Mc Mike
Mc Mike's JournalThanks for posting this segment. Where would the repugs be without projection and double think?
Using this Bryan Slater seems like an in-your-face propaganda tactic, designed to reduce the impact of Dem and Women's charges that the repugs are forcing creepy, evil, invasive big government intrusion into women's health care. So if they accuse Dems first, then we wind up saying 'No we're not, you are'. Which sounds like a lame second grade argument on the playground. They're trying to steal the force of massive outrage against their Koch bircher nazi ALEC model legislation, and use it, projection style, for a second nazi Koch initiative, destroying the Affordable Care Act. Muddy the waters on the issue of who are the creepy big government officials getting their hands on our health care.
My hat's not really off to the Koch brothers and repugs for their genius on these tactics. They just have way too much money, time, and freedom to do these things, and a bad primary school kid shows the same level of tactical thinking.
The second post-er on this OP has a good point, too. Uncle Sam's 'creepy' now, for this ad, and it's acceptable to say that, as long as it's the repuglinazis saying so. In reality, 'Uncle Sam' is creepy when the Kochs' teabaggers are at rallies dressing up like Uncle Sam, but the repugs would scream accusations of 'unpatriotism' if detractors pointed that out in the media.
Right. 'Precious human life' for month zero through 9,
turns into 'starve the little welfare fraud to death' the second after it is an actual born human being.
They downgraded the gov's credit rating,
which caused market uncertainty that threw the stock market for a loop,
which caused investors to take refuge from the financial storm
by buying government bonds,
which they had just adjudged less reliable.
Ponzi, con game, pyramid scheme. That's the stock system.
+1, thanks for posting, DV.
A tangential piece of trivia that I'd like to point out: at the end of December of '08, I did 2 searches on yahoo, one phrase 'impeach bush' and the other 'impeach obama'. After 8 years of doing all wrong and no right (even by accident) there were 17.5 million hits for impeach bush. But at -.25 years in office, as just the president elect, 'impeach obama' yielded 35 million results.
Their people truly deserve impeachment, and our side forbears. The repugs running congress did nothing to hold the crooked malfeasant bush administration to account. Our administrations deserve to have the repugs shut up and get the hell out of the way, so we can fix the mess the repugs created, so naturally the repugs discover their sense of outrage and need for checks-and-balances oversight. They didn't think bush should answer for anything, when he clearly belongs in jail, but now they're trying to figure out some reason to use that nifty impeachment tool.
Treasonously sore losers, they are.
All your posts in this thread are right on, JDP.
Interesting how the gov demands rights for themselves that they strip from us.
For national security purposes, they must know everything about us. For national security purposes, we can't know anything about their actions.
Brad Blog amplified a Chris Hayes piece June 28 that highlighted a second "national security vs. whistleblower" contradiction, that showed another double think double standard:
"Hayes cites Starr's reporting in order to point out the hypocrisy in how some leaks, those seemingly meant to make the Pentagon look good, are, apparently, perfectly fine in the eyes of many of the very same people who have otherwise criticized --- and even called for the arrest of --- both Snowden and Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, who had the temerity to report on Snowden's leaks."
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10103
I never saw if anyone put this on DU at the time, but it didn't make a big splash, if it was posted. (And I haven't lost track of the fact that we're talking about Manning and Wikileaks, not Snowden and Greenwald. Not trying to conflate the 2 issues, either.) Chris Hayes 5.5 min video is included in the bb link, good ideas worth viewing. The 8 para sum up of Hayes' idea is a quick read, anyway.
And a final 'national security' double think that is troubling is that so much of this information is already known. Whether it is the mechanics of the REAL 9-11 attacks on us by our enemies, or our attacks on our enemies in the world wide theater of war, or the collateral damage our attacks induce causing us to LABEL non-combatant innocent victims as 'enemies', or our treatment of the UN and Spanish and Italian governments as 'non-friendlies' -- in every case, the other parties already know what they did and what we did, the only people who have to be kept in the dark about the facts are the hundreds of millions of American citizens who don't have national security clearances to know classified info. So, who is being treated like an 'enemy of the state' here is obvious.
Thanks for trying to help.
Every issue in this back and forth between us is just another loose thread in the unravelled 'official story', to me. Clear that our opinions differ.
I'm not going to adopt your method of reply, (point by point cut and paste with response), because it will swamp the thread further with repetition and make it more difficult to load for other post-ers (I can't be the only one who gets werfault i.e. crashes from the attempt to load 'view all' on this monster of a thread.) I gave you seven loose threads in the official narrative, you responded with 9 paras, breaking the Hunt bircher issue in to 3 pieces. Point by point:
Ferrie's library card: your mcadams link says the issue comes from 2 different unreliable witnesses, Oswald's land-lady, and Bannister's private investigator Jack Martin (via a daisy chain of witnesses that include Ferrie's roommate and G. Wray Gill). Anyone who says anything that isn't the 'official story' is an unreliable witness to adherents of the WC such as yourself. But when they're manifestly unreliable and butress the official story, you can over-look their 'quirks', or just use the statements that jine with the W.C., and ignore the ones that contradict it. Your 'proof' link says that Ferrie did visit the land lady about his library card. Senseless for him to do this, if he hadn't lent it to Oswald. Your link is inadequate in explaining Ferrie's visit.
Oswald carried the card for the same reason the Watergate burglars carried no i.d. and had even their suit labels removed, but had address books with E. Howard Hunt's White House phone number in them. For the same reason the private contractors on the Contra re-supply network carried no i.d., but copious amounts of paperwork about their 'off-the-shelf' mission. The reason is they're doing things that have their ass hanging way out on the limb in legality terms, and they want some kind of paperwork anchor on them in case they fall. Oswald said to Ferrie 'O.K., I'll do what you tell me (interact with far-right gun runners and take a high-profile 'lefty' position). By the way, could you do me a favor and lend me your library card. I haven't been able to get one, I've been moving around too much, and I enjoy reading.' A simple request that Ferrie didn't refuse, which exposed him to problems later.
Ferrie and Jack Martin were both members of a far right fringe schismatic sect called both the 'Apostolic Orthodox Catholic Church' and the 'Old Roman Catholic Church'. The family of Arthur Bremer, the lone nut who helped put Nixon into office in '72, also belong to that sect. His sister, Gail Aiken, was also closely involved with preacher Oliver Owen, who injected himself into the Sirhan Sirhan case. And you do know who G. Wray Gill is, right, Zappa? Interesting that he's called G. Wray Gill in your link and in James Earl Ray's book 'Tennessee Waltz', but is called C. Wray Gill in Hinckle and Turner's 'Deadly Secrets'/'The Fish is Red' (missing from the book's index, to boot), while his name on the 544 Camp St. building directory (where Bannister-Martin-Ferrie-Oswald 'worked') is written as 'W. Ray Gill', in Stone's movie 'JFK'. I'll save you time explaining it all for me, by just typing 'w o o' in here, myself.
Paine's station wagon: your jfk online link 'proving' your point that the witnesses are crackpots identifies Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig as a 'crackpot' eyewitness. Captain Will Fritz questioned Oswald about the station wagon, based on Craig's eyewitness report. Later, Fritz denied having any interaction with Craig about Craig's eyewitness testimony. Unfortunately for Fritz, Chief Jesse Curry's book 'JFK Assassination File' published a photo (taken by the Dallas Times Herald) that showed Craig in Fritz's office during interrogation of Oswald. Your link says that Paine owned a Chevy, not a Nash Rambler. But Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers went to the Paine's house and confirmed they had a Nash Rambler. Everyone's a crackpot but Paine and Fritz, including the other 3 cops mentioned and the Times Herald, right? This sloppy lack of follow up on the Paines, and Oswald's route on 11/22 away from the job they got him at the TSBD, tends to put the lie to your 'following every lead' explanation, and once again, you find credible only those who say what you want to hear. More loose threads in the official story for me, more 'woo' for you.
Ruby's mob ties: your link dismissing Ruby's prolifically documented connections to organized crime contains this excerpt--
"Ruby was also very specific about precisely who was most actively pushing the theory of his involvement in a conspiracy:
[T]here is a certain organization in this area that has been indoctrinated that I am the one that was in the plot to assassinate our President. . . . The John Birch Society.(19)
Ruby was correct; the John Birch Society was indeed spreading propaganda implicating Ruby as part of a Jewish conspiracy. In fact, Ruby correctly named resigned US Army Major General Edwin Walker as one of the society's leaders in Dallas,(20) and it is quite telling that when Walker appeared before the Warren Commission, he insisted upon referring to Ruby by his birth name, Rubenstein.(21)
Ruby continued:
If certain people have the means and want to gain something by propagandizing something to their own use, they will make ways to present certain things that I do look guilty." (22) . . . If you don't take me back to Washington tonight to give me a chance to prove to the President that I am not guilty, then you will see the most tragic thing that will ever happen. And . . . I won't be around to be able to prove my innocence or guilt.(23). . . I am used as a scapegoat, and there is no greater weapon that you can use to create some falsehood about some of the Jewish faith, especially at the terrible heinous crime such as the killing of President Kennedy. . . . Now maybe something can be saved. It may not be too late, whatever happens, if our President, Lyndon Johnson, knew the truth from me. But if I am eliminated, there won't be any way of knowing. Right now, when I leave your presence now, I am the only one that can bring out the truth to our President, who believes in righteousness and justice. But he has been told, I am certain, that I was part of a plot to assassinate the President. . . .(24)"
(Excerpt ends)
It's funny that my post (#655) on this thread said the same thing, and caused you to award me the 'top woo of the thread'. But now you can use this link containing the same idea to somehow show me that Sparky Ruby has no mob ties. So you selectively pay attention to the parts you like, and ignore the parts that cast doubt on the 'official story' and its many loose ends. You rely on the statement that Ruby's family and people close to him said he had no organized crime connections. I remind you that Hoover himself wouldn't admit that organized crime even existed, while the mob series 'The Untouchables' was a hit on T.V., while Runyon's 'Guys and Dolls' was a Broadway hit. Mob leader Joe Colombo set up the Italian American Civil Rights League to accuse people of prejudice against Italians when they talked about organized crime. Yet you imagine a strangely different world, where mobsters and their family and associates admit they are involved with organized crime. Cartoonish thinking, which you put forth as level-headed realism, and which you use to praise or exonerate the W.C.'s abject failure on the Ruby-organized crime connection. And the bonus in your link is Ruby's discussion of the Hunt-promoted John Birch Society.
Oswald the commie-proselytizing Marine: The Hollywood Blacklist wasn't even broken until '60. Ordinary people were censured and blacklisted for having liberal affiliations. The Marines exerted a harsh discipline at the time, including 'blanket parties' for misfits and trouble makers. If the Sarge couldn't beat you, he could get a bunch of lower ranked people to beat you. One Marine I knew closely from that time had his top teeth knocked out by such a gang, because he beat the sarge in a fight due to the sarge disparaging his mother (part of the break them down re-build them 'training' process). The Marine then had to go to a dentist who was an officer afterward, who said 'you don't need novacaine' while he drilled and pulled the stumps of the teeth. The Marine corp behaved like that through the next decade, when recruits were trained for Vietnam. And America's anti-commie fervor continued for decades afterward. Yet you imagine that the hack TV show writer Bellisario's claim that 'Oswald espoused communism in the Marines' and was nicknamed 'Oswaldovitch' by his fellow marines as a perfectly acceptable 'official story', and dismiss the glaring contradiction to reality this provides with 'what difference does it make'. Good answer, Zap.
Ruby Corrects D.A. Wade at the Press Conference: Should I use a Ouija board to follow your advice, here? I notice your flippant answer doesn't address the question at all. Ignore more huge holes and loose threads in the official narrative, don't trouble yourself about it, but pretend you responded.
Bircher Hunt Family: Evidence to a crime can be offered involving method, motive, or opportunity. The question I raised about the Bircher Hunts' activities showed both method and motive, and IS evidence. The Hunts blatantly and purposefully created a poisonous hate-filled atmosphere, telling people Kennedy deserved death, preparing the way. Their hatred for him and accusations of treason by him shows you their motive. So you dismiss evidence by demanding I provide evidence. Sophistry. I like how you add that 'we've seen this kind of hate directed recently at Obama and liberals in general', because that's what I said in my post (655) here, to earn my 'top woo of the thread' award from you. Somehow in your mind, you saying it to me proves you're right, (unclear what you're right about, though). And you think you're telling me something, when you say something I told you. Your observation is 'informative and laudable', but my identical observation is 'woo'. So you're openly just lying to yourself, and thinking 'this sounds good'.
WC composition: Either you were confused by the question, and thought I was asking you if the Fox News definition of F&B could be applied to the WC, or your judgement is questionable.
About your last sentence, I already thanked you in this post's reply title line for the 3 link citations you dug up, though they really shed no new light on the questions at hand, contain internal contradictions, are contradicted by reality, or contain info that contradicts other things you've said. And no, there isn't anything else you can do for me, you've done so much already. You really can't help me any further, because I estimate your judgement to be as low in quality as you estimate mine to be. We think differently. You accept the most cartoonish versions of reality that the official story can provide, without a blink, while simultaneously typing the word 'woo' to accuse others of being divorced from reality. There's a million things wrong with the official story, and you see none. Impossible to argue with someone who thinks with such iron serenity. I'd rather read info from post-ers who give facts that point out the cartoonish 'woo' of the official story, and thank them for their contributions or add some pieces of actual reality that I know about.
See some interesting things in the back-and-forth of this discussion
Point 5 on Iching's excellent post # 587 could be updated to add 'or encouraging reference to Bugliosi and mcadams'.
MMMom's post #s 183, 484, and 175 all made good points that went unanswered, though the opposing post-ers continued to spend a lot of time afterwards posting 'broken record'-style repeats on other subjects, in this same thread. So lack of a refuting post wasn't due to them getting tired of the subject or having time constraints. They effectively put their fingers in their ears and hummed. The tactic seems to be 'if you can't answer, just ignore it, and hope the silence is discouragement enough'. This tactic also seems like it’s a bit intellectually dishonest for good Democrats to use. Thanks to MMM for all the great posts.
The subthread on the motorcade route change starting at Octa's post # 332 is interesting. 'Proof' was provided in a reply to 332 that there wasn't a last minute change to the route, in the form of 2 Dallas papers' write ups that said 'Main-Houston-Elm', dated 11-19. That 3 day time period could easily be called 'last minute', in the context of preparing security for the President's visit to the Bircher mecca that was Dallas in '63, where Ambassador Stevenson was recently struck and spat on by an 'unruly' mob of repugs, and 'Kennedy = Traitor' newspaper op-eds and posters were printed by the Bircher Hunt family.
The Sol Bloom Agency planned the initial route, and the route was changed. The trip was a p.r. trip, so it was designed by a firm to give Kennedy exposure, in healing the TX Dem delegation rift, and in running for re-election. But the firm didn’t have final say in putting the president in a dangerous situation, his security people would have to make sure the route was safe, so he didn’t get the wrong kind of ‘exposure’ in an area he described to his wife with the words ‘we’re really in nut country, now.’ One of Octa’s posts points out that the route didn’t have to use the Elm St. entrance to the Freeway, and once they were on the freeway to Ft Worth, the p.r. motorcade through Dallas was over, anyway. So there was no reason to change the route to Elm, period, though it was ‘explained’ to the satisfaction of the W.C. repugs. But the change did occur and resulted in slowing the motorcade down with a dangerous double turn, right by the building where the ‘lone nut’ recently got a job. A fatally dangerous change.
A search online for 'Sol Bloom motorcade route' to get info on the subject yields references to both George De Mohrenschildt and Ruth Paine getting Oswald jobs in Dallas. The J-C-S job George got Oswald had him visiting the Bloom Agency dozens of times, and the Paine-procured job put him right on the changed route. Those pictures of him with the Militant and his rifle were fake cut-outs, with different sun-cast shadows for the face vs. the body, and the face/head doesn’t change size when the body pose moves forward, so it’s out of proportion. The pictures came from Paine. Oswald was completely set up as a patsy by his two ‘angels’ in Dallas, whether he was an ultra-rightist himself or not.
Having a Jewish mob person shoot Oswald afterward was a Bircher move, like trying to put responsibility for the route onto a Jewish p.r. agency. Both De Mohrenschildt and Paine were hooked into far-right Nazis, ‘christians’, businesspeople with high-level gov security clearances, operating in the city described as ‘the buckle on the bible belt.’ They weren’t Jewish. And the cast of characters around Oswald was set up for a maximum amount of red-herrings, if the ‘lone nut’ story didn’t hold up. His connections with Shaw and Ferrie, as well as his bad relations with his wife, made him out to be a closeted gay person, ‘guilty’ of sexual improprieties; his Russian and Fair Play Cuban connections made him out to be a communist; the Ruby and Bloom connections to the event made him appear to be part of a plot by a religious minority, one that is hated by both the Nazis and birchers. And the birchers are just American Nazi repugs who lost in their bid to back Hitler or have America go the nazi way.
The same people hated Kennedy and smeared him as a religious minority engaged in a plot against America, as a communist, as a sexual pervert. Then he was killed, and they offered up their suspect, someone with the same negative descriptors attached. They openly hated JFK, but they didn’t kill him, someone who was connected to everything they hated about him killed him.
You don’t have to be tremendously astute to notice that the same crowd --of bircher far right repug Nazi sheisskopfs, their descendants, their intellectual and political heirs -- are saying the same thing today about our current Democratic president. He’s a ‘communist’, he’s a ‘Muslim plotting to destroy America’, he’s ‘gay’. It’s the same tactic from the same one-trick pony.
That’s not a coincidence, it’s a pattern.
Thanks, Octa.
Your posts and links are always worth viewing. And they keep a certain element occupied, as a added bonus. Off the streets and out of trouble, maybe?
It's funny that the mechanics of the site make it so hard to have a general discussion about a Democratic president's assassination -- in a virulently repug part of the country where schoolkids cheered when they heard about it -- as we approach the 50th anniversary of the assassination.
(Here, before anyone can start whinge-ing about the school kid thing, this was posted by DUer Mabus in '09, in response to redqueen's query on this site:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1129&dat=19631128&id=VEgNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YGwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6266,4365719
Note that it is not just the minister saying it, but also a teacher. The article is an AP article, in addition to Cronkite's CBS news coverage of 11/26. I had to wade through 2 yahoo pages of freeper, weekly standard, and newsbuster denials, before getting this hit. Among the hits were a lot of accusations that Dem schoolkids cheered when Reagan was shot, while decrying the Democratic 'smear' and 'libel' of claiming the repug kids actually cheered Kennedy's murder. Typical repug projection. And additionally, of course, the Reagan shooter's family was hooked into Bush.)
The vast majority of the American public doesn't buy the 'official story'. When reading the posts of people who say it was the 'lone nut' Oswald, I always try to put myself in their shoes, to try to figure out how they think, why they post like they do, what motivates them. This seems like what the Democrats do, in general, as opposed to what the caveman repug party and their ilk does.
The three possible categories I could figure them in are repug disruptor, people who perversely want an argument and function as useful idiots, and good Democrats who think that they are getting stigmatized by having 'conspiracy theorists' associated with 'their' Dem site. I don't believe the high-count long-term posting nay-sayers are repugs, or they would be gone by now. I don't hate the nay-saying post-ers, their derisive, repetitive postings just make me see red, and make me unfairly sometimes put them into the 'useful idiot' category. Probably they're good Dems who fall into the third category. I just wish they'd extend the same charitable interpretation to the good posters like Octa who consistently poke holes in the 'official story' with credible information.
The Warren Commission was put together by the people who killed Kennedy. Not LBJ, who was under the gun, too. His first statement as President was 'Now let's get this SOB off the ground', because he wanted to get out of that virulently dangerous area. Johnson said he didn't believe the WC, before he died.
RFK said while running for President 'I now fully realize that only the powers of the Presidency will reveal the secrets of my brother's death', two days before he was assassinated in L.A.. He told reporter Haynes Johnson (of the Washington Evening Star, and Washington Post), immediately after the assassination, that the CIA-mob anti-Castro assassins killed Kennedy. He told his '68 campaign aide Richard Lubic that he would re-open the case once he was elected and, a week before he died, went for several hours to check privately for info on a report of a phone call from Oxnard pre-warning about the assassination on the morning of 11/22. He didn't believe the WC, and Bugliosi's book 'Helter Skelter' covered up the murderous attack on the people in his L.A. campaign advisors' (Tate and Polanski's) home. There's no reason to believe Bugliosi's recent magnum opus about JFK's murder, in light of that fact.
Before Chappaquiddick, Ted had an anguished incident on an airplane where, having been drinking, he said 'They're going to shoot my ass off like they shot my brothers.' If they are able to murder the most politically powerful members of your family, it's safer for that family if you don't raise high-profile media storms by officially saying the murderers are still out there and in power, so he didn't. Chappaquiddick kept him from running, instead of a bullet, so after RFK's death, there would be no Kennedy running for president in the next election.
But for the next election, the Democrats put a member of JFK's 'Irish Mafia' kitchen cabinet (Larry O'Brien) in as head of the DNC. The repugs responded by having E. Howard Hunt (a CIA guy that worked with the right wing and mob's assassination program) and a gang of Miami Cuban 'real estate agents' burglarize the DNC's Watergate offices, to find out what the Dems were going to do about using the Kennedy assassinations against the repugs. Hunt's blackmailing of the Nixon repugs resulted in his wife's death in the Chicago plane crash, with $100,000 dollars of bribe money she was carrying splattering on the runway. That stupid hat Hunt was always photographed wearing during the Watergate scandal is the same stupid hat he was photographed wearing in Dealey Plaza, when he was rounded up in the train yard as a tramp. His 'favorite hat'. Just his way of blackmailing the repug Nixon administration, saying 'you really don't want me to talk, do you?' The bitter, forced out Nixon chief aide Haldeman said in his tell-all book that Nixon's continual taped references to 'the Mexican stuff' and 'the Bay of Pigs stuff', as reasons to shut down the Watergate investigations, were references to the JFK assassination.
The bottom line in this long post is this: I don't begrudge the nay-saying post-ers (the 'Oswald did it' adherents) their right to an opinion. I don't think they're repugs or 'useful idiots', they're honestly good Dems. But approaching the 50th anniversary of the assassination, some Kennedys are putting themselves on the line by questioning the 'official story', hoping like a lot of good researchers to get the true story, instead of the fallacious 'official story', which comes off like a Rube Goldberg contraption. They aren't convinced or comforted by the debunked WC, Bugliosi, or macadams (who was exposed as a 'pro' CIA disruptor). Constantly repeating the citation of these three 'sources' in any discussion of the murder of a good Democratic president just de-rails the discussion. Extend us the courtesy of believing we're good Dems, too, not nuts or part of some repug black psyop designed to discredit Dems. We're just like the vast majority of the American public, we don't buy the official story because it fails to explain what happened in so many ways.
And anyone who says 'the majority of the American public doesn't believe in global warming, either', is ignoring a key difference. The big money powerful oil companies have been expending beaucoup bucks pushing climate change denial in corporate media, which resulted in a big majority saying 'climate change was occurring' turning into a majority saying 'not sure man is causing climate change'. After 50 years, despite the same big money propagandists (with oil ties to the virulent bircher nazi repug Dallas Hunt family and Poppy bush's Standard Oil of New Jersey) spending tons of money and influence pushing the 'official story', the 'ignorant' public still doesn't buy it.
+1, Star.
It's a book about a book that was written by a book. (High Castle about Grasshopper, written by I Ching). Mr. D probably used the I Ching to write High Castle, to boot. (A book written by a book about a book written by a book.)
Imagining a world where the denizens imagine our world. Says the WWII 'Double V' aim of 'Victory against Fascism Abroad and Victory against Fascism at Home' was only partially realized in the first part, and 'far less achieved than is commonly believed' in the second part.
A novel that eloquently says American nazi power types are still pulling their nazi moves, and actual nazis are still exerting organized power. Really enjoyable to read, too, like most PKD books.
I'm going through the whole op and subthreads for the third time, now.
You seem to be pretty polite in the discussion, c_u. Polite disagreement seems to me like the best way to get any kind of progress out of an 'opposing viewpoints' discussion.
I think the links in Octa's post 230, and MinM's 128 and 203 are a better read for me, better than me obtaining and going through a 1600+ page work by an author whose previous work I have read and not found edifying. I don't disregard your feeling that his book satisfies the questions you have or the issues that you think are important in the Kennedy assassination, it's just not for me. I would be more than happy to read the key thorough debunking facts from his book on this issue if you posted them, though.
But insurance companies are in the business to make money. They make money. They rely on actuarial science to assess their risks in insuring people with life insurance policies. There is a high mortality rate among JFK assassination witnesses. Not just people getting heart attacks and strokes, falling from windows, having plane trouble, single car crashes, and the like, but people who were shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, etc. The actuary, who is an expert in the field, unlike Bugliosi, was just saying in effect, "An insurer who writes the policies for all of these people, taking their ages, lifestyles, and occupations into account, will chance to make money from insuring them a hundred thousand million billion times, as opposed to having one chance to lose money." That shows a much higher mortality rate among the sub group of witnesses/connected individuals versus the population as a whole with the same ages-health-occupations, and indicates a very large statistical anomaly. Luckily, no single company insured all of those people, because the one in 'one hundred thousand million billion to one' chance came through.
Regarding one of your earlier posts below, 'Oswald as Commie Proselytizer in the Marines' is one of the more outrageous ideas that the 'official story' offers to the American public. Not being impolite to you here, just the idea itself is absurd to the extreme, but is 'officially true.'
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Nov 23, 2011, 05:50 PMNumber of posts: 9,114
