Creative Speculation

arguille

(60 posts)

61. reply to #59

Tue Mar 26, 2013, 12:17 AM

Mar 2013

Two quick examples of CIA lies:

Richard Helms appeared before the Warren Commission and told them directly that the CIA had no interest in Oswald whatsoever and there was no information held by the CIA about Oswald. That is a lie. The CIA had a 201 file since 1960, plus there was all the material about Mexico City. Plus whatever else they got rid of.

The Mexico City office claimed that their surveillance equipment covering the Soviet embassy and Cuban Consulate - all of it - was inoperable during Oswald's alleged visits. They also claim that their phone taps were "routinely erased". Those are both lies, as the HSCA determined.

There is more.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

168 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Here's a correction OP for 50 Reasons, 50 Years OP [View all] MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 OP

Thanks for posting, I watched the first 9 videos from the links in your earlier posts. eomer Feb 2013 #1

I sort of see it, too... MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #4

Introduction: Woman heard shot from grassy knoll William Seger Feb 2013 #2

Snark? MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #3

"That's all I get from you is snark?" William Seger Feb 2013 #5

No, I read it... MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #6

Uh-huh, "answers" and "honest discussion" and "dialog" William Seger Feb 2013 #11

Episode Two: John Armstrong speculates there were "two Oswalds" William Seger Feb 2013 #12

Episode Three: Bill Simpich speculates that Oswald was part of "false defector" program William Seger Feb 2013 #13

Episode Four: Joan Mellen speculates that Oswald was a CIA/FBI plant William Seger Feb 2013 #15

Episode Five: John Armstrong again, speculating about "two Oswalds" again William Seger Feb 2013 #16

No response from the OP yet? zappaman Mar 2013 #18

On posting the videos as they come out each week, and on your being blocked for it... eomer Feb 2013 #7

Appreciated, eomer... MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #8

I followed the discussion and I thank you for having, by far, the more reasonable approach. NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #14

Thanks for posting and sorry for any grief you got from others. NYC_SKP Feb 2013 #9

Twas nothing... MrMickeysMom Feb 2013 #10

Will the OP be answering Seger's criticisms of the videos any time soon? zappaman Mar 2013 #17

It would appear that the poll speaks for who's more interested in the videos... MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #19

So the answer is NO zappaman Mar 2013 #20

The answer is... MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #21

!!! zappaman Mar 2013 #22

... MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #23

I'm sorry you can't speak for yourself. zappaman Mar 2013 #24

They sure are... MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #25

Seger's criticisms arguille Mar 2013 #26

I a interested in the way you addressed "c" MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #27

One at a time: a) eyewitness reports of shot(s) from grassy knoll area William Seger Mar 2013 #28

reply to #28 arguille Mar 2013 #33

"Sorry. That does not add up." William Seger Mar 2013 #38

reply to #38 arguille Mar 2013 #43

Neither you nor Fiester have refuted what I'm saying about Zapruder William Seger Mar 2013 #46

BTW, here's a "painted over" Zapruder frame William Seger Mar 2013 #51

reply to #51 arguille Mar 2013 #52

Baloney. I DID respond to your three issues. William Seger Mar 2013 #58

reply to #58 arguille Mar 2013 #60

Timeout William Seger Mar 2013 #64

A vacation is what you needed at this point, Billy MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #66

I'm back William Seger Apr 2013 #73

reply to #73 arguille Apr 2013 #74

I keep asking for one GOOD reason William Seger Apr 2013 #79

reply to #79 arguille Apr 2013 #82

Baloney William Seger Apr 2013 #85

reply to #85 arguille Apr 2013 #92

Sliced thin and piled high, it's still baloney William Seger Apr 2013 #93

reply to #93 arguille Apr 2013 #94

On and on William Seger Apr 2013 #95

reply to #95 arguille Apr 2013 #97

Stairway to delusion William Seger Apr 2013 #99

reply to #99 arguille Apr 2013 #100

Oh, I don't really mind arguing with a brick wall William Seger Apr 2013 #108

reply to #108 arguille Apr 2013 #110

Credibility issue William Seger Apr 2013 #115

reply to #115 arguille Apr 2013 #117

Two words: Bull. Shit. William Seger Apr 2013 #118

reply to #118 arguille Apr 2013 #119

But I DID read it, "arguille" William Seger Apr 2013 #121

reply to #121 arguille Apr 2013 #124

If you're just going to keep repeating yourself William Seger Apr 2013 #127

reply to #127 arguille Apr 2013 #129

"What's that about likely or unlikely?" William Seger Apr 2013 #133

reply to #133 arguille Apr 2013 #135

By the way, this... William Seger Apr 2013 #131

reply to #131 arguille Apr 2013 #136

Well, that's the problem MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #84

Clicking on your posts, hoping that maybe this time there will be something William Seger Apr 2013 #86

Point by point William Seger Apr 2013 #69

reply to post #69 arguille Apr 2013 #76

In other words, speculation and spin are all you've got William Seger Apr 2013 #80

"...but the single-bullet theory remains the best explanation of the facts." MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #87

I'm sure arguille appreciates the cheerleading, but... William Seger Apr 2013 #88

You wish a fight over what you should wish to seek... MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #89

I've been begging for any credible FACTS that refute the WC conclusions William Seger Apr 2013 #90

Reply to #80 arguille Apr 2013 #91

No offense, of course, but so what? William Seger Apr 2013 #96

reply to #96 arguille Apr 2013 #98

Good grief William Seger Apr 2013 #112

reply to #112 arguille Apr 2013 #113

More baloney? No thanks William Seger Apr 2013 #114

reply to #114 arguille Apr 2013 #116

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush William Seger Apr 2013 #122

reply to #122 arguille Apr 2013 #130

Thanks for the video William Seger Apr 2013 #132

reply to #132 arguille Apr 2013 #137

Pointless repetition William Seger Apr 2013 #140

reply to #140 arguille Apr 2013 #142

"What fact?" William Seger Apr 2013 #144

reply to #144 arguille Apr 2013 #147

Yeaaaaaah, THAT'S the ticket William Seger Apr 2013 #148

reply to #148 arguille Apr 2013 #149

But it IS bullshit, isn't it William Seger Apr 2013 #151

reply to #151 arguille Apr 2013 #153

LMAO William Seger Apr 2013 #156

reply to #156 arguille Apr 2013 #158

In other words, you have absolutely no sound evidence or logical reason William Seger Apr 2013 #160

reply to #160 arguille Apr 2013 #161

'Round the barn again William Seger Apr 2013 #162

reply to #162 arguille Apr 2013 #165

How about this: William Seger Apr 2013 #167

b) Fletcher Prouty worked at the Pentagon William Seger Mar 2013 #29

reply to #29 arguille Mar 2013 #34

And again, my point was... William Seger Mar 2013 #40

reply to #40 arguille Mar 2013 #44

Yes, they lie a lot William Seger Mar 2013 #48

reply to #48 arguille Mar 2013 #53

Well, if you think you can prove THAT, then... William Seger Mar 2013 #59

reply to #59 arguille Mar 2013 #61

Which just goes to show... William Seger Apr 2013 #70

reply to #70 arguille Apr 2013 #77

c) Seger dismisses information on Oswald's history and background as unsubstantial William Seger Mar 2013 #30

reply to #30 arguille Mar 2013 #35

"But there was a false defector program." William Seger Mar 2013 #39

reply to #39 arguille Mar 2013 #45

"illegal operations can be understood as including false defectors" William Seger Mar 2013 #50

reply to #50 arguille Mar 2013 #54

Baloney. Here's a link to the minutes of that meeting William Seger Mar 2013 #57

reply to #57 arguille Mar 2013 #62

"*IF* that were true and it ever came out and could be established" William Seger Apr 2013 #71

reply to #71 arguille Apr 2013 #75

Actually, what I'm claiming is... William Seger Apr 2013 #83

also to #71 arguille Apr 2013 #78

The minutes of the first Commission meeting, and I provided the link (n/t) William Seger Apr 2013 #81

d) Mexico City William Seger Mar 2013 #31

reply to #31 arguille Mar 2013 #36

"the provable fact that Oswald was framed" William Seger Mar 2013 #41

e) spooky one-note music. William Seger Mar 2013 #32

reply to #32 arguille Mar 2013 #37

Sez you William Seger Mar 2013 #42

reply to #42 arguille Mar 2013 #47

But I'm giving you every opportunity to change my mind William Seger Mar 2013 #49

reply to #49 arguille Mar 2013 #55

Baloney. It's not a "rhetorical device" to demand FACT-based DEDUCTIVE reasoning William Seger Mar 2013 #56

reply to #56 arguille Mar 2013 #63

Well now... MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #68

Prove any one of them, then William Seger Apr 2013 #72

Made it to 1:38 in first video Riftaxe Mar 2013 #65

Wow!.... MrMickeysMom Mar 2013 #67

In the intro video, they say his head moved back when he was shot, ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #101

Shhhhh! zappaman Apr 2013 #102

I have only watched the first first video and half of the second, so they might address that point. ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #103

You should check this out as well zappaman Apr 2013 #104

That does look like his head moved forward to me. ZombieHorde Apr 2013 #105

reply to ZombieHorde arguille Apr 2013 #106

"It remains a point of contention five decades later." zappaman Apr 2013 #107

It does remain a point of contention... MrMickeysMom Apr 2013 #109

Well, I suppose the earth being round remains a point of contention since some believe it is flat... zappaman Apr 2013 #111

head movement and blood spatter arguille Apr 2013 #120

In other words, Fiester has NO CLUE the 2.5" forward head-snap even happened William Seger Apr 2013 #123

reply to #123 arguille Apr 2013 #125

"move minutely into the force" is NOT a 2.5" head-snap William Seger Apr 2013 #126

reply to #126 arguille Apr 2013 #128

"swell or move minutely into the force" is NOT a 2.5" forward head-snap William Seger Apr 2013 #134

reply to #134 arguille Apr 2013 #138

Yep, that's exactly the same thing Fiester was talking about William Seger Apr 2013 #139

reply to #139 arguille Apr 2013 #141

What's refuted is your bizarre interpretation of "contemporary ballistic science" William Seger Apr 2013 #143

reply to #143 arguille Apr 2013 #150

You just keep digging your hole deeper and deeper William Seger Apr 2013 #152

Reply to #152 arguille Apr 2013 #154

I really don't understand why you keep responding if that's the best you can do William Seger Apr 2013 #155

reply to #155 arguille Apr 2013 #157

... William Seger Apr 2013 #159

"Ballistics & Forensic Experts on the JFK Head Shot" William Seger Apr 2013 #163

reply to #163 arguille Apr 2013 #164

No, this is the ticket: William Seger Apr 2013 #166

BTW, Re: Fiester as an "expert" William Seger Apr 2013 #168

"Seger refutes contemporary ballistic science" with another video William Seger Apr 2013 #146

And by the way.... William Seger Apr 2013 #145