Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: If I had planned the conspiracy ...  (Read 17541 times)

Online Tom Sorensen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: If I had planned the conspiracy ...
« Reply #336 on: Today at 10:30:50 AM »
Advertisement
Tom Graves, interesting. I would have sworn it was Thomas Graves way back, but I'm fine with Tom. LOL.

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: If I had planned the conspiracy ...
« Reply #336 on: Today at 10:30:50 AM »


Online Tom Graves

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
Re: If I had planned the conspiracy ...
« Reply #337 on: Today at 10:48:22 AM »
Tom Graves, interesting. I would have sworn it was Thomas Graves way back, but I'm fine with Tom. LOL.

LOL.

Online Tom Graves

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
Re: If I had planned the conspiracy ...
« Reply #338 on: Today at 10:53:52 AM »
Tom Graves, interesting.

You asked me how you, as a JFKA conspiracy theorist, helped Russia win the Cold War on 5 November 2024.

This is my answer:

You, unless you're a witting KGB* agent (are you?), are just a little brainwashed pawn in the scheme of things, but Putin and The Traitorous Orange Xxxx, et al., do appreciate the 60 years' worth of body-politic-destroying anti-CIA / anti-FBI / anti-Military JFKA conspiracy theories you've helped the KGB* spread or . . . gasp . . . concocted on your own with a little KGB* input (can you say Joachim Joesten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Jimmy DiEugenio, et al. ad nauseam?).

Just curious:

Do you even have a favorite JFKA conspiracy theory, coherent or otherwise?

Or do NOT have one, and, like John Iacoletti, get your rocks off by taking cheap potshots at "Lone Nutters" and the Warren Commission Report?

Is it all just a silly game to you?

*Today's SVR and FSB

Rhymes with bird.
« Last Edit: Today at 11:23:09 AM by Tom Graves »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: If I had planned the conspiracy ...
« Reply #338 on: Today at 10:53:52 AM »


Online Tom Sorensen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: If I had planned the conspiracy ...
« Reply #339 on: Today at 11:30:32 AM »
You asked me how you helped Russia win the Cold War on 5 November 2024.

This is my answer:

You, unless you're a witting KGB* agent (are you?), are just a little brainwashed pawn in the scheme of things, but Putin and The Traitorous Orange Xxxx, et al., do appreciate the 60 years' worth of body-politic-destroying anti-CIA / anti-FBI / anti-Military JFKA conspiracy theories you've helped the KGB* spread or . . . gasp . . . concocted on your own with a little KGB* input (can you say Joachim Joesten, Thomas G. Buchanan, Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Jimmy DiEugenio, et al. ad nauseam?).

Just curious:

Do you even have a coherent JFKA conspiracy theory?

Or do NOT have one, and, like John Iacoletti, get your rocks off by taking potshots at "Lone Nutters" and the Warren Commission Report?

*Today's SVR and FSB

Rhymes with bird.

I feel honored being placed in a group with John Iacoletti, thanks! I've already covered why no JFKA theory is needed to sink the conclusions in the WCR. I suggest you grow up, suck it up, and move on instead of copy-pasting your KGB babble ad infinitum.

Online Tom Graves

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 466
Re: If I had planned the conspiracy ...
« Reply #340 on: Today at 12:16:53 PM »
I've already covered why no JFKA theory is needed to sink the conclusions in the WCR.

What you're really saying is that you cherish all JFKA conspiracy theories, no matter how complicated and implausible they might be.
« Last Edit: Today at 12:19:13 PM by Tom Graves »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: If I had planned the conspiracy ...
« Reply #340 on: Today at 12:16:53 PM »


Offline Michael Capasse

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: If I had planned the conspiracy ...
« Reply #341 on: Today at 01:46:30 PM »
It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's Assassination be made public....

Thanks Tom, Katzenbach is quite clear, he says it's IMPORTANT that ALL the FACTS surrounding the assassination be MADE PUBLIC, and to the best of their abilities, that's exactly what the WC did. Do you have a problem with his opening line?

JohnM

Do you mean the report that was rejected as evidence in the Clay Shaw trial as being, "fraught with hearsay and contradictions"
"If we are going to accept the Warren Commission's report as being factual, we have just wasted a whole week of time here."


BY MR. DYMOND:
"If the Court please, at this time pursuant to the provisions of RS 13:3713, the Defense would like to offer,
introduce and file into evidence the report of the Warren Commission, a one-volume report, being the official volume
as published by the United States Printing Office in accordance with the requirements of the statute cited,
and we would like to mark the same D-32."

BY JUDGE BAGERT:
"As to the introduction of that particular volume, Judge O'Hara feels that it is in accordance with the statutes of the
State of Louisiana and should be admitted in evidence. Judge Braniff and I believe that it should not. And my reason is simply this.
If we are going to accept the Warren Commission's report as being factual, we have just wasted a whole week of time here.

I don't care what statute was ever enacted, to accept the Warren Report, even if it were a constitutional amendment,
and at some time later we, or any law abiding agency, law enforcement agency, would some day conceivably come up with six confessions,
six photographs, six eyewitnesses, it would all be for naught."

BY JUDGE BRANIFF:
I am objecting to it because it is fraught with hearsay and contradictions."

BY JUDGE O'HARA:
"Mr. Wegmann, when I agreed that it was admissible, I don't want it implied or inferred that I am in complete agreement
with the findings of the Commission. I would just like to make that perfectly clear. It's admissible for what it's worth.
That's my position."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps you were referring to the Commission that found in Executive Session, the conclusion of a lone assassin was determined before calling the 1st witness.
Rankin: "They found the man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can go on home and that is the end of it."

From the Jan. 22nd session...

Dulles: Oh, terrible.
Boggs: Its implications of this are fantastic, don't you think so?

A: Terrific".

Rankin: To have anybody admit to it, even if it was the fact, I am sure that there wouldn't at this point
be anything to prove it.

Dulles: Lee, if this were true, why would it be particularly in their interest -- I could see, it would be
in their interest to get rid of this man but why would it be in their interest to say he is clearly the only guilty one?
I mean I don't see that argument that you raise particularly shows an interest.

Boggs: I can immediately --
A: They would like to have us fold up and quit.

Boggs: This closes the case, you see. Don't you see?
Dulles: Yes, I see that.

Rankin: They found the man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can go
on home and that is the end of it.

Dulles: But that puts the man right on them. If he was not the killer and they employed him, they are already it, you see.
So your argument is correct if they are sure that this is going to close the case, but if it don't close the case, they are
worse off than ever by doing this.


Boggs: Yes, I would think so. And of course, we are all even grasping in the realm of speculation.
I don't even like to see this being taken down.

Dulles: Yes. I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of this?

A: I don't, except that we said we would have records of meetings and so we called the reporter in the formal way.
If you think what we have said here should not be upon the record, we can have it done that way. Of course it might. . . .

Dulles: I am just thinking of sending around copies and so forth. The only copies of this record should be kept right here.

Boggs: I would hope that none of these records are circulated to anybody.
A: I would hope so too.
« Last Edit: Today at 04:25:22 PM by Michael Capasse »

Online Tom Sorensen

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 45
Re: If I had planned the conspiracy ...
« Reply #342 on: Today at 02:00:05 PM »
What you're really saying is that you cherish all JFKA conspiracy theories, no matter how complicated and implausible they might be.

No, what I'm really saying is that I don't need a JFKA theory to debunk the WC narrative, and consequently don't need to endorse any of them.

Offline Michael Capasse

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 128
Re: If I had planned the conspiracy ...
« Reply #343 on: Today at 02:08:48 PM »
Tom Graves huh? - and here I thought it was the "Bill Chapman Show".
Regardless;  "Don't Feed the Trolls"  Thumb1:

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: If I had planned the conspiracy ...
« Reply #343 on: Today at 02:08:48 PM »