1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. ALT.CONSPIRACY.JFK

  • JFK from the pulpit: Our government killed him

    From Gil Jesus@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 17 07:03:34 2023
    https://youtu.be/8XHy4X4AiwE

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Gil Jesus on Sun Sep 17 08:41:26 2023
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:03:36 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    https://youtu.be/8XHy4X4AiwE

    So the same guy who demands the LNs prove Oswald's guilt beyond all possible doubt is
    endorsing a guy who accuses "the government" of killing JFK without any evidence to support
    it. He doesn't even name names. Conspiracy kooks never do. They just accuse "they". Since
    they have no evidence to support their insane idea, it's better to be as vague as possible.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Steven Galbraith@21:1/5 to John Corbett on Sun Sep 17 09:14:37 2023
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:03:36 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    https://youtu.be/8XHy4X4AiwE

    So the same guy who demands the LNs prove Oswald's guilt beyond all possible doubt is
    endorsing a guy who accuses "the government" of killing JFK without any evidence to support
    it. He doesn't even name names. Conspiracy kooks never do. They just accuse "they". Since
    they have no evidence to support their insane idea, it's better to be as vague as possible.
    Isn't it, well, interesting that the conspiracy believers never reject evidence that supports their views if it wouldn't be allowed in court? None of this "chain of custody" or "hearsay" standards there. The evidence against Oswald is held to an
    impossible legal standard (where they can get to be the judge and decide what is admissible: surprise, their objections are always granted) while every hair brained allegation of a conspiracy - third and fourth person hearsay, rumors - is uncritically
    promoted.
    Interesting meaning, gosh, these people are like religious fanatics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Corbett@21:1/5 to Steven Galbraith on Sun Sep 17 09:22:06 2023
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:14:39 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:03:36 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    https://youtu.be/8XHy4X4AiwE

    So the same guy who demands the LNs prove Oswald's guilt beyond all possible doubt is
    endorsing a guy who accuses "the government" of killing JFK without any evidence to support
    it. He doesn't even name names. Conspiracy kooks never do. They just accuse "they". Since
    they have no evidence to support their insane idea, it's better to be as vague as possible.
    Isn't it, well, interesting that the conspiracy believers never reject evidence that supports their views if it wouldn't be allowed in court? None of this "chain of custody" or "hearsay" standards there. The evidence against Oswald is held to an
    impossible legal standard (where they can get to be the judge and decide what is admissible: surprise, their objections are always granted) while every hair brained allegation of a conspiracy - third and fourth person hearsay, rumors - is uncritically
    promoted.
    Interesting meaning, gosh, these people are like religious fanatics.

    They are a cult, willing to drink the Kool-Aid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Steven Galbraith@21:1/5 to John Corbett on Sun Sep 17 09:26:01 2023
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:22:08 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:14:39 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:03:36 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    https://youtu.be/8XHy4X4AiwE

    So the same guy who demands the LNs prove Oswald's guilt beyond all possible doubt is
    endorsing a guy who accuses "the government" of killing JFK without any evidence to support
    it. He doesn't even name names. Conspiracy kooks never do. They just accuse "they". Since
    they have no evidence to support their insane idea, it's better to be as vague as possible.
    Isn't it, well, interesting that the conspiracy believers never reject evidence that supports their views if it wouldn't be allowed in court? None of this "chain of custody" or "hearsay" standards there. The evidence against Oswald is held to an
    impossible legal standard (where they can get to be the judge and decide what is admissible: surprise, their objections are always granted) while every hair brained allegation of a conspiracy - third and fourth person hearsay, rumors - is uncritically
    promoted.
    Interesting meaning, gosh, these people are like religious fanatics.
    They are a cult, willing to drink the Kool-Aid.
    And 127 different flavors of it too. Birchers, CIA, Pentagon, anti-Castro Cubans, military industrial complex, Wall Street financiers, rich Texas oilmen.....lots of different varieties of the stuff.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bud@21:1/5 to Steven Galbraith on Sun Sep 17 11:27:08 2023
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 12:14:39 PM UTC-4, Steven Galbraith wrote:
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 11:41:28 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
    On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 10:03:36 AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
    https://youtu.be/8XHy4X4AiwE

    So the same guy who demands the LNs prove Oswald's guilt beyond all possible doubt is
    endorsing a guy who accuses "the government" of killing JFK without any evidence to support
    it. He doesn't even name names. Conspiracy kooks never do. They just accuse "they". Since
    they have no evidence to support their insane idea, it's better to be as vague as possible.
    Isn't it, well, interesting that the conspiracy believers never reject evidence that supports their views if it wouldn't be allowed in court? None of this "chain of custody" or "hearsay" standards there.

    Also interesting is that in a case where a police officer is murdered, they DPD operates in a manner that will get all of their evidence to be disallowed. Either that or they are operating just like they have in thousands of other cases, and it has
    never been an issue inside a courtroom. Tough call.

    The evidence against Oswald is held to an impossible legal standard (where they can get to be the judge and decide what is admissible: surprise, their objections are always granted) while every hair brained allegation of a conspiracy - third and fourth
    person hearsay, rumors - is uncritically promoted.
    Interesting meaning, gosh, these people are like religious fanatics.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to geowright1963@gmail.com on Mon Sep 18 06:52:56 2023
    On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 08:41:26 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett <geowright1963@gmail.com> wrote:


    So the same guy who demands ...

    Believers can't follow their own demands...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com on Mon Sep 18 06:52:56 2023
    On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 09:14:37 -0700 (PDT), Steven Galbraith <stevemgalbraith@yahoo.com> wrote:

    Isn't it, well, interesting that the conspiracy believers never reject evidence that supports their views...


    When you have to lie to make a point, the only point you've made is
    that you're a liar.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ben Holmes@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 18 06:52:56 2023
    On Sun, 17 Sep 2023 11:27:08 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirslick@fast.net>
    wrote:


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

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

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

    So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)