Myers responds to McBride

Fri 14 Feb 2014, 8:04 pm

First topic message reminder :

The dickhead known as Dale Myers has written a reply to Joseph McBride's article on his shitty blog:

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/mcbrides-folly-how-conspirati-avoid.html

He takes a swipe at CTKA.net saying that it is "ironically and absurdly" called Citizens for truth about the Kennedy assassination. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing absurd is Myers. The guy is a piece of shit, period.

Fri 21 Feb 2014, 6:13 am

Maybe a principled DA might open a can of worms if the can was a small one. (Are there any principled DAs anywhere anymore?)

Yeah there are a lot of good ones (just had a prosecutor go to a judge's chambers with me yesterday to throw out a conviction after the victim recanted her story), but I wouldn't blame anyone for being gun shy on a case like this. I put the question as "did someone frame or assist Oswald?" because a lot of conspiracy researchers start by assuming Oswald was blameless, which quickly leads to latching onto all evidence of innocence and ignores all evidence of guilt. From there its just a hop, skip and jump to babbling about Lee framing Harvey-- or was it Harvey who framed Lee?-- I forget.

It sounds more reasonable to frame the issue as "did Oswald act alone?" (which could mean either he didn't act by himself or perhaps even didn't act at all). In fact, that's pretty much how Secretary of State John Kerry put it last fall, "To this day, I have serious doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone".

Fri 21 Feb 2014, 7:04 am

beowulf wrote:Maybe a principled DA might open a can of worms if the can was a small one. (Are there any principled DAs anywhere anymore?)

Yeah there are a lot of good ones (just had a prosecutor go to a judge's chambers with me yesterday to throw out a conviction after the victim recanted her story), but I wouldn't blame anyone for being gun shy on a case like this. I put the question as "did someone frame or assist Oswald?" because a lot of conspiracy researchers start by assuming Oswald was blameless, which quickly leads to latching onto all evidence of innocence and ignores all evidence of guilt. From there its just a hop, skip and jump to babbling about Lee framing Harvey-- or was it Harvey who framed Lee?-- I forget.

It sounds more reasonable to frame the issue as "did Oswald act alone?" (which could mean either he didn't act by himself or perhaps even didn't act at all). In fact, that's pretty much how Secretary of State John Kerry put it last fall, "To this day, I have serious doubts that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone".

Yes, starting out with only unassailable facts (e.g., goofy numbers on official documents) that raise reasonable questions (Sec of State Kerry is reasonable, right?) and then go from there. I mean, if reasonable people have serious doubts and there are hard facts to back that up, wouldn't the reasonable thing be to have another look? "Hey, Judge, I'm just trying to be reasonable, OK? Can't we all get along?"

It will take a rare and special person to ever get this ball rolling. I'd be shocked to see it happen (somebody please shock me).

I like "did Oswald act alone?" Gives some (a tiny bit) common ground with the lone nutters ("Hey, you give us the 'lone,' we give you the 'nut'"). Then you get your Trojan horse inside, the stormtroopers jump out, and all hell breaks loose.

Myers responds to McBride

Myers responds to McBride

Re: Myers responds to McBride

Re: Myers responds to McBride

Re: Myers responds to McBride