View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Misha » 12 Oct 2012, 02:07

ProfWag wrote:Misha,
Is it true that on page 1654 of Horne's book, he states the following:?

"One reality that is undeniable is that Lee Harvey Oswald DID NOT KILL PRESIDENT KENNEDY, as proven by George O'Toole in
1975."

If that is true, is that quote above taken out of context or does that pretty much sum up Mr. Horne's conclusion?


Hi ProfWag,

The above comment in Horne's book is correct. However, since you will not buy the books I will give a greater context as to why the statement fits with Horne's conclusions:

THE ASSASSINATION TAPES:


Two lines of evidence have convinced me, more than any others, that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy. The first, the paraffin test on his right cheek (which had a negative result), was clearly exculpatory, and most students of the assassination know about that test. The second line of evidence, perhaps less well known, involves the use of the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) machine to assess Oswald's credibility in voice recordings of statements he made about his innocence after he was arrested on Friday, November 22, 1963, and before he was killed by Jack Ruby on Sunday, November 24, 1963. The analysis of Oswald's oral responses to questions posed by reporters, conducted by former CIA computer specialist George O'Toole in 1973, showed that while Oswald may have been lying about other answers he gave to the media, that he was telling the truth when he insisted he did not kill President Kennedy; and O'Toole's findings were confirmed by three experts in the use of the PSE machine. O'Toole published his findings in 1975, in a delightful gem of a book titled: The Assassination Tapes: An Electronic Probe Into the Murder of John F. Kennedy and the Dallas Coverup. O'Toole's book experienced only modest sales, and has been out of print for over three decades, but he evidence he presented is just as relevant---and just as valid---today, as it was in 1975.

---Page 1654, Volume V, "Inside The ARRB."


Also, I would like you folks to watch this clip of David Talbot talking about Kenny O'Donnell and Mike Powers on what they saw and heard when JFK was assassinated. O'Donnell is a perfect example of the "invisible electrified fence.":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO78JBnAB0w
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42






Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Misha » 12 Oct 2012, 02:39

Hi ProfWag,

What happened to your last post? For that fact, what happened to my last post? I saw that you read a book review by Max Holland and Holland ripped Talbot's book apart. No worries, though. I found this for your edification concerning Max Holland. Again, Max Holland is a known CIA asset:

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... cle02.html

My apologies, Guys. ProfWag and I were debating this issue on another thread. I cut and pasted for your edification on this thread. The posts are below.
Last edited by Misha on 12 Oct 2012, 02:53, edited 2 times in total.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Misha » 12 Oct 2012, 02:48

Misha wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Misha,
Is it true that on page 1654 of Horne's book, he states the following:?

"One reality that is undeniable is that Lee Harvey Oswald DID NOT KILL PRESIDENT KENNEDY, as proven by George O'Toole in
1975."

If that is true, is that quote above taken out of context or does that pretty much sum up Mr. Horne's conclusion?


Hi ProfWag,

The above comment in Horne's book is correct. However, since you will not buy the books I will give a greater context as to why the statement fits with Horne's conclusions:

THE ASSASSINATION TAPES:


Two lines of evidence have convinced me, more than any others, that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy. The first, the paraffin test on his right cheek (which had a negative result), was clearly exculpatory, and most students of the assassination know about that test. The second line of evidence, perhaps less well known, involves the use of the Psychological Stress Evaluator (PSE) machine to assess Oswald's credibility in voice recordings of statements he made about his innocence after he was arrested on Friday, November 22, 1963, and before he was killed by Jack Ruby on Sunday, November 24, 1963. The analysis of Oswald's oral responses to questions posed by reporters, conducted by former CIA computer specialist George O'Toole in 1973, showed that while Oswald may have been lying about other answers he gave to the media, that he was telling the truth when he insisted he did not kill President Kennedy; and O'Toole's findings were confirmed by three experts in the use of the PSE machine. O'Toole published his findings in 1975, in a delightful gem of a book titled: The Assassination Tapes: An Electronic Probe Into the Murder of John F. Kennedy and the Dallas Coverup. O'Toole's book experienced only modest sales, and has been out of print for over three decades, but he evidence he presented is just as relevant---and just as valid---today, as it was in 1975.

---Page 1654, Volume V, "Inside The ARRB."


Also, I would like you folks to watch this clip of David Talbot talking about Kenny O'Donnell and Mike Powers on what they saw and heard when JFK was assassinated. O'Donnell is a perfect example of the "invisible electrified fence.":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO78JBnAB0w




Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby ProfWag » Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:46 pm

Misha wrote:"Wow" is right. I Kinda feel like David Talbot when Vincent Bugliosi regurgitates strawman arguments knowing the public will not take the time to look at the evidence. Nice try.

"Third Base"...........


I have not read David Talbot's book "Brothers." Here is a paragraph from a review:

"Notwithstanding these problems, there is something more troubling about this book than Talbot’s factual errors, use of innuendo, and credulous reliance on such questionable sources as Murgado and the Hunts. And that is Talbot’s persistent failure to provide the full context of several pivotal events during the height of U.S. efforts to topple Fidel Castro. Via the exclusion of many inconvenient facts, and the misrepresentation of specific events, he leaves the reader with a distorted perception of what actually occurred. The pattern is so persistent it appears to be calculated."

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2 ... d-cub.html

User avatar
ProfWag

Posts: 3359
Joined: Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:54 pm

Top

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby Misha » Thu Oct 11, 2012 1:16 pm

ProfWag wrote:

Misha wrote:"Wow" is right. I Kinda feel like David Talbot when Vincent Bugliosi regurgitates strawman arguments knowing the public will not take the time to look at the evidence. Nice try.

"Third Base"...........


I have not read David Talbot's book "Brothers." Here is a paragraph from a review:

"Notwithstanding these problems, there is something more troubling about this book than Talbot’s factual errors, use of innuendo, and credulous reliance on such questionable sources as Murgado and the Hunts. And that is Talbot’s persistent failure to provide the full context of several pivotal events during the height of U.S. efforts to topple Fidel Castro. Via the exclusion of many inconvenient facts, and the misrepresentation of specific events, he leaves the reader with a distorted perception of what actually occurred. The pattern is so persistent it appears to be calculated."

http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2 ... d-cub.html



ProfWag,

If you are going to use a source, please be fair. The founder of Washington Decoded is none other than Max Holland -- A known CIA asset! Let's ask Doug Horne about Max Holland. Please, don't ask another fox to investigate the hen house.:

Washington Decoded
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wiki letter w.svg
This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions may be available. (April 2010)

Washington Decoded (WashingtonDecoded.com) is a monthly online newsletter presenting articles on American history. Founded in March 2007 by editor Max Holland, the site publishes new pieces on the 11th of each month, with additional "extra" features. The site features book reviews and articles by authors, journalists, and scholars including John Earl Haynes, Harvey Klehr, Merle L. Pribbenow, Jeffrey T. Richelson, Sheldon M. Stern, and Holland, many of whose articles published elsewhere are also hosted on the site. WashingtonDecoded.com has hosted articles on a wide range of topics such as Watergate, Cold War History, 9/11, John F. Kennedy's assassination, and intelligence-related subjects. In November 2009, Washingtonian magazine featured a version of a WashingtonDecoded.com article on Richard Nixon's Deep Throat.[1] The banner of WashingtonDecoded.com features an edited quote from a 1946 George Orwell essay,[2] "Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful . . . and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."
Contents

Misha

Posts: 113
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:42 pm
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby ProfWag » 12 Oct 2012, 05:30

Here is why I cannot and will not read Mr. Horne's book. You have verified that the following sentence is accurate from his book:
"One reality that is undeniable is that Lee Harvey Oswald DID NOT KILL PRESIDENT KENNEDY, as proven by George O'Toole in
1975."

First, George O'Toole did not PROVE LHO was innocent. Mr. Horne wants the reader to believe that the PSE is foolproof. It is not now and wasn't then. Had he said that George O'Toole presented evidence..., then perhaps. But that one, simple, relatevely short statement tells me that Mr. Horne wants the reader to believe one way when, in fact, the PSE does not prove anything. My reference on the PSE is taken from the following, page 357:
http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/c ... aluator%22
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Misha » 12 Oct 2012, 06:55

ProfWag wrote:Here is why I cannot and will not read Mr. Horne's book. You have verified that the following sentence is accurate from his book:
"One reality that is undeniable is that Lee Harvey Oswald DID NOT KILL PRESIDENT KENNEDY, as proven by George O'Toole in
1975."

First, George O'Toole did not PROVE LHO was innocent. Mr. Horne wants the reader to believe that the PSE is foolproof. It is not now and wasn't then. Had he said that George O'Toole presented evidence..., then perhaps. But that one, simple, relatevely short statement tells me that Mr. Horne wants the reader to believe one way when, in fact, the PSE does not prove anything. My reference on the PSE is taken from the following, page 357:
http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/c ... aluator%22



ProfWag, what gets me is that you never brought up Oswald's PSE results, as far as I know, until I posted it. Also, the PSE does not PROVE Oswald was guilty, Does it? Horne did indeed qualify that Oswald might have been lying on other questions according to the PSE results. Why didn't you qualify this against Horne's thesis? Also, Horne did not use the word "foolproof." Those are your words. Where I am in agreement with you is the PSE is not accepted as a fool proof tool. The PSE has gotten mixed results, but nonetheless is still a tool in which to measure against other forms of interrogation. As you know the lie detector can be beaten. Yet, the lie detector is still used in cases where objectivity of subject can be furthered evaluated.

Now for your cherry picking. Why didn't you point out that Horne was also basing his conclusion on the "exculpatory evidence" surrounding Oswald's paraffin test? Why don't you read en toto, cover to cover, before you engage in bathwaterism regarding Horne.

Furthermore, I have stated in one of my posts that Jim Marrs has said that all researchers have bias.' I agree. It's human nature. However, Jim has also stated that it is up to the reader/researcher to PICK OUT the relevant information and measure it with other researchers. Please do this with all researchers including Horne.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby ProfWag » 12 Oct 2012, 10:20

Misha wrote:[

ProfWag, what gets me is that you never brought up Oswald's PSE results, as far as I know, until I posted it. Also, the PSE does not PROVE Oswald was guilty, Does it? Horne did indeed qualify that Oswald might have been lying on other questions according to the PSE results. Why didn't you qualify this against Horne's thesis? Also, Horne did not use the word "foolproof." Those are your words. Where I am in agreement with you is the PSE is not accepted as a fool proof tool. The PSE has gotten mixed results, but nonetheless is still a tool in which to measure against other forms of interrogation. As you know the lie detector can be beaten. Yet, the lie detector is still used in cases where objectivity of subject can be furthered evaluated.

Now for your cherry picking. Why didn't you point out that Horne was also basing his conclusion on the "exculpatory evidence" surrounding Oswald's paraffin test? Why don't you read en toto, cover to cover, before you engage in bathwaterism regarding Horne.

Furthermore, I have stated in one of my posts that Jim Marrs has said that all researchers have bias.' I agree. It's human nature. However, Jim has also stated that it is up to the reader/researcher to PICK OUT the relevant information and measure it with other researchers. Please do this with all researchers including Horne.

I remember Oswald's PSE results, but hadn't thought about them in quite some time, so no, I have never brought up his results before since you've been here. You are saying that PSE does not PROVE Oswald was guilty. I agree. That is not what Horne said. He is giving that PSE a lot of credence and I simply don't see how I can interpret what he said any differently, even after further review. It was a new procedure back in the '70s. The tape hasn't even been determined that it actually was Oswald on the tape. Horne (and others) have used it to sway the opinion of like-minded people to be even more positive that Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy. Horne's own words were that the PSE results from O'Toole proved LHO did not shoot JFK, and that simply is not true in any way, shape, or form. It's irresponsible. I don't like being fooled and that is exactly what I believe Horne is doing.
Please stop asking me to spend $100 to read 2,000 pages written by someone who is obviously a conspiracy theorist who has misled his reader. I find what he says to be dishonest and I read all of 5 pages of his book. I can't imagine what other crap is written in there. If you would like to discuss Oswald's paraffin test, we can, but I don't think you will agree with my findings.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Misha » 12 Oct 2012, 17:07

Conspiracy Theorist...sigh. The man served as Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy for ten years. And on a sub with nuclear weapons. As I said the tag "conspiracy theorist" in today's society is tantamount to calling someone unstable. I'm sure the Navy would not allow an unstable person on their boat. I do not think Horne is unstable. I think Horne has laid out his thesis quite well. I think Horne deserves the courtesy and respect for laying his reputation on line which so few will do.

However, let's move on, ProfWag.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby ProfWag » 12 Oct 2012, 21:10

Misha wrote:Conspiracy Theorist...sigh. The man served as Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy for ten years. And on a sub with nuclear weapons. As I said the tag "conspiracy theorist" in today's society is tantamount to calling someone unstable. I'm sure the Navy would not allow an unstable person on their boat. I do not think Horne is unstable. I think Horne has laid out his thesis quite well. I think Horne deserves the courtesy and respect for laying his reputation on line which so few will do.

However, let's move on, ProfWag.

I can move on, but I disagree with your statements.
First, I do not in any way, shape, or form believe that a "conspiracy theorist" is unstable. I believe virtually ever person has some sort of personal agenda against something, but that does not make them unstable and I would like to think most people feel the same way. In fact, I think it is important for information to be brought to light that may be hidden, but I would prefer the information be accurate.
A couple of examples of why your Lt Cmdr statement doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Major General Albert Stubblebine believed he could make a soldier invisible and walk through walls. I won't say if he's "unstable" as that is not my job, I just stand wholeheartedly by my belief that one must look at the background and source. Also, a Lt. Cmdr is an O-4. Nidal Hasan was an O-4 (and an M.D.).
Just because someone was an officer in the military doesn't mean they aren't human with unbiased feelings.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Misha » 12 Oct 2012, 23:51

ProfWag wrote:
Misha wrote:Conspiracy Theorist...sigh. The man served as Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy for ten years. And on a sub with nuclear weapons. As I said the tag "conspiracy theorist" in today's society is tantamount to calling someone unstable. I'm sure the Navy would not allow an unstable person on their boat. I do not think Horne is unstable. I think Horne has laid out his thesis quite well. I think Horne deserves the courtesy and respect for laying his reputation on line which so few will do.

However, let's move on, ProfWag.

I can move on, but I disagree with your statements.
First, I do not in any way, shape, or form believe that a "conspiracy theorist" is unstable. I believe virtually ever person has some sort of personal agenda against something, but that does not make them unstable and I would like to think most people feel the same way. In fact, I think it is important for information to be brought to light that may be hidden, but I would prefer the information be accurate.
A couple of examples of why your Lt Cmdr statement doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Major General Albert Stubblebine believed he could make a soldier invisible and walk through walls. I won't say if he's "unstable" as that is not my job, I just stand wholeheartedly by my belief that one must look at the background and source. Also, a Lt. Cmdr is an O-4. Nidal Hasan was an O-4 (and an M.D.).
Just because someone was an officer in the military doesn't mean they aren't human with unbiased feelings.


I can move on too. BUT, go out and ask people what their thoughts on a "conspiracy theorist" might be. I have. People tend to follow the public line that conspiracy theorists are nuts, loons, crackpots, etc. So why don't you drop the tag word? You don't because it is a passive aggressive tool in which to dismiss your opponent imprinted by established media. Go and watch Bill O'Reilly interview Jim Fetzer if you want to see this at work. And that is just one example.

Also, I would like to address this before we move on. You wrote:

"I don't like being fooled and that is exactly what I believe Horne is doing.
Please stop asking me to spend $100 to read 2,000 pages written by someone who is obviously a conspiracy theorist who has misled his reader. I find what he says to be dishonest and I read all of 5 pages of his book. I can't imagine what other crap is written in there. If you would like to discuss Oswald's paraffin test, we can, but I don't think you will agree with my findings."


You don't like being fooled, hey. Well, the same could be said by reading Max Holland, Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi to name a few. I find what they say to be dishonest along with the Warren Report. Again, it is up to the researcher to sift through the noise, right. You refuse to do this because to do so would disrupt your reality and world view. It would force you to come to terms with yourself and lead you to action. See ProfWay, it is your point of reference that I find disingenuous. I do not think you are a bad man. However, I do think you lack strong convictions when it comes to challenging the orthodox. It is not nice and neat.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby NinjaPuppy » 14 Oct 2012, 04:06

I'm watching NatGeo: "JFK: The Lost Bullet".
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Misha » 14 Oct 2012, 07:32

Let us know what you think of the program, NinjaPuppy. Is this a new program, by the way?
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby ProfWag » 14 Oct 2012, 19:17

Misha wrote:
You don't like being fooled, hey. Well, the same could be said by reading Max Holland, Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi to name a few. I find what they say to be dishonest along with the Warren Report. Again, it is up to the researcher to sift through the noise, right. You refuse to do this because to do so would disrupt your reality and world view. It would force you to come to terms with yourself and lead you to action. See ProfWay, it is your point of reference that I find disingenuous. I do not think you are a bad man. However, I do think you lack strong convictions when it comes to challenging the orthodox. It is not nice and neat.

I guess this is another point we'll have to agree to disagree. I do sift through the noise Misha which is why I pointed out an inconsistency in Horne's statement. I looked for the same in Bugliosi's and didn't find blatant errors or misrepresentations. I'll be happy to discuss a specific though if you have one.
I have no issue at all wiith "challenging the orthodox," but it really has nothing to do with the truth. You sound like Winston in that you think if it is what the "establishment" wants us to think, then it must be false. That just isn't always the case. Sometimes, when it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's actually a duck.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby NinjaPuppy » 14 Oct 2012, 19:50

Misha wrote:Let us know what you think of the program, NinjaPuppy. Is this a new program, by the way?

A quick Google of the title didn't give me much information. It seems to be from 2011.

User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Misha » 15 Oct 2012, 02:15

"You sound like Winston in that you think if it is what the "establishment" wants us to think, then it must be false. That just isn't always the case. Sometimes, when it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it's actually a duck."


Winston is his own man. You are your own man. I am my own man. Your statement above "sounds" like a typical polarized, we versus they, response to those who do question the orthodox. Again, your reference points to our governments past indiscretions seem to ignore that some folks do not buy the official line.

I do find it interesting you used the "duck" maxim, though. Admiral Sidney Souers (Second director of the Central Intelligence Group) used this very same phrase. I hope at the end of the day you take your own advice.

On another note. I see that Arlene Spector passed away. Here's a man that sold the American people the wrong duck. And this nation has been paying for it ever since.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Postby Misha » 15 Oct 2012, 02:37

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Misha wrote:Let us know what you think of the program, NinjaPuppy. Is this a new program, by the way?

A quick Google of the title didn't give me much information. It seems to be from 2011.



Thanks, NinjaPuppy. What did you think of the show. I would like to hear your thoughts. By the way, NatGeo doesn't get it right all of the time. In fact, NatGeo had to retract their initial statements on the WTC pancake theory as explained by Kevin Ryan. In fact, NIST does not support the pancake theory! This is not directed at you, NinjaPuppy. My point that even those shows with the perceived "seal of approval" have agendas too. Also, NatGeo, according to Ryan's article is owned by Rupert Murdoch who holds 67% of its shares. Now is that looking at the quacking duck?

http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/ ... ology.html

Addendum: I do not wish to muddy the thread. I am merely pointing out that NatGeo's take on the Kennedy assassination must be looked at against other research.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests