This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
Stirlingsays 27 Oct 17 3.55pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Legally I think you need at least 3 people. Proof that Wham wasn't a conspiracy.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 27 Oct 17 4.52pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
'Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead.' Benjamin Franklin Thing is, when people speak out about conspiracy, people like you never believe them. The best way to fool people is to mix up reality with the fake to make it all seem silly. Then people who like to appear clever claim all conspiracists are always loons. It's so easy.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Ray in Houston Houston 27 Oct 17 5.02pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Its easier to believe that people conspired to kill the president, than realise that just one man, with a grudge and possible mental health problems, can take out the most powerful man in the world.
Think Hillsborough. This was law enforcement covering its asses for doing a piss poor job. Edited by Ray in Houston (27 Oct 2017 5.04pm)
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 27 Oct 17 5.16pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Thing is, when people speak out about conspiracy, people like you never believe them. The best way to fool people is to mix up reality with the fake to make it all seem silly. Then people who like to appear clever claim all conspiracists are always loons. It's so easy. Ok, but how do you keep that a secret? I see no problem with checking things out and looking for conspiracy. However, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim for conspiracy. So what they say has to stand up to scrutiny. I've only ever seriously looked into two claims of conspiracy in my life: Kennedy and 9/11. I can quite confidently say there were no major conspiracies there. I was tempted to look into the Sandy Hook thing properly but the claims of conspiracy there take two minutes to dismiss. I can't do the rubric's cube....I can't make any claims for being particularly clever myself.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
hedgehog50 Croydon 27 Oct 17 5.18pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
It's starting to become clear, with the release of JFK assassination documents that's been happening for a while now, that the conspiracy/cover up wasn't that there was another gunman or that it was the military or Lyndon Johnson, it was that the FBI and CIA had Oswald banged to rights as a clear and present danger to the President...and did nothing. Think Hillsborough. This was law enforcement covering its asses for doing a piss poor job. Edited by Ray in Houston (27 Oct 2017 5.04pm) Oswald was a communist nut job - you are allowed to be a communist nut job in a western democracy, or a fascist nut job for that matter, although these days the CNJs are doing their best to get the FNJs suppressed.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
.TUX. 27 Oct 17 5.49pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
There was no conspiracy. My fault, i meant to add as an ''enlightened'' conspiracy theorist when he addressed the press at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on April 27, 1961............. ''For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.'' Personally i believe that JFK was murdered due to his stance against the privately owned Federal Reserve. Those who run the world, ie the Central Banking system that we've forced upon us, don't like that.
Buy Litecoin. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Ray in Houston Houston 27 Oct 17 5.56pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Oswald was a communist nut job - you are allowed to be a communist nut job in a western democracy, or a fascist nut job for that matter, although these days the CNJs are doing their best to get the FNJs suppressed. In the weeks running up to the assassination, Oswald had openly talked about killing Kennedy...in Dallas...had been to Mexico where he tried to get a visa to Cuba, came back to the US, to Dallas, where he got a job at the book depository that overlooked the motorcade route. They knew all this before he killed Kennedy. It's about 1000% more than what's necessary to at least have someone watching him on the day Kennedy was in town. After that, he's free to go and be as nutty as he wants as long as he's not openly threatening to kill the Presient. You can see why they would want to cover that up.
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
hedgehog50 Croydon 27 Oct 17 6.04pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
In the weeks running up to the assassination, Oswald had openly talked about killing Kennedy...in Dallas...had been to Mexico where he tried to get a visa to Cuba, came back to the US, to Dallas, where he got a job at the book depository that overlooked the motorcade route. They knew all this before he killed Kennedy. It's about 1000% more than what's necessary to at least have someone watching him on the day Kennedy was in town. After that, he's free to go and be as nutty as he wants as long as he's not openly threatening to kill the Presient. You can see why they would want to cover that up. Would they still want to cover it up after 54 years?
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 27 Oct 17 6.31pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Ok, but how do you keep that a secret? I see no problem with checking things out and looking for conspiracy. However, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim for conspiracy. So what they say has to stand up to scrutiny. I've only ever seriously looked into two claims of conspiracy in my life: Kennedy and 9/11. I can quite confidently say there were no major conspiracies there. I was tempted to look into the Sandy Hook thing properly but the claims of conspiracy there take two minutes to dismiss. I can't do the rubric's cube....I can't make any claims for being particularly clever myself. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Oct 2017 5.17pm) You actually think Oswald acted alone? The only comment I can make is a general one. It is not logical to lump all conspiracies together and dismiss them, much the same as it is illogical to blindly believe them all. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (27 Oct 2017 6.46pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Hrolf The Ganger 27 Oct 17 6.39pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
In the weeks running up to the assassination, Oswald had openly talked about killing Kennedy...in Dallas...had been to Mexico where he tried to get a visa to Cuba, came back to the US, to Dallas, where he got a job at the book depository that overlooked the motorcade route. They knew all this before he killed Kennedy. It's about 1000% more than what's necessary to at least have someone watching him on the day Kennedy was in town. After that, he's free to go and be as nutty as he wants as long as he's not openly threatening to kill the Presient. You can see why they would want to cover that up. So why did Ruby kill Oswald on live TV?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 27 Oct 17 8.07pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
You actually think Oswald acted alone? The only comment I can make is a general one. It is not logical to lump all conspiracies together and dismiss them, much the same as it is illogical to blindly believe them all. Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (27 Oct 2017 6.46pm) I do, as there isn't any evidence he acted any other way, only conjecture, until we know otherwise. By all accounts he was a frustrated bitter man who considered himself a failure and wanted to make an impact. So he took an opportunity once it came. Several assassinations have happened like that. Turn a different corner and they never would have met....As George once said.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Ray in Houston Houston 27 Oct 17 8.18pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by hedgehog50
Would they still want to cover it up after 54 years?
Trump has been pimping it (and taking credit for it, natch) but I understand that the can has been kicked down the road until April next year for many of the previously unreleased documents. Apparently, there is information that remains sensitive today, and needed to be redacted, but that wasn't done. I'm sure the tin foil hat brigade are having a field day with that one.
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.