Response to the Fez's latest

We're here trying to out the Military Industrial Congressional Complex... you honestly think I'm worried about members playing cointelpro games?

Sure. Not worried in the slightest That's why you disappeared until after I was booted.

Trying to out the MICC? With your arsenal of emoticons and fonts, I'm sure they're trembling in their bootstraps.

I've discussed the case with GP over many years Mitchell.. From my experience that which he uses as evidence to bedunk is never very strong or even appropriate to the discussion. In most every case the subject matter of his arguments are laced with speculation and his own theiories about other people and what COULD be possible...

People are free to read any of the threads here on the subject and make up there own minds if for example, using a contemporaneous news story to show that riots occurred in Fort Worth in Sept 1956 is appropriate to show that riots occurred in Fort Worth in Sept 1956 just as the official version has it. Or if it is appropriate to use the Beauregard School records as Ex A showing that they too support the official version and not the cockamamie misreading of them that you get from Josephs. The list goes on, but hopefully you get the idea.

Fez is emboldened to make these outlandish claims simply because I am not there to burst his bubble.

As we've come to learn, anyone can argue the "against" side of the discussion... Evidence could be created/altered, memories fade, tonsils grow back, scars fade... 

"Evidence can be created/altered" is a cornerstone of H & L Theory. It is their "get-out-of-jail free card".

Memories do fade, distort and co-mingle over time. That is a fact, and the reason why first day statements are more highly regarded.

Tonsils can grow back. It is a medical fact that this was not so rare back in 1945 when only partial removal was still popular and performed on kids under 8 - the age when tonsils are fully grown.

Scars do fade. Another incontrovertible medical fact. 

But none of these facts matter to the Fez because he urges readers to look at the totality of the evidence. This is code for "do not scrutinize ANY of the evidence -- but place it all side by side on the table and marvel at the sheer volume of it. There is soooo much, it can't be wrong." Which is the EXACT same MO that the likes of DVP make regularly when any individual piece of evidence is scrutinized and found wanting. The Fez knows this because DVP has pulled this same MO in response to the Fez's posts on the purchases of the weapons. 

Do a quick search on James Earl Ray or Sirhan Sirhan and see how much time and effort the FBI put to creating their life's narrative... I did and only found fleeting mentions of James dropping out of high school... not the year by year, grade by grade minutia we find in the JFK investigation. 

No doubt about the Fez. He'll swim to any port.

There is no comparison. The amount of background information sought was in direct relation to the need to find motive.

Oswald - no confession + no known motive + plus killed days later = extensive background checks to try and find motive.

Ray - plead guilty = No background checks required.

Sirhan - plead not guilty - but motive (wrongly) quickly pinpointed as RFK support of Israel = no extensive/exhaustive background checks needed  

According to Fez and cohorts, the real reason the FBI effort was expended on Oswald was to cover up for the CIA "H & L operation. This is so wrong on so many levels - for starters, there was no love lost between the FBI and CIA and such an extensive inquiry would only serve to potentially expose the plot, not cover it up - which of course, is exactly what happened. The plot was exposed by the FBI interview with Palmer McBride. Except of course the "plot" was divined from McBride's now exposed faulty memory and later built upon with a slew of misread documents and hand-picked witnesses.

What people like GP fail to grasp is the YEARS of work interviewing those who the FBI hide away to get at the heart and truth of the matter.

Some deconstructing is called for here.

Earlier we saw from the Fez how the FBI was going to extraordinary lengths in investigating Oswald's background. To emphasize the lengths gone to, the Fez tried to contrast this with the amount of background investigating done on Sirhan and Ray.  Now the Fez is doing a back-flip by claiming the FBI was actually hiding witnesses.  Maybe the first witness they should have hidden was Palmer McBride. Instead those morons at the FBI actually correctly recorded everything he said. We know that because the morons got him to sign it. 

This leads into the other problem with this pronouncement of Chairman Fez... if the FBI truly wanted to hide any witnesses, they would not be found. Simply as that.

One can always claim Dennis David or Paul O'Connor are lying... if they stood alone on an island... but once you expand the view and see how corroborated their accounts are... and then look at the scores of people who knew LEE and claim the HARVEY, the man Ruby shot, was NOT him... and then you check the records and find copies of copies which do not work together, or finally find original Unit Diaries which contradict the "agreed upon" timelines while corroborating stories like Felde's or Donavan's or Powers'... one ought to take a minute from talking tonsils and do the research.

"Corroborated" - like bullock's "corroboration" that included the "fact" inadvertently omitted by the Fez, that LHO wore glasses in the Marines - and not just any old glasses - THICK glasses. Such specificity without "corroboration" - even from OTHER witnesses "hidden" by the FBI - can only mean Bullock had Oswald confused with someone else - and no not "Harvey" - cos this guy was too tall and athletically built to be mistaken for a mythical critter.  

GP did not, does not do that... go over to his forum Mitchell... just read the ..ing that passes for posts and the vile attacks on this forum and its members who disagree with GP and his approach... or Hasan's blog... angry little men with nothing to do but to lash out in their little corner of the internet... and offer nothing to forward our knowledge of anything.

What Mitch will find is an imperfect little group whose members don't take themselves too seriously, nor run from debate.  

Talking about inches, or unsigned undocumented FBI reports reeks of cointelpro tactics for derailing productive conversation. I expected more from GP than voodoo tonsils and obscure theories based on a single sentence he picked out of a review somewhere - would it be fair to talk theological inconsistencies with a priest if you have never bothered to read the bible? ... just cause you kinda know what the story is...?

Translation: it's okay to talk about inches and FBI reports only when those things support the official H & L line. 

And once again - I am not arguing against a book which I have not read. I am arguing against the information contained on a number of websites and forums which purports to be about, or taken from, the Holy Writ.

There is a difference that's not even all that subtle.'

IDK what GP's point or direction was... if purely to debunk H&L he comes woefully unprepared... if only to attack Armstrong and the H&L evidence, I find his attacks hollow and inadequate for the task.... He wants to know where I get my copies of documents... he remained so unaware of 99% of the evdience yet can take to his soapbox and berate others for having done their homework and challenge his POV... 

You do know because I told you more than once that I wanted to provide you with the detailed discussion and analysis which the thread title indicates you were seeking. Your initial defensive response followed by your total meltdown kinda puts the knife to any suggestion you were serious about having any serious discussion. 

As for the one document I questioned - you claim the copy at MFF is defective. I claim it is YOUR copy which is defective (through bleeding of ink) in the manner of this document: http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/38/3894-004.gif  

Mitchell - I appreciate those who admit they are not prepared to have these conversations... Or just as prepared to take what we post and question it realistically...

Translation: I love people to lap up what I dish out without question, unless it's to ask how I got to be so fabulous.

I am not a cult member here (as GP has accused me of) I took the time to determine what the evidence - not Armstrong - says... and it points to two different people from both a forward moving timeline as well as a backward looking one where the FBI created/altered/destroyed the documents needed to support/uncover the charade.

cult noun, often attributive \ˈkəlt\
: a small religious group that is not part of a larger and more accepted religion and that has beliefs regarded by many people as extreme or dangerous


: a situation in which people admire and care about something or someone very much or too much


: a small group of very devoted supporters or fans
---------------------
If it waddles like a duck, smells like a duck, looks like a duck...


An indicator that a group is a cult is the refusal of the group to accept criticism of the dogma, and the expulsion of heretics...


The Fez may believe he is of independent mind, but he proved otherwise when, after a multitude of denials, he finally accepted that the Holy Writ interpretation of the Sacred Beauregard Parchments was in error -- only to do a complete back-flip and revert to the Holy Writ interpretation upon consulting on this grave development with JA.

John and I are discussing the 5 most important and most unassailable facts to try and help me create a post that makes the evidence mroe "real"...


1. The Stripling/Kudlaty situation and 2220 Thomas Place is hard to argue against...
2. The different platoons and timing of the Marine records vs those that spent time with Lee or Harvey is also supported by a massive number of docs
3. The movements in and out of Russia and the "coincidences" of Marina's clouded history and Webster's involvement couplded with Goodpasture's actions

1. Kudlaty - an old friend of the co-author of this theory. 

2. A massive number of records - in which you have to drink the kool aid in order to "understand" what they say
3. Could mean any number of OTHER things.

Isn't that only 3???