopolitical shape of the world, they talk about it like it's just another everyday job. Like lives are NOT hanging in the balance. I understand that being the leader of the free world comes with a certain need to have a "Game face" but when they do lie, they show no remorse or respect for truth or accountability. At least when Alex Jones makes a mistake or slips up on something, he will at least attempt to explain himself and the reasoning behind his actions as a remorseful person.
What I'm saying is the media and government have the same amount of "spin" as an Alex Jones, but subtract emotion and add control.
They control the information, they control how it comes out, The Pentagon has paid to plant news stories in our country.
Alternative Media try to unspin that information and look at it from varied angles so that we're not just getting one side of every story.
The fact still remains he was shot in the head. Absolute fact. Nature i was refering and i thought you said you were a thinker. Nature i was refering to belongs in the defined category of "inherent character"
How have you presented it in a false manor? You havent and you cant.
Where in the head region is not presenting the fact JFK was shot in the head, in a false manor.
The trajectory presuposes the headshot, but has nothing to do with the headshot being presented in a false manor.
in other words nor matter the opinion facts never change and therfore are absolute by nature.
"Facts are absolute by nature("inherent character")and should sway ones opinion."
Is that better. There is no slippery slope. Only the one you have created in your mind.
Alex Jones...Bwaahhhhh!!!
I don't consider the neck part of the head.
The bullet "Exited" his head, not "In"
So, in my opinion, he wasn't shot "in" the head, he was shot "in" the neck.
So your claim that that statement can in no way be considered false is wrong. I consider the statement false. Again, you have to consider the context, the source of the information, and how well you trust that source.
"Facts are absolute by (Inherent Character)and should sway ones opinion"
Is this not also true of propaganda?
In this re-definition of the word "Facts" I would then argue that for each person, what is "absolute" is different.
The word Absolute is just another adjective that describes another term, and adjectives usually (and in this case) denote opinion. I am instantly reminded of the Mexican Absolut Vodka ad where it said "in an Absolute World"
I would argue that Mexico in control of much of North America is only "absolute" (I would argue that the phrase really means "Absolutely Ideal World", but this paradigm works both ways) to a small segment of the world's population.
So again, you can call it a "Liberal" argument, but what a person chooses to believe as "Fact" is up to the person as an individual.
Which brings me to another argument you've been promulgating on here.
This "BDS" syndrome....You now come out and admit that the FAA and NORAD could possibly have been lying. Is their Commander in Chief not responsible whatsoever for their behavior under official business?
Should the White House accept responsibility for this if it is a "Cover-UP?" or blow the whistle if they had nothing to do with it and parts of the executive branch were conspiring outside of the oversight of the White House?
Well sir you have many ways of twisting your arguements around an established fact. Propaganda if you will, is more your main course. You still havent presented him being shot in the head in a false manor. You present he was shot in the neck, a seperate fact that stands on its own.
Ok then, show me how him being shot in the neck can be presented in a false manor.
For you see each bullet has its own factual place in history. One hit him in the back of the neck (about c6 vertebre) and the another in the head (temple). The third, who knows. In fact read Mr. James Files confession in 1994, there was three bullets fired on that day and he gave a very detailed account of each shot. In the film i could only see, for myself (observable), two distinct impact movements from Kennedy. One in the neck and the other in the head (autopsy). Present any one fact in a false manor. You cant and you havent to know avail.
See. You want me to believe you. When i know that there was atleast two shots that day. I would even entertain the thought of a third and fourth bullet fired.
Onto propaganda and your hidden confession. This is exactly what you do.
Propoganda is a representation of intentional dissemination of often false, but certainly "compelling" claims to support or justify political actions or ideologies.
and when i call you on this and show my guile for your BS, i am called uncivil and rude. What you accuse the Government of, you do as well and then when put in check, i get called a government mouthpiece with a beer soaked brain. Hmmmm...interesting isnt it.
"So again, you can call it a "Liberal" argument, but what a person chooses to believe as "Fact" is up to the person as an individual."
HAHAHAHA!!! OMG!!! No sir, facts present themselves, are within themselves, absolute. Meaning the only way to remove the facts or to change peoples perceptions, is to lie about them. In your case you present your opinions as propaganda, not fact. Why do you think im onto you all the time for spreading lies and me !@!CHOP!@! your BS up.
"This "BDS" syndrome....You now come out and admit that the FAA and NORAD could possibly have been lying. Is their Commander in Chief not responsible whatsoever for their behavior under official business?"
More lies. I did not "NOW COME OUT AN ADMIT". I have said this for awhile now. The FFA and NORAD lied under oath. The individuals who lied under oath has no bearing on Bush. These 'individuals' are being sought on perjury charges. Should Bush be held accountable for someone elses lies under oath? BDS says yes and because of BDS you think they are covering this up.
What parts of the executive branch are you refering to?
I believe the FFA and NORAD are under the DOD. Rumsfield should be held accountable, moreso than Bush. Hes the head of that department. However Rummy isnt responsable for individuals lieing under oath either.
You still havent shown any facts to back up your claims about the white house cover ups (BDS). In fact the only reason you have questions is because you dont know the facts (i have demonstarted over and over), you only know propaganda and you believe it as fact.
I am not redefining anything. You may do this, i dont. Facts are distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation. Therefore are indeed absolute by nature, as an established fact. One may call it a true fact. Your spin on this is vey entertaining and shows you are of a liberal mindset. Im about ready to take back, a take back...lol
BIGDOG
Examine the propagnda techniques followed by a quick response-----
------
Well sir you have many ways of twisting your arguements around an established fact. Propaganda if you will, is more your main course.(Character assassinations and implications without motive) You still havent presented him being shot in the head in a false manor. You present he was shot in the neck, a seperate fact that stands on its own.(asking me to prove a negative)
Ok then, show me how him being shot in the neck can be presented in a false manor.(Again, asking to prove a negative)
-----
If you re-read my claims, My claims were....
A. Facts CAN be presented in a false manor
These did not mean EVERY FACT in ANY CONTEXT.
and B. That "Absolute" was the key to his definition of "Facts" as what people chose to believe as fact is ultimately their trust in the source and context....and the context you are framing this "Present this as false" would be improbable.
-------
For you see each bullet has its own factual place in history.(un-vetted claim of absoluteness) One hit him in the back of the neck (about c6 vertebre) (presenting what you believe as fact with assumption that your audience will agree with no supporting context) and the another in the head (temple).(presenting what you believe as fact with assumption that your audience will agree with no supporting context) The third, who knows.(Presenting a question without showing answers that may go against your positions) In fact read Mr. James Files confession in 1994, there was three bullets fired on that day (...according to this confession....) and he gave a very detailed account of each shot.(un-vetted claim of near-absoluteness) In the film i could only see, for myself (observable), two distinct impact movements from Kennedy. One in the neck and the other in the head (autopsy).(A bridge between your observations and a claim of absoluteness, using another un-vetted claim of absoluteness) Present any one fact in a false manor. (asking me to prove a negative...) You cant and you havent to know avail. (...claim of inability without opportunity)
---
There have been several credible sources who have questioned the genuineness of the Autopsy Photographs.
I don't have to present these facts in a false manor, because you already are.
--
See. You want me to believe you.(un-vetted claim of motive) When i know that there was atleast two shots that day.(Opinion disguised as Absoute) I would even entertain the thought of a third and fourth bullet fired.
Onto propaganda and your hidden confession.(part character assassination, part reading things into others' words) This is exactly what you do.(acknowledged statement)
---
I do it. You do it. Fox News does it. The white house does it. My mom does it. Your mom does it. Even Jesus did it.
--
Propoganda is a representation of intentional dissemination of often false, but certainly "compelling" claims to support or justify political actions or ideologies.(presenting a definition without source)
---
Again, what someone chooses to believe as "False" depends strongly on their inherent trust in the context and source...
If you remove that one word from this definition then I would define Big Dog's use of the word "Facts", in debating, the same way
--
and when i call you on this and show my guile for your BS,(character assassination) i am called uncivil and rude.(un-vetted presumption of sinister motive) What you accuse the Government of, you do as well (acknowledged statement) and then when put in check (Forced appearance of superiority), i get called a government mouthpiece with a beer soaked brain.(bringing up negative incidents apologized for in a different context) Hmmmm...interesting isnt it.
"So again, you can call it a "Liberal" argument, but what a person chooses to believe as "Fact" is up to the person as an individual."
HAHAHAHA!!! OMG!!! No sir, facts present themselves, are within themselves, absolute.(conjecture of a false definition) Meaning the only way to remove the facts or to change peoples perceptions, is to lie about them.(opinion presented as fact) In your case you present your opinions as propaganda, not fact.(Acknowledged statement with underlying implication of sinister intent) Why do you think im onto you all the time for spreading lies and me !@!CHOP!@! your BS up. (Forced appearance of superiority)
"This "BDS" syndrome....You now come out and admit that the FAA and NORAD could possibly have been lying. Is their Commander in Chief not responsible whatsoever for their behavior under official business?"
More lies.(un-vetted claim of absoluteness with claim of sinister intent and character assassination)(God Job Big Dog, 3 Propaganda techniques in 2 words!!!)
Please present the "Lie" in the questioned statement. The statement was...
A. A question (how do you lie in a question)
and
B. Presented as a matter of opinion (which opinions are one's individual thought on the subject and are not subject to tests of truth)
I did not "NOW COME OUT AN ADMIT". I have said this for awhile now.(use of context to present a difference of opinion that was not implied)
(although I will give to you that this was unintended propaganda, as the context in which I typed it can be reasonably understood as such. The Now word was not meant as a descriptor word, but a conjection)
The FFA and NORAD lied under oath. The individuals who lied under oath has no bearing on Bush.(matter of opinion) (this statement would have sufficed as the answer to my question, as my question was based on your opinion on what the Commander of the Executive branch is responsible for)
These 'individuals' are being sought on perjury charges. Should Bush be held accountable for someone elses lies under oath?
---
MY OPINION:
As the head of the Executive Branch, I think it would be wise to at least exclude yourself from responsibility and offer your apologies when your underlings fuck up.
--
BDS says yes and because of BDS you think they are covering this up.(Assumption of motive, Character assassination, use of false context to support a different argument)
What parts of the executive branch are you refering to?
I believe the FFA and NORAD are under the DOD.
(Answering your own question)
Rumsfield should be held accountable, moreso than Bush. Hes the head of that department. However Rummy isnt responsable for individuals lieing under oath either.
(all opinion)
You still havent shown any facts to back up your claims about the white house cover ups (BDS).(Opinion presented as fact, un-vetted claim of absolution, un-vetted claim of sinister motive) In fact the only reason you have questions is because you dont know the facts (i have demonstarted over and over), you only know propaganda and you believe it as fact.(Forced perception of superiority, un-vetted claims of sinister motive, presenting opinion as fact, character assassination)
I am not redefining anything. You may do this, i dont.
---
This is another subject of perception. That you are correct. And I did not disagree..
You made the following two statements (at different times) regarding the definition of the word "Facts"
"Facts are absolute by nature and should sway ones opinion"
Under this definition, The perception of the word "Nature" was interpreted by me mean a repeat of the word "Absolute"
"Nature i was refering to belongs in the defined category of "inherent character""
Then I combined your two statements to "Re-define" the word as to gain your perception of the meaning of the word "Nature" in the original definition:
"Facts are absolute by (Inherent Character)and should sway ones opinion"
The re-definition was my doing, and I never accused you of it.
I merely said: "In this re-definition of the word "Facts" I would then argue that for each person, what is "absolute" is different."
Showing how I moved my argument of the word "Nature" that was meant to be an argument of the word "Absolute" and that under the original definition, I had perceived the word "Nature" to mean absolute.
--
Facts are distinguishable from matters of inference or speculation.
----
Agreed, with the hedge that a fact that one chooses not to believe (due to trust issues in context and source) becomes a matter of speculation in perception
--
Therefore are indeed absolute by nature, as an established fact. One may call it a true fact. Your spin on this is vey entertaining and shows you are of a liberal mindset.(implication of sinister motive, character assassination) Im about ready to take back, a take back...lol
BIGDOG
---------
My overall response to your post, is that science, as a whole, cannot even prove the existence of existence.
So that is why I base my whole argument of the word "Absolute" on one's perception of a fact, being the one hedge of "Truthiness" and spin.
Context and source play the biggest roles in this, as I'd bet you could agree with about 50% of the things Alex Jones talks about on his show, but due to the fact that he infers sinister motive and injects 9/11 and JFK type discussions into the fray, your opinion on his credibility and context would, by nature, affect your ability to "buy" any "true Facts" he presents.
Back to the argument of this idea of "Liberal Mindset"
I state several times that I don't believe in the left right paradigm.
I do philosophize quite a bit to the nature of things and the natures of the different paradigms out there.
If that is a "Liberal" mental exercise to you, then whatever, My political beliefs are probably more "Small Government Conservative" or "Libertarian with a hint of Progressiveness"
I believe in small government, but that IF (big hedge there...BIG IF) we're going to have any forms of big government, that its power should be derived from the people, and that it should operate in the open, and be used for the advancement of the people.
If you call that liberal, so be it.
Awsome Miles you are now injecting anything he wants (obfuscations of his own failures), mostly playing up the persona of a victims role. After you have found yourself in a quandary. Psssst!...Your batshitnuts are showing....hehehe (Ace Ventura)
"(Character assassinations and implications without motive)"
HAHAHAHA!!! i love it. You have no character, with lots of motive.
"(asking me to prove a negative)"
No sir im asking you to back up your claims. BTW how is a fact negative?
Miles shaking in his boots said:
"I don't consider the neck part of the head.
The bullet "Exited" his head, not "In" (FALSE RED FLAGGED)
So, in my opinion, he wasn't shot "in" the head,(FALSE and obviously un-vetted) he was shot "in" the neck. (yes he was base of the neck, but he was also shot in the head) Two seperate facts. No need to confuse the two..hahaha
Your opinion is un-vetted and against all forensic evidence. So...well...DUH!!! yes i am and you havent backed your BS up.
(...claim of inability without opportunity)"
Ummmm...you have had plenty of opportunity to prove your un-vetted premise. More like astrobations.
(A bridge between your observations and a claim of absoluteness, using another un-vetted claim of absoluteness)" !! IF YOU SAY SO!!For you see each bullet has its own factual place in history.(un-vetted claim of absoluteness)!!(BS)!! One hit him in the back of the neck (about c6 vertebre) (presenting what you believe as fact with assumption that your audience will agree with no supporting context)!!NO NEED TO WITH THE INFORMED!! and the another in the head (temple).(presenting what you believe as fact with assumption that your audience will agree with no supporting context)")!!NO NEED TO WITH THE INFORMED!!
Yepp Miles throw all forensic evidence out the window. So much for the vetted facts and so much for me having to prove your premise, while i argue against it; and in the same breath i thought you knew what you were talking about, somewhat informed, so i wouldnt have to show supporting context.
"There have been several credible sources who have questioned the genuineness of the Autopsy Photographs."
Show me these sources. The film in itselfs shows the impact points. Do you hunt Miles? Have you ever killed Deer with a high powered rifle? (gives one an idea how high powerd rifles impact flesh and the reactions from such trama.)
"I don't have to present these facts in a false manor, because you already are."
No im not. You are twisting things again just to be arguementative. You admit you cant prove a negative and thats good enough for me. The mere observation you cannot present JKF was shot in the head in a false manor doesnt show a negative at all. It shows you are commiting a logical fallacy by saying there is no reason or evidence of JFK being shot in the head (forensic evidence). By your admittion only the neck of wich i agree with (c6 vertebre forensic evidence) both impacts observable. Because i point out anumber of negative instances in your premise it deduces to and may make it highly improbable.
"(implication of sinister motive, character assassination)"
Wow the most descernment i have seen from you all this time. Your lies are sinister and you assassinated your own character. Must have been that magic bullet character kill shot of yours went in your neck and out your ass, i mean temple...LMAO!!!
"(presenting a definition without source)"
Look it up your damn self then. Thats what i do or are you admitting to more self degradations.
"(1.Forced perception of superiority, 2.un-vetted claims of sinister motive, 3.presenting opinion as fact, 4.character assassination)"
1. You admit your insuperiority (self degradations) as being less informed on many issues. Obviously your perception is your own reality concerning this matter.
2.I dont have to study you to descern your lies and deceit.
3. Sometimes i do. We all do. In reality i love an INFORMED OPINION. Yours falls short of being informed...;)
4. You did this. I just merely pointed out your inadequacies in determining what is fact and what isnt.
The reality of it is you tried to project a victims role (typical liberal act) by asserting im attacking you as a person. No im attacking your ignorance and obvious lies. You take it personal because you cant admit you are wrong so i get my digs in whenever i can.
Stop your lieing and ill stop digging your intellectual grave. Oh wait you are doing that yourself....ROFLMAO!!!
!@!CHOP!@!
Wahooo!!! im uncivil again...:)
"Show me these sources."
Look up the reports from the staff of Parkland Hospital.
Some of these can be found in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" documentary series
I don't remember which part, but I believe it is either part 1 or 2.
---
Again, I question the absoluteness of these things you consider "facts"
Earlier in this thread you mentioned the WTC 7 report
"MTJ even wanted a simulation done to show such collapse. For you nut jobs viewing pleasure. A 'conspiracy' did it...lol"
and now you mention this film...
"The film in itselfs shows the impact points."
Are you arguing that Film or Computer Simulations cannot be spun? Are you arguing that they cannot be altered? Are you arguing that any data they use is 100% perfectly to scale?
There are many many points that can be brought up to question if information is "Absolute" and only your trust in the source and context can make it so.
Kool i will look those up. Dont think i have viewed them. Atleast i will view this information before i comment on it. Unlike some poeple i know. *hint*
If they can be spun and we know they can and im assuming by spun you mean propogandalised (hehehe is that a word). Then why insist on new investigations. Why insist on seeing a simulation. Why insist on every angle you have taughted.
When in fact all you want to do is conjure up doubt with lies, and because the facts present themselves in such a way to show you to be full of shit, then what? i.e. (JFK shot in the head with no recognition of this fact from you) More accusations, more lies, and with no prudunce about you to rectify your previous lies. This is a pattern of deceit you accuse the government of. Isnt it ironic that you do the same.
The Zapruder film wasnt altered. You want to make an accusation it was? I'll ask you to prove it. maybe we will get another 100 posts, out of your squirming retorts.
1.Are you arguing that Film or Computer Simulations cannot be spun? 2.Are you arguing that they cannot be altered? 3.Are you arguing that any data they use is 100% perfectly to scale?
1. No. How so tho, spun in what way, propaganda right? Get this tho. When you dont like the answer you start your spin cycle again. I have seen you do this on this blog several times over.
2. No im not. The Zapruder film HAS NOT been altered and i will argue that.
3. By scale are you referencing like 1 inch on paper equals 1 foot on the ground? 1"-1' ratio? Unless they say it isnt 100 percent to scale and i see a scalent box showing the measured scaled down inch to foot ratio. Then yes i would argue that it is accurate. I see you assume that it isnt to scale without understanding blueprints and engineering.
Have you been educated in the art of Drafting, how about CAD?
"There are many many points that can be brought up to question if information is "Absolute" and only your trust in the source and context can make it so."
No sir facts dont change, only the way you present them. Questioning an absolute fact is only that questioning a fact. Facts dont change, show no spin, no alteration, and in some case complete to scale for simulations for your viewing pleasure. If you lie about them, present them in such a way, to create doubt, then you sir are no better than the government; the same you claim is doing the spinning, the altering, and the off scale simulations.
!@!CHOP!@!@
"Look up the reports from the staff of Parkland Hospital."
I did and saw an interview with Dr Salyer. He mentioned an arguement between dallas authorities and secret service on where the autopsy would be performed. The body was taken away by the secret service.
I read Patricia Huttons statement.
Im finding nothing fishy here. Do you have something different because im not finding it.
I will continue looking into this. Can you give me a hint as to what you are infering?
Ok, I've heard reports that the Autopsy photographs and even the body had been altered to make the head wound small and on the side, when the doctors at Parkland Hospital had reported a large rear exit wound.
I have also heard reports that the surveyors of Dealy Plaza's data had been altered, so that any simulation that used that data would not be correct, and would show a clear line of sight from the book depository and obstruction from the fence behind the grassy knoll. (which is why I asked about the data being perfectly to scale)
Miles the interview with Dr. Salyer was very clear about the wound. So was that guys confession i told you about. Oddly enough to men in two separate worlds corroborated each other. He was there in the ER, and the shooter; well you can guess his role eh?. The shooter said three shots were fired and gave a vivid account of his role. I will post a link to salyer video and scroll up for the other; so you can decide for yourself if your reports were correct or is he lying? Me i am still filtering this shit so ill share my filtering process with you.
You are admitting a head wound now right separate from the neck??
Video of Salyer
http://mx.truveo.com/FULL-INTERVIEW-Doctor-Who-Treated-JFK-At-Parkland/id/896588928
I have seen some (1) say he is lying. However what Salyer says corroborates with the Zapruder film and the other Doctors recorded testimony. Oddly the shooter brings in a different light to it all that's why i posted his name.
If you want to believe this guy (link below)and how they are blaming the Jews and how Salyer is lying. Furthermore i noticed similar conjecture i accuse you of using. Sorry just being honest. So examine this link Miles.
Sayler lies:
http://www.erichufschmid.net/JFK/Salyer-on-JFK.html
I'm assuming, i know why he thinks Salyer is lying and i realize this. Well i thought the same way until i dug deeper some moons ago and now i am reviewing. However he does challenge you to read the warren report(i have long ago) and says: "If you have never read any of the Warren Report, you may not realize that this doctor is lying. So, look at my remarks about the Warren Report." In the warren report this Dr. was not mentioned (my first red flag). Reason. Only one Dr. wrote the medical report for the warren commission. The rest, to best of knowledge, was recorded and transcribed.
Salyer was recorded and a transcript was made of the warren commissions hearings testimonies. HAHAHA!! three plurals in a row.
Salyer transcript: BTW i am not done reading them all again.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol6/page80.php
My conclusion so far is the guy that says Salyer is lying and then directs you to his book about 9-11. BTW did i mention this was the only link to Salyer lying. Oh my conclusion. I bet you can deduce, so far, who i think is lying.
You examine this and i will continue my filtering process. Oh and i am open to anything you have or find. I follow a process and i am showing you this, so you can get a grip on why i say the things i do. How important it is to examine these issues. When we are done examining the wounds first, and all these theories, the next step would be the autopsy report and their discrepancies.
DEAL??
Honestly, BigDog, I don't really care to get into it.
You like asking me for all my sources and shit, and that's all good, I post them when I can readily find them.
But I honestly don't care about JFK or 9/11 specifically to go on a journey through several documents and videos with you to see how you reach your conclusions.
This is probably the point where you come up with some nefarious reason why I "won't debate you" on these issues, but again, the reason is that I just don't care that much one way or another on JFK or 9/11.
We can keep playing this game of going round and round the evidence trail or one of us can just bow out like an Adult. I don't care if you call it "winning" or whatever,
Personally, I'm going to continue to believe what I believe, and regardless of the evidence of involvement, my beliefs are that there are nefarious people who operate in high levels of government, banks, and corporations who at the least WANTED JFK dead, and some who at least WANTED a terror attack in the US in 2001. That is the real issue here, to me, is that we have people who write policy papers on this stuff, who work in or meet with government.
That is why I brought up the PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses" is because even if they didn't do it, the fact that they would write this big policy paper with the giant hedge that "well we need to be attacked first." ("a new Pearl Harbor")
If you scroll way up, you can see my post on the New World Order, and that is my issue. One conspiracy, regardless of how much they are responsible for, working against the sovereignty of our country and our individuality.
I will check out these 2 videos though, and will try to find more on the Surveyors and the Parkland Head wound discrepancy.
22:45 into the video for the beginning of the discussion on the wound and bullet direction.
---
page 118 preview for info on surveyors data being altered
sorry, page 116
Naferious reason?? Dood can you be any more insulting, if we meet, just slap the hand thats extended to you.
Yes i have seen that movie, but im going to watch it again. Tx for the links.
It just seems you latch onto what ever sounds secretive (Rothchilds etc.) or conspiratorial (JFK-9-11), all of the above. As long as it (lies,propoganda,un-vetted claims) goes against the official narrative and raises doubt.
Is this your way of trying to bring down our government, bring down the New World Order? Just to get 'we the peoples' attention. If so, you have defined propoganda by your actions. Then you demand more investigations by the very same people....ughhh never mind.
OK, moving on. So let me get this straight. When it comes right down to it you dont 'care about it'.
Now i understand why your are ignorant on so many levels, if you cared you would be more thorough. Well i do care and i am as thorough as they get. I thought your passionate retorts was a challenge of my thoroughness, but now i see it was all show.
You just dont care. Man that smells. After all this vehement diatribe. Are you of sound mind and body Miles? I am concerned. You stressed over something?
My reasoning for you to go through this with me was to build an undertsanding of each others research techniques and why such a varience in the end result. You see miles, i just cant grasp how you believe the way you do and say the things you say, inclusive the way you present them. IMHO and after close observation, you believe conjecture and inuuendos over empirical studies and observable evidences. I am deeply disturbed by this.
I tried reaching across the isle, but hey, im actually insulted intellectually, of course.
Wow i cant belive this shit.
No more chances. I will not respond to you any more, sir. Have a great day.
!@!CHOP!@!
BigDog said
"Naferious reason?? Dood can you be any more insulting, if we meet, just slap the hand thats extended to you"
and
"You just dont care. Man that smells. After all this vehement diatribe."
and
"Is this your way of trying to bring down our government, bring down the New World Order?"
If those aren't Nefarious motives, I don't know what is.
The "New World Order" is not our legitimate elected government. So yes, I would like to see them removed from their powerful positions and brought to trial for treason.
As far as our elected government goes, I believe our government is one thing. The Constitution of the United States of America.
any person, be it an elected official or outside entity, that chooses to operate in conflict to that document is a traitor.
If they ARE a government official operating in conflict with that document, then they are guilty of treason for violating their oath to "Preserve, Protect, and Defend" the document.
And my intent, was the same as it is every time we get into this. I tell you I'm not an expert. I don't want to be an "expert" when it comes to JFK or 9/11. I'm just a regular guy with an opinion, I don't plan on writing a book or college paper on all of this.
I always tell you that 9/11 isn't my issue. I always tell you that I think you focus too much on it.
The real issues, to me, are unfolding in our newspapers today.
We are looking at war on Pakistan and Iran, 20,000 troops in the homeland, and possibly mandatory civil service. Banks "Stealing" our wealth right before our eyes
(first through convincing the whole damn nation to use and re-use credit until they are in debt like crazy, Then Increase every credit card and mortgage payment, get the banks to hold mortgages on everything, then they stop loaning money once everyone is hooked, get their guys to run the Fed and the Treasury, then get the government into debt to loan their selves 700 billion)
They are putting everyone into servitude just as they announce troops on the street and global war.
You can look at this subjectively, and say that this is all miraculous coincidences.
Or you can look (Like Naomi Wolf and Alex Jones do) at the blueprints for dictatorship throughout history, (Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Pinochet, Mussolini..etc..) then look at the Constitution and why it was written the way it was and the events surrounding our Declaration of Independence, and Compare and contrast the events that are happening today, and ask yourself if your government is acting dangerously against itself and its citizenry.
I'm sorry, but I feel the time is more dire than to be discussing the particulars of events from 8 and 45 years ago, I would rather know at least what we can agree on about those events, and hold them as lessons as we enter these troubling times.
What we do know is that we are in TWO wars and have had dangerous dictator-like laws passed that subvert our freedoms because the events of 9/11 has allowed the people of this country to reject peace as an option for safety.
What we do know is that JFK was beginning to implement a "radical" agenda, from beginning to withdraw from 'Nam to printing Treasury dollars that were interest-free and Fed Bank-free.
We know that some members of Government, Media, and Banking establishments hated JFK with a passion, and some of those same groups of folks thought we needed "a new pearl harbor" so that we could become a military powerhouse in the 21st century.
So you take what people wanted changed prior to the two events, and what we got after the events happened. And the how becomes less important than what we need to change going into the next batch of world changing events.
We, the people need to reject ideas that "dramatic change" from bad government is going to automatically end up with good government.
this country is digging a deeper hole, and now we have an Illegitimate President (for the third straight election, maybe more) an unconstitutional incoming Secretary of State and White House Chief of Staff. And Obama's promises to reject the dictator-like powers that Bush seized have fallen flat in place of servitude and a fake environmentalist dictatorship.
Is it just a convenient coincidence that the Illinois Governor was under investigation for a year, and racked up offense after offense, and they arrest him one day after he orders all state funds to be withdrawn from Bank of America?
Is it a convenient coincidence that the New York Governor was politically brought down after announcing new investigations into insider trading and fraud?
Is it a coincidence that they used the Patriot Act to bring him down?
(but it's only used to catch those bad muslim terrorists who use bank withdraws to visit prostitutes)
The Patriot Act is being used politically, and now the John Warner Defense Act is being used to march troops into our country.
nefarious: flagrantly wicked or impious.
Typical lib.
One last time to clear things up and then you can have the last word. In the light of how you dont care and all. Yet another fine example how you twist things to fit your agenda.
Your first claim:
"this is probably the point where you come up with some nefarious reason why I "won't debate you" on these issues"
Your second claim:
"If those aren't Nefarious motives, I don't know what is."
1. You specifically stated that i would come up with a nefarious reason as to "why I won't debate you". I didnt come up with any nefarious reason why you wont debate me. But you want to twist things to match what you want it to match.
2.I did question your motives, if they are nefarious. I did accuse you of propoganda therefore bringing your motives into question. Now your vaude-ville like performance is over and who cares right?
BIGDOG Quote:"I thought your passionate retorts was a challenge of my thoroughness, but now i see it was all show."
Our debate is over. I no longer care to be debating someone, who has no intelectual prowess about them to finish what they started. No matter how ill-informed(ignorant)they are. I really do think you are scared to find your some of your opinions you expouse to are false.
One fine example of your ignorance. He was shot in the neck and it exited thru the head.
One quote you highlighted: "You just dont care. Man that smells. After all this vehement diatribe."
This doesnt show anything about motive or reason. This quote describes how i feel about the whole, "i dont care" business and how passionate our diatribe was. This in no way reflects naferious reason and does not call in to question your motives. The next quote does and for good reason.
"Is this your way of trying to bring down our government, bring down the New World Order?"
This is not a reason as to why you will not debate me. This is questioniing your motives and is accurate considering your answer.
Miles you havent much to stand on now. !@!CHOP!@!
BIGDOG
"I no longer care to be debating someone, who has no intelectual prowess about them to finish what they started. No matter how ill-informed(ignorant)they are."
So that's where we're at then.
I agree, I'm not an expert. I care not enough to write a book on these subjects. I care not enough to study for hours the details of the details of the details.
I told you that I would look into the information you posted. I just didn't care to make this a long drawn out study session.
I do not wish to take Big Dog's JFK course of study. If not being an expert that makes me ignorant or ill-informed, so be it. I stated several times on here that I am not an expert on these issues, I just have concerns about them.
Then you debate my concerns as if they are on trial.
You need to look at the real world. Sure, our due process and our court system has its place and I would honor that till I die. However, I don't think anyone would ever debate that our legal system is perfect. There are loopholes and guidelines to what is acceptable.
The Media doesn't even hold evidence and testimony to the strict rules that the courts do. Yet you expect me, a guy casually expressing things he'd heard, to debate this as if I were a lawyer putting the whole damn government on trial.
You act as if suspicions and opinions should never matter when one decides whether to trust the official version of dramatic events.
Yet concerning me,(and many other "truthers") you offer your opinions and suspicions all the time.
"I really do think you are scared to find your some of your opinions you expouse to are false.
One fine example of your ignorance. He was shot in the neck and it exited thru the head."
I am not afraid of being wrong...excuse me...."false" about anything. I know my views are outside the mainstream and based on suspect information. I know they have a probability of being wrong. That's the nature of a lack of honest information on a subject.
As far as "shot in the neck and exited the head" goes, there are many people who believe the shot came from the front, and exited the rear. So I guess my "ignorance" must be the particulars of the neck.
Again, that one detail seems very small in the overall discussion on the JFK assassination. And the JFK assassination is one very small detail on the New World Order conspiracy to overthrow the US Constitution.
Which is now the third time I brought that up in this thread, with fraction of a mention so far from you concerning your beliefs on the validity of it.
I don't claim to be a supreme debater, nor do I claim any "Intellectual Prowess" What I am is an average guy, with a job and a family, who has legitimate concerns about the legitimacy of certain aspects of government function and media communications regarding those functions.
But hey, go ahead insult my intelligence level. I'm a dumbass. Is that what you want to hear?
I told you that you can call it a win in your book, I know you keep "score"
Regarding my so-called Nefarious Motives of "trying to bring down our government"....by "latch[ing] onto what ever sounds secretive (Rothchilds etc.) or conspiratorial (JFK-9-11), all of the above."
I have a slight idea of how our country was founded. Why the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights included certain phrases and speech.
I shouldn't have to convince you of the existence of the Bilderberg Group, The Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Bohemian Grove Retreat. I consider you to be intellectual enough that I'm sure you know of and don't doubt their existence.
United States Policy is discussed in these "get-togethers" and I believe it to be harmful to the US Constitution and my personal future.
I think that the intent of the Founding Fathers was clear that matters of public policy should be discussed in Congress.
Whatever I "latch onto" shouldn't even be the issue here though.
"Miles you havent much to stand on now. !@!CHOP!@!"
Sure, whatever, I don't care. Our discussions here are getting old. We have two very different points of view at looking at the world, and frankly this discussion has become a marathon. If your intent was to pick my arguments to death until I bored and exhausted to the point where I "haven't much to stand on" then Grats!! You succeeded!! You Won! !@!PRICE CHOPPER!@!
Normally when I enter into a discussion, it's a couple of guys bringing up interesting points of view and things they've heard. If something sounds a little overboard, one would say "I can't buy that one" and the discussion moves on...but with you its constantly about definitions and motives and an examination of any possible mistake any person related to a discussion might have carelessly made.
I'm just tired of the way our debates are framed. You said "I follow a process and i am showing you this, so you can get a grip on why i say the things i do.......the next step would be the autopsy report and their discrepancies."
I just did not feel up to going on for another 125 posts playing semantics with each other over definitions of words and the credibility of this person or that person injecting accusations and questioning debate styles.
This post isn't to insult you or question your motives. I am merely trying to defend my own position here, since you always inject my credibility into the discussion.
Since I am not intending to insult you, and we both said we are done debating (this issue), can we please stop with the consistent bickering about each others' character, intellect, and credibility?
I don't mind looking into any information you have, or hearing your point of view on a subject, but calling me a liar every fifth post and dismissing me as somehow misguided and intentionally misleading.
The ultimate intentions for both of us, I believe, is to understand the world around us, and to attempt to learn the roles certain people play in the events that rock the world.
I have actively tried my best not to attack you personally in all of this, and have even tried to apologize when I knowingly have taken it too far. The only exception is when YOU brought up the complaints of you being rude and uncivil and I offered my perception on why you are referred to as such.
I also apologize for leaving this debate open at a time when it finally is getting to a point of looking at various evidence and offering our points of view. I too agree that it's half-hearted for me to get this far into a debate just to stop. I just can't take the direction of our communication as a whole.
If there is something I'm skating over here, I apologize for that too, as I can't possibly remember every little thing that has happened in these two comment threads that we've been debating on.
My position at this point is that this is becoming endless. We could keep this going forever. I honestly just can't do it. I see that our philosophies on life as a whole are so different, that agreeing on even what words within definitions of words mean to us has become a point to argue about.
We do agree on some things, but overall, we are polar opposites and for us to find some middle ground, first there is alot of other middle ground between us that will take forever to cover.
I just can't continue this debate style long enough to cover that ground.
Pfffft!!!
Bigdog 10
Libs 0
Post a Comment