you are being seriously mislead

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

John Beckham wrote:lol! that's why only CT's post here. everything said by them would be a "false statement" to you. it's a one sided coin...That's not true either. I told you specifically why statements you made on this post were false statements. Lies. We have always accepted other people's points of view here as far as I can see. The only problem is in situations like THIS one here. I literally told you why you made a false statement, and you won't accept it. So you're going on and on.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

turtleman wrote:So are we now saying Oswald was not CIA? And why was the leftist Oswald (confirmed Communist I believe) going after the leftist president? Perfectly sane and credible people intimidated and killed when dissenting the Warren Commission. Come on man! Oswald was not the perfect patsy but with a big enough hammer you can slam a square peg in a round hole and feed it to the public. The whole cover up was the equivalent of patching a high pressure hose with Silly Putty. Get real.Hey Turtleman,I'm having Jeja VU!!!!!!!!! Like I've been in this situation before with you but someplace else....Maybe it's just a dream!!!! LOL Thanks for having my back...again!!!!

[turtleman]

We are on home turf this time though Pasquale. Notice that refuting the CT is either by nitpicking minutia to the point of becoming a total distraction from the overall body of evidence or the glittering generalities of things like "I don't believe those people. Where's the proof there?" Very interesting methods of "persuasion" I guess. Either break it down to the atomic level or paint with a brush so broad a multitude of evidence is dismissed as crazy talk or not believable. I think these folks have wiring issues or just can't fathom their government could orchestrate such a thing. Or both.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

turtleman wrote:We are on home turf this time though Pasquale. Notice that refuting the CT is either by nitpicking minutia to the point of becoming a total distraction from the overall body of evidence or the glittering generalities of things like "I don't believe those people. Where's the proof there?" Very interesting methods of "persuasion" I guess. Either break it down to the atomic level or paint with a brush so broad a multitude of evidence is dismissed as crazy talk or not believable. I think these folks have wiring issues or just can't fathom their government could orchestrate such a thing. Or both.I would have to agree. I don't know if you noticed on that other forum that I I kept trying to return to the basic issues. I KNEW they were doing that. It's typically referred to as a "red herring" argument technique. It's an argument technique where distraction is the tool. We certainly are on home turf now. For the sake of people reading this forum publicly, I'm going to post that Dale Myers critique again. He's the guy who did the computer animation on one of those bogus documentaries that was either on Discovery or History Channel or one of those cable channels. It's a real eye opener.

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

For the rest of you who might be reading this forum and this topic, here's an example of an adamant lone-nut theorist, Dale Myers, trying to pass his "research" off as legit. It seems that he will go to the extent of distorting reality to make the lone-gunman idea work. This man's work was used on one of the recent bogus documentaries on either History or Discovery Channel or one of those channels. He used his computer animation to "prove" the single bullet theory, but, as Turtleman says, he is clearly hammering a square peg into a round hole to make his point. Just take a look at how much distortion of reality he did, according to the analysis in the article. It is, simply put, DISINFORMATION.http://www.ctka.net/dale.html

[dankbaar]

John Beckham, Did you not originally post under the name Conspiracybuff? So now you're admitting you believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK alone?Is this representative for your duplicity? Wim

[Bob]

Say it ain't so John. I actually took you seriously. I thought you would be able to answer our questions in a sensible and well thought out pattern. Not with one sentence blurbs. VERY disappointing John. Not because you hold another belief...that is VERY apparent. But that you can't speak with clarity about your own theory. Disinformation is about changing the subject or changing the message. That is what you have done in this thread. If you really believe Oswald acted alone...tell us why. Not in one sentence either. Tell us also about Oswald's association with David Ferrie and George DeMohrenshildt. Tell us about Oswald's association with LCAP. Tell us why Oswald learned Russian in the Marines. Tell us why Oswald was assigned to a base in Japan where the U-2 flew out of. Tell us why Oswald was not arrested for treason when he set foot back in the U.S. after the U-2 was SHOT down while he was in the Soviet Union. Tell us what Gary Mack's conspiracy theory is. I know what he once believed during the TMWKK, but every Discovery special I have seen recently about the JFK assassination, he takes the side of the people that point the finger at Oswald.

[ChristophMessner]

I miss any good argument from you, John, why I would walk into the wrong direction, because somebody lead me this way and I would have only followed this leader without thinking by myself like a sheep. It is legitimate of you, John, to not believe all what Files, Holt, Plumlee or Wim told. It is not legitimate of you, John, to tell all the ones who regard Files', Holt's, Plumlee's and Wim's confessions or arguments as credible mislead ones, without telling why they would be mislead. Chris

[John Beckham]

well, most of it was just being bored and up to mischief, and it was wrong of me. it was just a spinoff from the pennyworth stuff. everyone has a right to believe what they want. just that i don't believe in particular stories, that's just me. i'm gone now, and sorry i pissed in the sandbox! lol! best of luck!ps-i just said i was LN to be a smartass after being called Mack. i think there is a Cuban connection....

[Pasquale DiFabrizio]

John Beckham wrote:well, most of it was just being bored and up to mischief, and it was wrong of me. it was just a spinoff from the pennyworth stuff. everyone has a right to believe what they want. just that i don't believe in particular stories, that's just me. i'm gone now, and sorry i pissed in the sandbox! lol! best of luck!ps-i just said i was LN to be a smartass after being called Mack. i think there is a Cuban connection....Yeah, okay. I don't believe you, and what you wrote above in the "ps" part of your comment is another false statement. This is particularly why I don't believe you. In your comment above, you said that you only said you were lone-gunman (LN) theorist to be a smartass AFTER being called Mack. That's a false statement. I joked and called you Gary Mack AFTER you expressed your opinion that Oswald acted alone.I wrote this to you in a previous post after you said that Oswald acted alone:If you've taken even a glance at the mountain of evidence (not even counting the James Files information), you wouldn't really come to that conclusion. If that's your opinion, that LHO acted alone, you're the one who is seriously being misled.Then you replied with this:it's a mountain of something alright...AFTER you made the above comment about the mountain of evidence (not even counting the Files information) regarding a conspiracy to kill JFK is when I jokingly called you Gary Mack. So, you see, John. You made ANOTHER false statement. So, why waste the time and keep saying what you said in this thread? Because you were bored? I don't believe you for a second. How does that correspond with how you so adamantly defended Gary Mack's "opinion" that it's a theory that the Warren Commission is wrong? If you hold the opinion that Oswald acted alone, it would seem that THAT corresponds perfectly with your defending Gary Mack in the past. What you DID succeed in doing, again, is to create bad blood here on this forum, and for what? Because you were bored? So, you just "pissed in the sandbox" because you were bored? I don't believe it for a second. Maybe you were just drinking last night or something and the truth actually came out of your lips.