George Washington writes about the Illuminati

[Gangularis]

I tried searching on the forums to see if there was mention of this, anywhere.. I didn't see it, so I'm posting it. I'm putting this in the history forum since it's a piece of history.

These are letters George Washington wrote to a man named George Washington Snyder. These can be retrieved at the library of congress website.
I just find it interesting that the Illuminati were of knowledge to George Washington. I'm posting the links, and partial transcripts and the scanned images of the actual letters.

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw360346))

"I have heard much of the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the Book until you were pleased to send it to me.9 ......

.... The fact is, I preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or twice, within the last thirty years. I believe notwithstanding, that none of the Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati. With respect I am &c.

[Note 9: In a letter from Snyder (Aug. 22, 1798, which is in the Washington Papers), it is stated that this book "gives a full Account of a Society of Free-Masons, that distinguishes itself by the Name of 'Illuminati,' whose Plan is to overturn all Government and all Religion, even natural."]

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit(gw360395))

"It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation)."

[Foolmewunz]

The original "Illuminati" were a group founded in the latter half of the 18th Century, originally as an anti-religious group in heavily Catholic Bavaria. I can't read the dates on the scans you posted and the links to the L of C don't work for me, but I wouldn't find it surprising that Washington knew of them or that they were mentioned in a book or pamphlet of the time.

(I think they sort of self-destructed, but then somehow got resurrected as the centre(center) of various NWO conspiracy campaigns.)

[Piscivore]

Yeah, as Foolmewunz says they were contemporaries, so no real shocker there.

Now if it had been a letter of Lincoln's, that would be something.

[Gangularis]

How would a group of such a stated purpose die out? Freemasonry did not die out, catholicism did not die out.. what makes you so positive that this died out and then just became a scape goat/false conspiracy theory? Do you have any evidence of them dying out? If this ideology became merged into freemasonry, then I don't see a reason to think that it's not still a part of it today.

Full transcripts since the links won't work:

Note 7: Of Fredericktown (now Frederick), Md.]

Mount Vernon, September 25, 1798.

Sir: Many apologies are due to you, for my not acknowledging the receipt of your obliging favour of the 22d. Ulto, and for not thanking you, at an earlier period, for the Book8 you had the goodness to send me.

[Note 8: Proofs of a Conspiracy &c, by John Robison.]

I have heard much of the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the Book until you were pleased to send it to me.9 The same causes which have prevented my acknowledging the receipt of your letter have prevented my reading the Book, hitherto; namely, the multiplicity of matters which pressed upon me before, and the debilitated state in which I was left after, a severe fever had been removed. And which allows me to add little more now, than thanks for your kind wishes and favourable sentiments, except to correct an error you have run into, of my Presiding over the English lodges in this Country. The fact is, I preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or twice, within the last thirty years. I believe notwithstanding, that none of the Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati. With respect I am &c.

[Note 9: In a letter from Snyder (Aug. 22, 1798, which is in the Washington Papers), it is stated that this book "gives a full Account of a Society of Free-Masons, that distinguishes itself by the Name of 'Illuminati,' whose Plan is to overturn all Government and all Religion, even natural."]




Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798.

Revd Sir: I have your favor of the 17th. instant before me; and my only motive to trouble you with the receipt of this letter, is to explain, and correct a mistake which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged, often, to write letters, have led you into.

It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am.

The idea that I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects; and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.

My occupations are such, that but little leisure is allowed me to read News Papers, or Books of any kind; the reading of letters, and preparing answers, absorb much of my time. With respect, etc.

[Piscivore]

How would a group of such a stated purpose die out?
Apathy, increasing social cost of membership, fear of arrest/persecution, internal disputes, lack of success, ideological shifts- all these things can decrease membership until the orginisation collapses. And being a "secret" organisation with necessary tight limits to membership means attrition exceeds aquisition as far as membership is concerned.

Freemasonry did not die out, catholicism did not die out.
They are not secret and both put a greater emphasis on recruitment than the Illuminati.

what makes you so positive that this died out and then just became a scape goat/false conspiracy theory?
Because it is the more plausible theory. When they were acknowledged to exist, they did not accomplish even the beginnings of the first steps to acheiving their grandiose goals- including being "secret"- yet somehow after they went "underground" they suddenly, exponentially increased not only their competence, but their power and membership as well? How?

Do you have any evidence of them dying out? If this ideology became merged into freemasonry, then I don't see a reason to think that it's not still a part of it today.
There's where you go wrong- the assumption that they "merged into" freemasonry. They recruited from there, but their plan was to use the Freemasons as a "false front", not to enlist the entire organisation as minions.

Do you have any evidence to support your conjecture that they somehow did take over what was and is essentially an excuse to drink, socialise and do small public works, let alone dramatically increase the willingness and competence of the membership at large to perform various acts of nefarious sedition?

Some of my family are masons. They throw a great barbecue, but taking over the world isn't really their speed.

[Gangularis]

They are not secret and both put a greater emphasis on recruitment than the Illuminati.

They're not secret? That's like saying skull & bones is not secret just because we know about it. They only recruit 15 people a year (one of the secrets that's not so secret).. that's not something that gleams of a great emphasis on recruitment..and yet they're still around.


There's where you go wrong- the assumption that they "merged into" freemasonry. They recruited from there, but their plan was to use the Freemasons as a "false front", not to enlist the entire organisation as minions.

I'm sorry but i never went "wrong" there, because I never stated the entire organization become illuminati. I'm well aware of the notion that it's considered among conspiracy theorists that the upper echelons are the only aspect of Freemasons that are aware of the intended goal.

Do you have any evidence to support your conjecture that they somehow did take over what was and is essentially an excuse to drink, socialise and do small public works, let alone dramatically increase the willingness and competence of the membership at large to perform various acts of nefarious sedition?

I never made such a claim.

Some of my family are masons. They throw a great barbecue, but taking over the world isn't really their speed.

Let me know what they have to tell you when they make into the 33rd degree, or past that. Hopefully you can share it with us since they're not really a secret society.

[tomwaits]

They're not secret? That's like saying skull & bones is not secret just because we know about it. They only recruit 15 people a year (one of the secrets that's not so secret).. that's not something that gleams of a great emphasis on recruitment..and yet they're still around.




I'm sorry but i never went "wrong" there, because I never stated the entire organization become illuminati. I'm well aware of the notion that it's considered among conspiracy theorists that the upper echelons are the only aspect of Freemasons that are aware of the intended goal.



I never made such a claim.



Let me know what they have to tell you when they make into the 33rd degree, or past that. Hopefully you can share it with us since they're not really a secret society.

There is plenty of reading material out there explaining what masons do, and what the "33rd degree" means (hint: it doesn't mean a whole lot, and only applies to the Scottish Rite). My grandfather is a mason, a member of the Scottish Rite, and a Shriner. The idea that these people are somehow a super-sekrit society who controls the world is absolutely hilarious. He has a hard time turning on his computer.

If you are so curious and suspicious about freemasonry, why not join a local lodge and find out? It's not like it's that hard. That way if you witness some kind of diabolical scheme, you can tell the world!

[Gangularis]

Well, whatever you want to call it, there are upper echelons where secrecy grows in prevalence.. What need could they possibly have to operate with such secrecy? I've read a decent amount about the organization, but I've come to rarely trust the official version of anything.. especially regarding organizations that are shrouded in secrecy. The CIA has a website with an entire FAQ section that's devoted to whitewashing it's own activities. Maybe not all, or even most sects of freemasonry have elements of "Illuminati" within, but then there are these people that come forward and say they were members and that the Illuminati are real..

And yes, I have thought of joining.. I know a girl that's married to a guy that just joined.. but it would take more time to get to the highest ranks of master mason, and beyond than I'd be interested in investing :P

Regardless of all of that, there are elites that do operate secretly, regardless of what you want to call them... and I think a lot of them are addicted to both money, power, and control. Do you think it would be beyond the idea of certain elites to want to rule the world, and maybe even get close to it?


On a slightly different note - I'm new to this forum. I'm wondering if anyone knows of any good threads regarding central banks Rothschilds/Rockefellers and all of that stuff. I've seen some threads that mock this stuff, but not many threads that give an in depth look at it.

[JimBenArm]

Look in the conspiracy subforum.

There's a reason all you see is mocking of that stuff. Let's see if you can figure out what it is...

[bruto]

I'm shocked that nobody is taking seriously the Jacobin threat!

[Dave Rogers]

Isn't Washington basically saying here, "I've heard of all these conspiracy theories, but there's absolutely no evidence for them; thanks for the book but I haven't had time to read it," or somthing similar? In other words, Washington's just giving a polite brush-off to a looney. It seems clear from the excerpts that Washington's stating that, as far as he knows, there is no Illuminati conspiracy active in the United States. It's a non sequitur to conclude that he is aware of a genuine conspiracy elsewhere.

Dave

[Marquis de Carabas]

Isn't Washington basically saying here, "I've heard of all these conspiracy theories, but there's absolutely no evidence for them; thanks for the book but I haven't had time to read it," or somthing similar? In other words, Washington's just giving a polite brush-off to a looney. It seems clear from the excerpts that Washington's stating that, as far as he knows, there is no Illuminati conspiracy active in the United States. It's a non sequitur to conclude that he is aware of a genuine conspiracy elsewhere.

Dave
Well, I don't know anything about plans for taking over the world, but I do know that the disavowal of knowledge is always a lie meant to hide one's complicity in the conspiracy.

[Nogbad]

In context, Washington was talking about the social and political radicals of his time. In effect the Illuminati and Jacobins were the Rational Liberals and Communist revolutionaries respectively of their day.

Did they die out or simply become involved in more mainstream politics and science as these ideas became more mainstream and less fringe?

[Gangularis]

Isn't Washington basically saying here, "I've heard of all these conspiracy theories, but there's absolutely no evidence for them; thanks for the book but I haven't had time to read it," or somthing similar? In other words, Washington's just giving a polite brush-off to a looney. It seems clear from the excerpts that Washington's stating that, as far as he knows, there is no Illuminati conspiracy active in the United States. It's a non sequitur to conclude that he is aware of a genuine conspiracy elsewhere.

Dave

It doesn't sound at all like he's brushing off a nut, since he says he's aware of their influence in Europe.. Why would George Washington take time at all to respond to a nut?

Look in the conspiracy subforum.

There's a reason all you see is mocking of that stuff. Let's see if you can figure out what it is...

All there appears to be is more arrogant mocking..


Did they die out or simply become involved in more mainstream politics and science as these ideas became more mainstream and less fringe?

I don't know, did they? Ideas of a one world ruling government and a one world religion became more mainstream??

[bruto]

It doesn't sound at all like he's brushing off a nut, since he says he's aware of their influence in Europe.. Why would George Washington take time at all to respond to a nut?



All there appears to be is more arrogant mocking..



I don't know, did they? Ideas of a one world ruling government and a one world religion became more mainstream??You sort of have to choose whether it's mainstream or a vast hidden conspiracy. It's pretty hard to be both. And the very fact that we're here arguing about the illuminati kind of hints at how well the cabal has been concealed, doesn't it?

[Gangularis]

I don't think the illuminati conversation represents a mainstream coffee table sort of conversation.

I think if the whole Illuminati conspiracy were true, it would be inevitable that certain leaks would start to spring up, especially with the advent of the internet. I mean it would probably be impossible to run a perfectly hidden vast conspiracy.

[BenBurch]

Wow, this again. If you want more go read the "Illuminatus!" trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea. Hilarious, and puts it all right in perspective.

Also, there is some indication that the Illuminati transformed and splintered several times, one of which became the modern Ordo Templi Orientis, a ritual magickal religious fraternal order once headed by Aliester Crowley.

[Gangularis]

Is that trilogy a work of fiction or some kind of an investigative piece?


By the way, I'm not buying into this stuff blindly. I'm new here, and I'm still forming my opinions. I think a lot of NWO believers may be borderline schizophrenics.. At the same time I think there's something to be said for the tremendous amount of sane people that believe in it based on a lot of evidence that points in that direction.. Am I that out there to think there is evidence to point towards a world government system coming in to play? I'm very skeptical of CTs as well as official stories. I really don't take written history at face value anymore than anything else.. I will ask a lot of questions just for the purpose of finding answers.. sometimes in a devil's advocate manor.

[BenBurch]

Is that trilogy a work of fiction or some kind of an investigative piece? ...

Actually both. With an appendix that discusses the sources.

[Foolmewunz]

Gangularis,

As Pisci and I both mentioned, the Illuminati and George W were contemporaries. As I said in my original post, I couldn't read the text of the scans you posted, (and it looked to me like it said 1795). But now that you say that it refers to Robison, and it was written in '98, it makes sense. The original Illuminati had splintered and it was Robison's strange tract the first brought all this CT crap to light. There seems to be no other contemporary evidence of their involvement in anything at that time. Robison was a somewhat respected figure prior to going batcrap crazy and trying to blame the excesses of the French Revolution and Reign of Terror on the Freemasons and Illuminati.

But he offered no evidence. For a scientist and philosopher, he should've questioned himself before publishing and refused himself the permission.

One of the founders (or earliest members) of the Illuminati continued to write well into the 1790s, but as a movement or society they were pretty much a non-issue, except for generations of conspiradroids who harken back to Robison as having uncovered the Machiavellean intentions early on.

(Hmmm? I'm not buying the "keep an open mind" ploy, Gangularis. Call me a jaded cynic, but I've seen too many sippers of the Flavor Aid put out questions that they're already convinced on.)

[Gangularis]

I promise you, i'm not convinced into believing something beyond reason. You guys are doing a very good job of educating me on the reality of the illuminati. I've also looked up some stuff on my own, that sits well with what you are saying. You have to understand that I come from the perspective of hearing this stuff from the Illuminati conspiracy theorists, first.. If it weren't for them, I would've never heard of the Illuminati to begin with..

I came across this forum because I did a google search for "9/11 debunked".. because whenever I come across a conspiracy theory, I ALWAYS do a search for the debunking so I can come to my own conclusions...Sometimes I will argue with the debunkers or the CTs just to see what kinds of answers they will give me... That said, I will never be of the ilk that believes that every conspiracy theory is bunk.. JFK's assassination, for example.. I'm beyond convincing that that there was not a larger conspiracy there.

I keep in mind that conspiracies happen every day, whether it be low life street criminals, or high level executives, or elites in government officials that engage in it.. that doesn't mean everything is a conspiracy.. In fact, that's what makes me sick about prison planet forums.. EVERYTHING is a conspiracy to them.. I don't know how they sleep at night.. they're constantly in a conspiratorial frenzied mindset...constantly cherry picking everything they can to find out how it fits into their conspiracy theories..

[Foolmewunz]

Fair enough. Well, except for the part about the Kennedy murder... and that part about there being conspiracies every where you turn. I'd say that yes, it's more than just conceivable that there are such things as conspiracies. (Hell, people have been tried and convicted for them... with ample evidence.) But, I don't know that I'd say that they're every day events.

It's just that this Illuminati or Freemason thing is plain and simple, beyond belief. If it's hard to believe (to me) that an impossibly vast conspiracy (like 9/11, Moon Landing, Kennedy) would have at least one whistle blower in 9 or 40 or 46 years, then the thought that in four hundred years NOT ONE member of these groups has come forward to reveal their secret agendas is as mind-boggling as it gets.

The fact that they limit their membership and have secret handshakes and silly pledges to help out other society members (see: Skull and Bones, Freemasons, Friars, Boy Scouts, et al) is more an indication that they're into pomp and ritual. How one extrapolates that to world domination conspiracy is what makes a good conspiradroid.

I'm at work right now, killing time waiting to compile a bid that's due today.... and my company firewall blocks many sites, but last night I googled Illuminati & History, just to see what comes up nowadays. The most detailed article was on a Freemason site. I cross-checked and what was not hyperbole (but was dates, names, facts, etc...) seemed to check out. Try the same exercise. If I can get back to this tonight or over the weekend, I will - but try your luck in the interim.

[Gangularis]

Fair enough. Well, except for the part about the Kennedy murder... and that part about there being conspiracies every where you turn. I'd say that yes, it's more than just conceivable that there are such things as conspiracies. (Hell, people have been tried and convicted for them... with ample evidence.) But, I don't know that I'd say that they're every day events.

Heh.. I've researched the JFK case, extensively. Have you ever watched the documentary that interviews Chauncey Holt? Very compelling and fitting evidence there.. I won't go into a debate about that here, though..


I didn't say conspiracies are everywhere you turn. It's not that conspiracies are just "more than conceivable".. It's that they happen every single day.. If two people conspire to rob a seven eleven, that's a conspiracy.. When business CEOs hatch a plan to thwart their competitors' reputation, that's a conspiracy.. Microsoft became the dominant software company, in part, due to various conspiracies..

PS just to gauge your view point, do you believe the CIA gets involved in staging coups of various governments? Do you believe the CIA assassinates leaders? or at the very least, outsources the jobs? Do you think the CIA has any involvement in drug smuggling? Do you believe the CIA has a sort of family/group mentality that is embodied as a characteristic of the organization?? Just curious what your thoughts are in those areas..

[Foolmewunz]

I'll skip over the lower-case-c conspiracies issue. (Yes, literally, any two people agreeing to do something can be defined as a conspiracy.)

CIA? Answer to all points.... yes I believe they do all that stuff. Problem is, though,... that's in their job description. They're spies. They're supposed to do stuff like that, at least according to the US government, who employs and utilizes them. So I don't find it surprising and won't find it surprising if someone gets evidence through FOIA or a whistle blower that comes up with hard evidence on the overthrow of Allende, Trujillo, etc.... (Actually as a confirmed leftist conspiradroid myself, I just assume that all that evidence is already out there, 'though I haven't read up on either case in a few years.)

Only completely dedicated jingoists believe their country never does anything wrong.

[Gangularis]

I'll skip over the lower-case-c conspiracies issue. (Yes, literally, any two people agreeing to do something can be defined as a conspiracy.)

that's fair :P

CIA? Answer to all points.... yes I believe they do all that stuff. Problem is, though,... that's in their job description. They're spies. They're supposed to do stuff like that, at least according to the US government

Nononononononoooo!! They're NOT supposed to do stuff like stage coups and assassinate leaders. In fact, that's considered illegal by US law.. that's EXACTLY the reason contractors are hired, and those missions are outsourced.. it gives them distance from those operations if anyone is found out. Are you aware of the motivations for those sorts of operations? It's all about US corporate economic leverage.. This is not the mandate of the CIA, and yet it is a large part of what they get in to..

Also, I don't believe I got a specific answer regarding CIA involvement in drug smuggling.. or did I forget to ask that question? *checks* yeah, i forgot to ask that one.. So any opinion there?

[Undesired Walrus]

The definitive debunking of the JFK conspiracy:

DSBXW1-VGmM&feature=related

[Dave Rogers]

It doesn't sound at all like he's brushing off a nut, since he says he's aware of their influence in Europe.. Why would George Washington take time at all to respond to a nut?

Because he's a politician in a democracy, perhaps. That nut has a vote, and may have influence over other nuts with votes. It's the same reason why present-day politicians often give noncommital answers to 9/11 truthers; not alienating potential voters is important to them.

As for Washington saying he's "aware of their influence in Europe", this is rather a stretch if you read his actual words. Let's go back and do that.

I have heard much of the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati, but never saw the Book until you were pleased to send it to me.

21st century equivalent: "I've heard all about this conspiracy theory. Thanks for the link to the YouTube video."

The same causes which have prevented my acknowledging the receipt of your letter have prevented my reading the Book, hitherto; namely, the multiplicity of matters which pressed upon me before, and the debilitated state in which I was left after, a severe fever had been removed.

21st century equivalent: "tl;dr."

And which allows me to add little more now, than thanks for your kind wishes and favourable sentiments, except to correct an error you have run into, of my Presiding over the English lodges in this Country. The fact is, I preside over none, nor have I been in one more than once or twice, within the last thirty years. I believe notwithstanding, that none of the Lodges in this Country are contaminated with the principles ascribed to the Society of the Illuminati. With respect I am &c.

21st century equivalent: I'm not a Freemason, and none of the Freemasons I know have anything to do with this lot. HAND.

The second letter appears to be a further brush-off; he's simply saying that there are almost certainly individual anarchists trying to foment political strife, but there's no evidence of a massive conspiracy based around Freemasonry. From the history of the times, this seems an eminently reasonable conclusion, and one that has no conspiracist implications at all.

This isn't a particularly informed opinion, just what seems obvious to me from a careful reading of Washington's actual words.

Dave

[Foolmewunz]

that's fair :P



Nononononononoooo!! They're NOT supposed to do stuff like stage coups and assassinate leaders. In fact, that's considered illegal by US law.. that's EXACTLY the reason contractors are hired, and those missions are outsourced.. it gives them distance from those operations if anyone is found out. Are you aware of the motivations for those sorts of operations? It's all about US corporate economic leverage.. This is not the mandate of the CIA, and yet it is a large part of what they get in to..

Also, I don't believe I got a specific answer regarding CIA involvement in drug smuggling.. or did I forget to ask that question? *checks* yeah, i forgot to ask that one.. So any opinion there?

Ah but you didn't ask, "Should they be doing the following....?" I don't think you can discuss morality and the CIA (nor MI6, the KGB, etc...) in the same book much less paragraph or sentence. They're spooks! The reality is that spooks don't do nice stuff - they're pointed at whomever the powers that be have decided are the bad guys and they do naughty things.

Is it right? Hell, no. Is it real? Yes.

[Gangularis]

The definitive debunking of the JFK conspiracy:

DSBXW1-VGmM&feature=related

The Peter Jennings report is your definitive debunking? WOOOW.. Let me just clear my throat so I can say "LOOOOOOOOOOOL".. Seriously.. if that's your definitive debunking, then you really have not gone out of your way to find the truth. Do you have any idea how much stuff that report purposely edited and left out?! I'm not even going to go there. You're obviously convinced by your own will. If this is what goes as the "definitive debunking" around here, that kind of makes me more skeptical of what other "debunking" you might have.

Because he's a politician in a democracy, perhaps. That nut has a vote, and may have influence over other nuts with votes. It's the same reason why present-day politicians often give noncommital answers to 9/11 truthers; not alienating potential voters is important to them.

I'm sorry, but politicians - especially presidents (not to mention the FIRST president) do not have time to respond to every damn person that writes them a letter in the mail.. nor do they need to.. That's why they go out and campaign..

As for Washington saying he's "aware of their influence in Europe", this is rather a stretch if you read his actual words. Let's go back and do that.

Sorry, i'm not wasting my time on your personally biased interpretation of what he "meant". I'm more than capable of seeing what he was saying. I don't need your version of late 1700s cultural dialogue and conjecture.


Ah but you didn't ask, "Should they be doing the following....?" I don't think you can discuss morality and the CIA (nor MI6, the KGB, etc...) in the same book much less paragraph or sentence. They're spooks! The reality is that spooks don't do nice stuff - they're pointed at whomever the powers that be have decided are the bad guys and they do naughty things.

Is it right? Hell, no. Is it real? Yes.

WHAT?!! This isn't a morality question. This isn't a question of "should they be doing the following..?" It's a FREAKING LAW that they're NOT ALLOWED TO BE DOING THIS STUFF.. Further more, the entire premise of my question is do you believe they do this stuff? I didn't ask if you think it's a moral thing to do.. My point in asking was that if they do this stuff, that is illegal, and that it involves the nature of assasination in the name of protecting american interests, what makes you think they would not assassinate JFK in the name of protecting it's interest if they thought he was a communist security threat? .. ugh.. i'm already starting to debate this.. Seriously though, you never answered my question about CIA drug running..

[KoihimeNakamura]

Following the law is in ways a moral question. He's differenting between the following situatiosn

1. Does the CIA do nasty things to our enemies?

2. If so, is it morally right? Legally?

Answering yes to 1 does not imply answering yes to either part of 2.

[Dave Rogers]

Sorry, i'm not wasting my time on your personally biased interpretation of what he "meant". I'm more than capable of seeing what he was saying. I don't need your version of late 1700s cultural dialogue and conjecture.

Then how about wasting my time by pointing out the bit in either of these letters where, rather than repeating what he's heard on the grapevine, George Washington admits personal knowledge of a conspiracy? The clear tone of both of these letters is one of denying a conspiracy, and I find it hard to see why you're getting so irritated at having that pointed out.

Dave

[Childlike Empress]

Wow, this again. If you want more go read the "Illuminatus!" trilogy by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea. Hilarious, and puts it all right in perspective.


That's cruel, Ben. You have to tell them about the important information "Illuminatus!" reveals, the one that puts the Washington quotes into perspective:

"George Washington" WAS Adam Weishaupt, founder of the Bavarian Illuminati himself.
Also, there is some indication that the Illuminati transformed and splintered several times, one of which became the modern Ordo Templi Orientis, a ritual magickal religious fraternal order once headed by Aliester Crowley.


That's another mind****. "Bob" got you too. :p

[Childlike Empress]

On a sirius note, it is no surprise that Washington knew about the Illuminati, as they were brothers in spirit of Enlightenment. I think there is even evidence that Washington exchanged letters with (ex-)members of the Bavarian Illuminati (which had a significant amount of leading german progressive intellectuals among them).

Sir: Many apologies are due to you, for my not acknowledging the receipt of your obliging favour of the 22d. Ulto, and for not thanking you, at an earlier period, for the Book8 you had the goodness to send me.


What seems to go on in the conversation Washington had with Snyder, is Snyder contacting him several times, sending him books written by religious fundie conspiracy theorists, then writing again asking for Washington's thoughts. And it seems the nutter accused Washington of "being in on it". Washington defends himself as briefly as possible and tells him to get lost.

[Nogbad]

I don't know, did they? Ideas of a one world ruling government and a one world religion became more mainstream??


It has always been mainstream to those who fancied giving it a go. Alexander thought to rule alone and the great and ancient empires all thought similarly. There is nothing odd about this.

The notion that the original Illumanti aspired to such an idea (particularly one worls religion) is, however, hardly proven. Indeed were they not rather ambivilent about religion? It is the religious fanatic that dreams of one world religion because all the others are wrong, wrong, wrong.

A rationalist position in the 18th century did evolve and grow to encompass scientific principles that further developed in the 19th century. There was no need to be secret when it became fashionable to be sceptical.

The Jacobins were (fairly violent) political revolutionaries - an idea that really found its mainstream niche in the 20th century.

[Gangularis]

Then how about wasting my time by pointing out the bit in either of these letters where, rather than repeating what he's heard on the grapevine, George Washington admits personal knowledge of a conspiracy? The clear tone of both of these letters is one of denying a conspiracy, and I find it hard to see why you're getting so irritated at having that pointed out.

Dave

I'm well aware of the fact that he's denying that they infiltrated the United States Freemason lodges. He didn't deny the existence of the conspirators; the Illuminati, or the existence of their conspiracy. Also, I already acknowledged that the Illuminati of modern times is probably just a myth.. so why would I be irritated to hear someone confirm that? I'm not irritated by that, in the least.


Following the law is in ways a moral question. He's differenting between the following situatiosn

1. Does the CIA do nasty things to our enemies?

2. If so, is it morally right? Legally?

Answering yes to 1 does not imply answering yes to either part of 2.

That's good and fine, but the point I was making was one of legality, while someone else was asking if it was morally wrong, or not. As we all know, morality may have a guiding factor in our legal system, but it is not the law. In a court of Law, they don't debate about morality, they debate about law, and legality.

[Foolmewunz]

The Peter Jennings report is your definitive debunking? WOOOW.. Let me just clear my throat so I can say "LOOOOOOOOOOOL".. Seriously.. if that's your definitive debunking, then you really have not gone out of your way to find the truth. Do you have any idea how much stuff that report purposely edited and left out?! I'm not even going to go there. You're obviously convinced by your own will. If this is what goes as the "definitive debunking" around here, that kind of makes me more skeptical of what other "debunking" you might have.



I'm sorry, but politicians - especially presidents (not to mention the FIRST president) do not have time to respond to every damn person that writes them a letter in the mail.. nor do they need to.. That's why they go out and campaign..



Sorry, i'm not wasting my time on your personally biased interpretation of what he "meant". I'm more than capable of seeing what he was saying. I don't need your version of late 1700s cultural dialogue and conjecture.




WHAT?!! This isn't a morality question. This isn't a question of "should they be doing the following..?" It's a FREAKING LAW that they're NOT ALLOWED TO BE DOING THIS STUFF.. Further more, the entire premise of my question is do you believe they do this stuff? I didn't ask if you think it's a moral thing to do.. My point in asking was that if they do this stuff, that is illegal, and that it involves the nature of assasination in the name of protecting american interests, what makes you think they would not assassinate JFK in the name of protecting it's interest if they thought he was a communist security threat? .. ugh.. i'm already starting to debate this.. Seriously though, you never answered my question about CIA drug running..

Gee, really? I never would've recognized a loaded question when I saw one. (You really do have to assume a certain level of intelligence when you're dealing with adults, you know. I spotted it three posts earlier.)

That's why I answered the way I did. I know it's illegal (again, that level of intelligence thing you're missing), and I assuredly believe that it's immoral (much the reason that it's illegal, you know), but I also know that it's like dear old Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men.... It's done and leaders know it's done and they condone it while it's being done... right up until the time they're caught at it.

And it still doesn't prove that the CIA offed Kennedy. It might prove that they might have.... but that's why we look for actual evidence. They "might have" done all kinds of things. We can only say for a fact, though, that they actually did things that we can somehow prove. One reality does not lead to the other possibility, necessarily.

'Round the CT forums a couple of years ago, I referred to this as Russell Pickering logic. "I don't care what can be proved. I just feel in my gut that they did it."

[Gangularis]

Gee, really? I never would've recognized a loaded question when I saw one. (You really do have to assume a certain level of intelligence when you're dealing with adults, you know. I spotted it three posts earlier.)

That's why I answered the way I did. I know it's illegal (again, that level of intelligence thing you're missing), and I assuredly believe that it's immoral (much the reason that it's illegal, you know), but I also know that it's like dear old Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men.... It's done and leaders know it's done and they condone it while it's being done... right up until the time they're caught at it.

And it still doesn't prove that the CIA offed Kennedy. It might prove that they might have.... but that's why we look for actual evidence. They "might have" done all kinds of things. We can only say for a fact, though, that they actually did things that we can somehow prove. One reality does not lead to the other possibility, necessarily.

'Round the CT forums a couple of years ago, I referred to this as Russell Pickering logic. "I don't care what can be proved. I just feel in my gut that they did it."

Now you're just pissing me off. I already stated I'm not going to try and debate the JFK assassination with you. My only interest in asking if you believed the CIA involved itself in these assassinations and coups, was to gauge what sort of mentality I'm debating with, from a personal perspective.. Instead of acknowledging the fact that our CIA does this stuff, you tried to rationalize with an answer about whether or not it was "moral" for them to do what they do... You didn't even attempt to address the legality of what the CIA does.. This is a COMPLETE avoidance of the real question.

This rationalization in your response, and avoidance of the answer, provides the answer to the question I was looking for. Now I can see what mentality, and what perspective you approach situations such as this, with.

[Foolmewunz]

Now you're just pissing me off. I already stated I'm not going to try and debate the JFK assassination with you. My only interest in asking if you believed the CIA involved itself in these assassinations and coups, was to gauge what sort of mentality I'm debating with, from a personal perspective.. Instead of acknowledging the fact that our CIA does this stuff, you tried to rationalize with an answer about whether or not it was "moral" for them to do what they do... You didn't even attempt to address the legality of what the CIA does.. This is a COMPLETE avoidance of the real question.

This rationalization in your response, and avoidance of the answer, provides the answer to the question I was looking for. Now I can see what mentality, and what perspective you approach situations such as this, with.

Do you always have trouble with reading comprehension, or is this a special thing you're saving for this thread? I'm not rationalizing a damned thing.

1. I told you that I don't just "believe" that they do this kind of thing, I'm quite certain that they do. I added the ugly realpolitik to take the thing a level further, but you're still stuck on your original, patently obvious, question.

2. I also said that I am quite aware that what they do is illegal. Did you miss that part? I added that what they do is also highly immoral.

In summary: Yes. I agree that they can do and do do this sort of thing. What's next? Where are you going with this?

(And if you want to know what sort of mentality you're talking to, why not use the search function and check people's posts and threads. It's far easier than expecting us to all explain ourselves anew every time someone joins the forums.)

[Gangularis]

Do you always have trouble with reading comprehension,

Not at all. Although I'd just as easily ask you the very same question.

I'm not rationalizing a damned thing.

1. I told you that I don't just "believe" that they do this kind of thing, I'm quite certain that they do. I added the ugly realpolitik to take the thing a level further, but you're still stuck on your original, patently obvious, question.


You added the morality question - not in an attempt to take it further - but in an attempt to rationalize it. Your entire ulterior motive in asking the moral perspective was an attempt to rationalize the illegality of what they participate in. You further illustrated this by using the analogy of the "you can't handle the truth" scenario from the film "A Few Good Men". The whole premise of that debate is about doing things for the greater good, as opposed to operating within the law.

2. I also said that I am quite aware that what they do is illegal. Did you miss that part? I added that what they do is also highly immoral.

You didn't say "highly immoral".. You just acknowledged it, matter of factually..

In summary: Yes. I agree that they can do and do do this sort of thing. What's next? Where are you going with this?

I just wanted to know if I'm dealing with a person that blindly believes that facets of their government - particularly divisions of the CIA - is incapable of carrying out assassinations.. What I've seen in this thread, from most "debunkers" is a deliberate need to disavow any possible legitimate conspiracy theories... so I just wanted to see where you stand in a certain realm.

(And if you want to know what sort of mentality you're talking to, why not use the search function and check people's posts and threads. It's far easier than expecting us to all explain ourselves anew every time someone joins the forums.)

I guess.. but that would involve searching for threads where people aren't just giving arrogant, assuming responses to every CT.. I find this much more effective. I genuinely want to know where you may stand when it comes to this stuff. I don't want to just read barking responses that sound like they're being funneled directly from the mindset of the collective.

[Foolmewunz]

Not at all. Although I'd just as easily ask you the very same question.

Ask away. I'll give you a straight answer and you can read between the lines, as is your wont.



You added the morality question - not in an attempt to take it further - but in an attempt to rationalize it. Your entire ulterior motive in asking the moral perspective was an attempt to rationalize the illegality of what they participate in. You further illustrated this by using the analogy of the "you can't handle the truth" scenario from the film "A Few Good Men". The whole premise of that debate is about doing things for the greater good, as opposed to operating within the law.


Stop trying to be a mind reader and delve my intentions and just read the words. Now you're attributing an ulterior motive where there is none.



You didn't say "highly immoral".. You just acknowledged it, matter of factually..

Nitpick. Now I added "highly". And I acknowledged it matter-of-factly because it's a simple matter of fact from my perspective. It is immoral. It is illegal. Do you follow me?


I just wanted to know if I'm dealing with a person that blindly believes that facets of their government - particularly divisions of the CIA - is incapable of carrying out assassinations.. What I've seen in this thread, from most "debunkers" is a deliberate need to disavow any possible legitimate conspiracy theories... so I just wanted to see where you stand in a certain realm.

Where do you see that in my posts? I stated several times, perhaps too cynically for your taste but nevertheless so stated, that the CIA are bad guys doing bad things.


I guess.. but that would involve searching for threads where people aren't just giving arrogant, assuming responses to every CT.. I find this much more effective. I genuinely want to know where you may stand when it comes to this stuff. I don't want to just read barking responses that sound like they're being funneled directly from the mindset of the collective.
No, that would involve not being lazy and actually taking the trouble to educate yourself as to where people stand on certain issues. We've got everything on this board from Marxist-Leninists to Neo-Nazis*. An identical statement by the former is not going to have the same meaning uttered by the latter.

* and I mean real white supremacist neo-nazis, not just a euphemism for someone who's more conservative than me

[Undesired Walrus]

The Peter Jennings report is your definitive debunking? WOOOW.. Let me just clear my throat so I can say "LOOOOOOOOOOOL"..

Childish.

Seriously.. if that's your definitive debunking, then you really have not gone out of your way to find the truth. Do you have any idea how much stuff that report purposely edited and left out?! I'm not even going to go there. You're obviously convinced by your own will. If this is what goes as the "definitive debunking" around here, that kind of makes me more skeptical of what other "debunking" you might have.


What's wrong with the video?

[JimBenArm]

I only know that George Washington invented the ballistic missile submarine, and used his mighty awesomeness to kill all the Illnumbnutsiati with his space-based weapons, after banishing all the Canadians from Real America and saving the Alamo from Avis.

It's true! I read it somewhere. 'Course I skimmed a lot, but hey, you could look it up!

[Gangularis]

Stop trying to be a mind reader and delve my intentions and just read the words. Now you're attributing an ulterior motive where there is none.
Fine. Forget motive. Your words seemed to misconstrue the question I asked, and seemed an attempt to justify what the CIA does..


Nitpick. Now I added "highly". And I acknowledged it matter-of-factly because it's a simple matter of fact from my perspective. It is immoral. It is illegal. Do you follow me?

Morality is just as subjective as legality.. except that breaking so called morality doesn't necessarily get you in trouble with the system. breaking legality does. DO YOU follow me yet? Or are you still going to talk about morality, when morality is not the final say in what puts you behind bars?


No, that would involve not being lazy and actually taking the trouble to educate yourself as to where people stand on certain issues. We've got everything on this board from Marxist-Leninists to Neo-Nazis*. An identical statement by the former is not going to have the same meaning uttered by the latter.

That's interesting to know that there are people from all political spectrums that can come together and arrogantly laugh in the face of someone that believes in a certain conspiracy theory.


Childish.

So's your face! ahahahaha!! :p




What's wrong with the video?

Watch this video from about 8:00 to 11:30

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4330031689287456187&ei=Lmx6Se3AJaPWqAP3_7n9BA&q=jfk+bush+connection

I only know that George Washington invented the ballistic missile submarine, and used his mighty awesomeness to kill all the Illnumbnutsiati with his space-based weapons, after banishing all the Canadians from Real America and saving the Alamo from Avis.

It's true! I read it somewhere. 'Course I skimmed a lot, but hey, you could look it up!

More trivial mocking arrogance, with no substance.

[Foolmewunz]

Gangularis,
I beg to differ. Every time I've been behind bars, it was morality - my own - that landed me there. (There may be slight differences between them that do and them that talk about doing.)

[Gangularis]

I said morality, or lack there of, doesn't necessarily get you into jail. I think it's debatable on whether or not it's morally wrong for a 19 or 20 year old to have sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. Most of that is about what you believe, personally. Regardless of what you believe from a moral standpoint, it can still put a person in jail in certain states and countries. It's legal for corporations to sell cancer causing cigarettes.. but I don't think that's moral... I know morality and legality have a tendency to go hand in hand, but they're not mutually exclusive...

wow.. this thread got sooo off topic, lol.

[Undesired Walrus]

Watch this video from about 8:00 to 11:30

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4330031689287456187&ei=Lmx6Se3AJaPWqAP3_7n9BA&q=jfk+bush+connection


Right, I asked you what was wrong with the video. I'll ask again, what was wrong with the ontent of the video I posted?

The video you posted does nothing of the sort. The direction Kennedy's head moves is consistent with a shot from behind, not infront.

[JimBenArm]

So's your face! ahahahaha!! :p

>snip<

More trivial mocking arrogance, with no substance.

You seem to have slipped my post in between where you meant to. Here, I corrected it for you. No need to pay me. Your gratitude is enough.

Did you know that George Washington also invented the dollar bill and the quarter? That's why his picture is on them. Also, after single-handedly defeating the Germans in WWII, he found an entire state in the Pacific Northwest just laying around doing nothing and claimed it as his own. Not wanting to risk his wrath, the United States allowed it to be an entirely free state, except for Seattle, which has to supply the rest of the country with overpriced coffee of questionable drinkability, and we supply them with aging hippies as reparations.

Meanwhile, at his five-sided fortress of solitude in a District of Columbia, he formulated plans to conquer Greater Canadia. However, Abraham Lincoln chopped down his cherry tree, using his mighty Rail Splitter (batteries sold separately), which was the source of his awful power. He was imprisoned in a giant obelisk, and Abe sat back down in his giant house facing it, to keep watch in case he needed to kick George's butt again.

I have a book around here somewhere that has the details. I may have a few facts mixed up, but it's as close to real as your stuff.

[Gangularis]

Right, I asked you what was wrong with the video. I'll ask again, what was wrong with the ontent of the video I posted?

The video you posted does nothing of the sort. The direction Kennedy's head moves is consistent with a shot from behind, not infront.

You obviously didn't watch the video - that's cool. Not wasting my time with you.


You seem to have slipped my post in between where you meant to. Here, I corrected it for you. No need to pay me. Your gratitude is enough.

You're right. No need to pay you. You can be stupid for free! There's a difference between trivial, arrogantly mocking posts, with no substance to back up a substantial argument, and silly posts that are just meant to be silly. Nice to know the distinction is lost on you.

Did you know that George Washington also invented the dollar bill and the quarter? That's why his picture is on them. Also, after single-handedly defeating the Germans in WWII, he found an entire state in the Pacific Northwest just laying around doing nothing and claimed it as his own. Not wanting to risk his wrath, the United States allowed it to be an entirely free state, except for Seattle, which has to supply the rest of the country with overpriced coffee of questionable drinkability, and we supply them with aging hippies as reparations.

Meanwhile, at his five-sided fortress of solitude in a District of Columbia, he formulated plans to conquer Greater Canadia. However, Abraham Lincoln chopped down his cherry tree, using his mighty Rail Splitter (batteries sold separately), which was the source of his awful power. He was imprisoned in a giant obelisk, and Abe sat back down in his giant house facing it, to keep watch in case he needed to kick George's butt again.

I have a book around here somewhere that has the details. I may have a few facts mixed up, but it's as close to real as your stuff.

Cute.. mad libs are fun!

[JimBenArm]

There's a difference between trivial arrogantly mocking posts, and just being silly. Nice to know the distinction is lost on you. You're right. No need to pay you. You can be stupid for free!

Again, thanks for the post completely lacking any substance at all.
Stupid? Why do you think George Washington is stupid? Was he stupid when he threw Cornwalis across the Delaware? Was he stupid when he got superpowers by using cherry wood for his teeth? Huh? Was he stupid when he started believing the Illuminati were a real, secret organization bent on taking over the world? Oh, wait, that was stupid, and that was someone else.

And my posts don't lack substance. It's just the substance is something you're not familiar with. I swear, buy 'em books, send 'em to school, and all they do is eat the paste...

[Gangularis]

Stupid? Why do you think George Washington is stupid? Was he stupid when he threw Cornwalis across the Delaware? Was he stupid when he got superpowers by using cherry wood for his teeth? Huh? Was he stupid when he started believing the Illuminati were a real, secret organization bent on taking over the world? Oh, wait, that was stupid, and that was someone else.

And my posts don't lack substance. It's just the substance is something you're not familiar with. I swear, buy 'em books, send 'em to school, and all they do is eat the paste...

I like my edited version, better. Seriously, keep the mad libs coming! You're creative! Really!!

[Undesired Walrus]

You obviously didn't watch the video - that's cool. Not wasting my time with you.



A three minute segment that asks why they didn't address the movement of JFK's head? I'll ask once more, what was that supposed to debunk in my video?

[Gangularis]

A three minute segment that asks why they didn't address the movement of JFK's head? I'll ask once more, what was that supposed to debunk in my video?

I'm sorry, but that was not the entirety of that video. The video explicitly points out how Jennings "debunks" evidence by simply saying it's not evidence. This throws out any credibility Jenning's documentary throws out. Further more, the entire show is setup to debunk any conspiracy theories.. not because they're looking for the truth, but they simply want to make the idea of a JFK conspiracy look silly. The video purposely edits out anything that would contradict their argument.. much the same as the loose change kids do in the 9/11 documentaries..

I'm not going to debate about the conspiracy to assassinate JFK with someone that has made up their mind that Oswald was a lone gunman.. so please don't waste your time debating with me about it. I already told you it was pointless to do so, even before you posted that silly video.

[Undesired Walrus]

I'm sorry, but that was not the entirety of that video. The video explicitly points out how Jennings "debunks" evidence by simply saying it's not evidence. This throws out any credibility Jenning's documentary throws out. Further more, the entire show is setup to debunk any conspiracy theories.. not because they're looking for the truth, but they simply want to make the idea of a JFK conspiracy look silly. The video purposely edits out anything that would contradict their argument.. much the same as the loose change kids do in the 9/11 documentaries..



The above is simply white noise. You are still unable to point out what is wrong with the video.

[Checkmite]

Let me know what they have to tell you when they make into the 33rd degree, or past that. Hopefully you can share it with us since they're not really a secret society.

I can assure you that there is no "past" the 33rd degree.

[BenBurch]

...

That's another mind****. "Bob" got you too. :p

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

[Gangularis]

The above is simply white noise. You are still unable to point out what is wrong with the video.

That's funny, I thought I just did when I said:

"Jennings "debunks" evidence by simply saying it's not evidence." (You and Mr.Jennings seem to employ a similar tactic.)

"The video purposely edits out anything that would contradict their argument.. much the same as the loose change kids do in the 9/11 documentaries.."


I can assure you that there is no "past" the 33rd degree.

Thanks for the assurance. I assume you're a master mason, then?

[tomwaits]

sbRom1Rz8OA

[Gangularis]

I just watched that video a few days ago. I think it's the first video result for when you do a youtube search for George Washington, isn't it? Pretty funny.

[Undesired Walrus]

That's funny, I thought I just did when I said:

"Jennings "debunks" evidence by simply saying it's not evidence." (You and Mr.Jennings seem to employ a similar tactic.)

"The video purposely edits out anything that would contradict their argument.. much the same as the loose change kids do in the 9/11 documentaries.."


Once again, you are unable to point out the alleged flaws in that video. They provide evidence, strong evidence, that there was a single shooter. What was wrong with it?

[Checkmite]

Thanks for the assurance. I assume you're a master mason, then?

That would be a safe assumption (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64460).

[Gangularis]

Once again, you are unable to point out the alleged flaws in that video. They provide evidence, strong evidence, that there was a single shooter. What was wrong with it?

Once again, I clearly stated what the flaws were, and you continue to say that I haven't. Jennings does NOT provide strong evidence. In reference to the shooting of JFK.. he states "back and to the left is no indication of where a bullet might have come from"..We are just told to believe that because Jennings says so.. In the video I provided, a leading United States forensics expert says that's completely untrue.

Jennings goes on to state that there's never been any credible evidence of a conspiracy. Says, Jennings... He says it, that must make it so. It's quite the contrary. There's tremendous evidence of a conspiracy, and of there being a shooter from the grassy knoll area.

Now, this is the last I'm going to talk about this with you because, as I already said, I'm not going to try to prove to you that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK in this thread, because that's not what this thread was about. Nor am I interested in trying to convince someone that believes what Peter Jennings tells him to believe.

I pointed out several flaws with the video. Accept it or not, I don't care.

If you want to watch a really good video about the assassination, watch this interview with Chauncy Holt, filmed 8 days before he died.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8250980122157253214&ei=qJ17Se_OAp3eqAPv8vCoBA&q=chauncey+holt

That would be a safe assumption (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64460).

lol neat. Do you guys slaughter goats, and stuff?

[Checkmite]

lol neat. Do you guys slaughter goats, and stuff?


No, but some of use are deer hunters.

[Undesired Walrus]

Once again, I clearly stated what the flaws were, and you continue to say that I haven't. Jennings does NOT provide strong evidence. In reference to the shooting of JFK.. he states "back and to the left is no indication of where a bullet might have come from"..We are just told to believe that because Jennings says so.. In the video I provided, a leading United States forensics expert says that's completely untrue.


I can see how you are excited by the old 'back and to the left' claim, but it is fairly easily debunked, by a Nobel Prize winner in physics no less:

62gvoKyODu4

You seem to be obsessed with Peter Jennings. How about the people actually in the video, rather than the voiceover?

I pointed out several flaws with the video. Accept it or not, I don't care.

You didn't, not one. You focused on a part of that documentary that wasn't even in the clip I linked you to.

[Gangularis]

I can see how you are excited by the old 'back and to the left' claim, but it is fairly easily debunked, by a Nobel Prize winner no less:

(NSFW)
62gvoKyODu4

LOL penn and teller.. these guys are the most biased bunch of hacks out there. They'll dig up anybody that supports their claims.. and there's always a nobel prize winner, or an expert for either side of the argument.. They did a bullsh*t episode about how all bottled water is just tap water.. They even held up a bottle of Dassani to support this claim.. What they failed to mention is that not all bottle is tap water. Dassani, as well as several other brands of bottled water are filtered with reverse Osmosis.. leaving it as anything but tap water.. also, the "back and to the left" is such an infinitesimally small piece of evidence when you get to it. There was also an audio recording that was presented to the Warren Commission that was analyzed and proved that there's 95% certainty or greater that shots were fired from the grassy knoll..

It's cool though. Keep listening to Penn & Teller and Peter Jennings. It amazes me how skeptical so called "skeptics" are, with regards to conspiracy theories, but how much that skepticism fails to serve you when the government or the mainstream media feeds you their version of the story.

[Undesired Walrus]

LOL penn and teller.. these guys are the most biased bunch of hacks out there. They'll dig up anybody that supports their claims.. and there's always a nobel prize winner, or an expert for either side of the argument.. They did a bullsh*t episode about how all bottled water is just tap water.. They even held up a bottle of Dassani to support this claim.. What they failed to mention is that not all bottle is tap water. Dassani, as well as several other brands of bottled water are filtered with reverse Osmosis.. leaving it as anything but tap water..

So, unable to refute their claims, you attack their character. I don't really like them or their politics, and like your example, they are often wrong. This is your chance, therefore, to show that their demonstration is another case in which they are wrong. Can you?

but how much that skepticism fails to serve you when the government or the mainstream media feeds you their version of the story.

'Showtime' is mainstream? Huh.

[Gangularis]

So, unable to refute their claims, you attack their character. I don't really like them or their politics, and like your example, they are often wrong. This is your chance, therefore, to show that their demonstration is another case in which they are wrong. Can you?

Going back to the first video, it's kind of surprising they didn't show that animated reenactment of the "back and to the left" bit.. I guess that's the part where Jennings just says it's not proof of anything.. even though they use JFK's body movements to explain everything in the shots proceeding that moment.

I couldn't even bring myself to watch the entire Penn & Teller video. It's not just their character that's a problem. It's an issue of credibility. Not even worth my time.



'Showtime' is mainstream? Huh.

You think it's not?? It's not exactly public access television..

[Undesired Walrus]

I diverted this discussion to here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4374596#post4374596

[BenBurch]

No, but some of use are deer hunters.

And some bash trout on the head with saps rather than have them flop around in the boat... Don't ask me how I know this.