E. Howard Hunt and JFK

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I went back 4 or 5 pages, and searched the forum, and found nothing on the E. Howard Hunt tape that his son has gone public with. Now, before I get scolded, I use an "alternate" browser, and I wonder sometimes if forum searches work the way they should with this browser.

Anyway, can somebody steer me to the thread where you guys debunk the new E. Howard Hunt tape, regarding the JFK assassination? I'm sure it's been widely discussed and thoroughly discredited, but I can't find the discussions.

Thank you for your time on this matter.

[Mobyseven]

I hadn't heard of this, so I can't speak for whether or not it has been discussed.

The forum search option should work regardless of your browser I think - what browser do you use?

[Liszt]

Have you searched in the History forum? It´s probably there, seeing as the JFK conpsiracy is not a "conspiracy theory" :)

[Liszt]

here you go, from wiki´s JFK page

"...the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded in 1979 that there may have been a conspiracy"

May? Fools. Does anyone actually believe the official story?

[CurtC]

I've kept my ear close to the JFK ground here for a few years now, and I'm pretty sure I haven't seen a thread mentioning Howard Hunt. Is there some recent news story you'd like to link to?

[Liszt]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/300407deathbedconfession.htm

Hunt confirms some of the stuff in Stone´s JFK film. Would he tell the truth on his deathdeb? That´s the question.

[kevingreenlee]

Hunt's son, Saint John, recently claimed to have an audio recording of his father describing the alleged role of the CIA in the JFK assassination. He's peddling the tale over at his own website, where- for just $20 you can obtain a DVD of an interview with Saint John.

An excerpt from the recording which Saint John played on a recent "Coast to Coast" program was far from convincing, Hunt's other children charge that Saint John manipulated a heavily medicated and confused old man, and the LA Times story on the matter noted that the Saint John's materials were "inconclusive."

[gumboot]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/300407deathbedconfession.htm

Hunt confirms some of the stuff in Stone´s JFK film. Would he tell the truth on his deathdeb? That´s the question.



It was hardly his deathbed. Although virtually every media outlet is reporting it as such, he made the tape three years before he died.

-Gumboot

[kookbreaker]

This is like third guy who is claiming his dad did the JFK murder.

I think one problem I had with it is that it confirms almost perfectlywith the most recent 'conspiracy scenario' the latest JFK 'researchers' have come up with.

Also, these 'deathbed confessions' (or close to deathbed) tend to lack details such as type of weapon, where they shot from, etc.

There's also still the complete lack of physical evidence for Hunt's involvement.

Overall, not impressed.

[JimBenArm]

But of course he was involved! Here's the proof:
His son was Lamar Hunt, who founded the American Football League, and owned the Dallas Texans. In 1963, he moved the Texans to Kansas City and re-named them the Chiefs. Later that year, in Dallas, JFK was shot.
Coincidence? I think not!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I went back 4 or 5 pages, and searched the forum, and found nothing on the E. Howard Hunt tape that his son has gone public with. Now, before I get scolded, I use an "alternate" browser, and I wonder sometimes if forum searches work the way they should with this browser.

Anyway, can somebody steer me to the thread where you guys debunk the new E. Howard Hunt tape, regarding the JFK assassination? I'm sure it's been widely discussed and thoroughly discredited, but I can't find the discussions.

Thank you for your time on this matter.

Have you searched in the History forum? It´s probably there, seeing as the JFK conpsiracy is not a "conspiracy theory" :)

And once again, some people clearly demonstrate that they do not understand what skeptical/critical thinking is. You both demonstrate confirmation bias, and project that bias on to others.

The questions you should be asking are:
* Has this been discussed here, or is anyone here familiar with this?
* Does it stand up to logical and factual scrutiny?

[CurtC]

May? Fools. Does anyone actually believe the official story?
I think you'll find that pretty much ever single person on this forum who has some familiarity with the JFK story agrees with the official story, that Oswald was the only shooter, and that he was not involved with any other people in planning his actions.

By the way, the HSCA conclusion that you quoted from, in 1979, that there may have been a conspiracy, is basing that "may" completely on one acoustic analysis that was soon after vacated because it was shown, without a doubt, to be recorded not when they thought it was? And that without that analysis, the HSCA had zero evidence of a conspiracy?

[pgwenthold]

I think you'll find that pretty much ever single person on this forum who has some familiarity with the JFK story agrees with the official story, that Oswald was the only shooter, and that he was not involved with any other people in planning his actions.

By the way, the HSCA conclusion that you quoted from, in 1979, that there may have been a conspiracy, is basing that "may" completely on one acoustic analysis that was soon after vacated because it was shown, without a doubt, to be recorded not when they thought it was? And that without that analysis, the HSCA had zero evidence of a conspiracy?

And if Wikipedia doesn't include that information, then it is a massive oversight. It wouldn't even have to take a position, but it should at least note 1) why the HSCA came to the conclusion they did (as Curt says, they basically said, yeah, it looks like the Warren report said it did, but then there is this acoustic data that we can't explain; the only explanation we have is that there must have been a second shooter, even though we have no other evidence for it), and 2) subsequent relevations that question the reliability of the acoustic evidence (for example, the supposed gun shots found on the recording are timed to be more than a minute after the shooting occured, and the fact that the guy with the supposed open mike wasn't in the position they attributed him to be at the time of the shooting, and, in fact, denies that his mike was stuck open (the ID of the guy with the open mike is apparently known - there is a great website by a guy who was a Dallas cop at the time and lays it all out - all indications are that the open mike wasn't on a motorbike in Dealey Plaza but was on a 3-wheeler sitting at the Trade Mart (where the motorcade was supposed to be going)))

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

A Speech was delivered by Robert F. Kennedy on 4 April 1968, Indianapolis, IN, concernig the murder of Martin Luther King.

QUOTE
".......... those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man. "

Well at least he was honest !

I guess what is being said, is that if you have a family member killed, it is best to choose the right color such that racism does not come into the picture.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

A Speech was delivered by Robert F. Kennedy on 4 April 1968, Indianapolis, IN, concernig the murder of Martin Luther King.

QUOTE
".......... those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man. "

Well at least he was honest !

I guess what is being said, is that if you have a family member killed, it is best to choose the right color such that racism does not come into the picture.

What the... You really think this is an admission from RFK that he had his brother assassinated, rather than just relaxed speech? Just another case of Accidental Confession Syndrome?

"I had a member of my family [who was] killed. . ."

For 99.99% of the people on this planet, leaving out those two words would get a mocking correction from grammar Nazis, not suspicion from conspiracy theorists.

[Civilized Worm]

He's peddling the tale over at his own website, where- for just $20 you can obtain a DVD of an interview with Saint John.


That along should set off alarm bells.

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

I spent many years studying truth, and eventually studied the use of relaxed speech as you called it, and the findings that were revealed by assuming that the relaxed speech was not relaxed at all, were extraordinaire.

It was all related to the Intentional Design of this reality, and an intended goal that could not succeed without the practice of deceit. Relaxed speech was the tool that was needed to be used extensively for the plan to succeed.

Imagine a society that functions flawlessly and therefore does not lie. For an opponent to enter such a society, they must follow the same rules but must take advantage any weakness within the system.

It was fascinating to listen to some criminals who were being interviewed on certain TV shows as they spoke in relaxed speech. To the audience, they were clearly saying that they were innocent, but if you took what they said literally, they were actually admitting to being guilty right there on TV. At the same time they were laughing to themselves due to taking advantage of the slack minds across the globe as they spoke to them and deceived them.

But that is just a small sample, just a small piece of a grand sized puzzle. It could be another 100 years before the majority on this planet are ready to hear the rest of the story.

Like you said, the case concerning RFK sounds ridiculous, but it does so no longer if you assemble the complete puzzle. It takes many years to do so.

Keep an ear open for statements like a criminal saying to an officer " I didn't steal nothing ! ", which means of course that the criminal stole something rather than nothing. But like I said, that is just a start, and it takes many years to recognized a pattern of vast intelligence within it all.

Just checking to see if anyone else was catching on.

[Mobyseven]

MINISTERofTRUTH:

You have no idea how the English language, and dialects thereof, functions and is structured.

As a basic example, "I didn't steal nothing!" is an example of a non-standard use of English whereby a double negative is employed for emphasis, not to negate a negation.

I suggest you enrol in some basic linguistics classes, especially focusing on syntax, semantics, and discourse analysis before you make any more of a fool of yourself.

Peace Out

M7

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I spent many years studying truth, and eventually studied the use of relaxed speech as you called it, and the findings that were revealed by assuming that the relaxed speech was not relaxed at all, were extraordinaire.

Your post doesn't describe anything remotely like "studying truth". The closest claim you could make is "studying language", but that's still way out in left field, because you're actually doing no such thing. All you're doing is taking the words people say literally.

That's not any kind of study. That's actually quite the opposite.

To the audience, they were clearly saying that they were innocent, but if you took what they said literally, they were actually admitting to being guilty right there on TV.

That's your problem. Literal interpretations of statements aren't necessarily the "truth".

When someone says, "Man, that movie sucks," do you interpret that as meaning the movie literally sucks?

Keep an ear open for statements like a criminal saying to an officer " I didn't steal nothing ! ", which means of course that the criminal stole something rather than nothing. But like I said, that is just a start, and it takes many years to recognized a pattern of vast intelligence within it all.

It takes absolutely no study and no intelligence to take a person's statement literally. It does take experience to recognize different dialects.

Just checking to see if anyone else was catching on.

Your arrogance is astounding. What kind of education or experience is required to take statements literally? Seriously...

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/4546/masteroftheobviousec3.jpg

[Slayhamlet]

I spent many years studying truth...

All I had to do was read that first phrase of the first sentence of this guy's post to know that everything following after would be pure ************. No rational, down-to-earth persons says something like that. The kook detector just went way off the charts.

[Foolmewunz]

I spent many years studying truth, and eventually studied the use of relaxed speech as you called it, and the findings that were revealed by assuming that the relaxed speech was not relaxed at all, were extraordinaire.

It was all related to the Intentional Design of this reality, and an intended goal that could not succeed without the practice of deceit. Relaxed speech was the tool that was needed to be used extensively for the plan to succeed.

Imagine a society that functions flawlessly and therefore does not lie. For an opponent to enter such a society, they must follow the same rules but must take advantage any weakness within the system.

It was fascinating to listen to some criminals who were being interviewed on certain TV shows as they spoke in relaxed speech. To the audience, they were clearly saying that they were innocent, but if you took what they said literally, they were actually admitting to being guilty right there on TV. At the same time they were laughing to themselves due to taking advantage of the slack minds across the globe as they spoke to them and deceived them.

But that is just a small sample, just a small piece of a grand sized puzzle. It could be another 100 years before the majority on this planet are ready to hear the rest of the story.

Like you said, the case concerning RFK sounds ridiculous, but it does so no longer if you assemble the complete puzzle. It takes many years to do so.

Keep an ear open for statements like a criminal saying to an officer " I didn't steal nothing ! ", which means of course that the criminal stole something rather than nothing. But like I said, that is just a start, and it takes many years to recognized a pattern of vast intelligence within it all.

Just checking to see if anyone else was catching on.

Weeee!
So much material there, one doesn't know where to start. And with that in mind, I'm going to resist temptation and just let that post stand on its own. It's a classic example of something. I just can't figure out what.

[Elizabeth I]

MINISTERofTRUTH:

You have no idea how the English language, and dialects thereof, functions and is structured.

As a basic example, "I didn't steal nothing!" is an example of a non-standard use of English whereby a double negative is employed for emphasis, not to negate a negation.

I suggest you enrol in some basic linguistics classes, especially focusing on syntax, semantics, and discourse analysis before you make any more of a fool of yourself.

Peace Out

M7

Thank you, M7. You saved me the trouble.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

It was hardly his deathbed. Although virtually every media outlet is reporting it as such, he made the tape three years before he died.

-Gumboot

Since we're nitpicking, it wasn't three years.

"Virtually every media outlet?" What media outlets have reported this?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

You're right, we should be nitpicking...

Since we're nitpicking, it wasn't three years.
Source?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

That along should set off alarm bells.

Why? James Randi sells T-shirts.

We're not talking $50 here. $20 to burn a disc and mail it, pretty much the going rate for anything. I doubt he's getting rich from this, considering the tape can be heard online.

[boloboffin]

Why? James Randi sells T-shirts.

We're not talking $50 here. $20 to burn a disc and mail it, pretty much the going rate for anything. I doubt he's getting rich from this, considering the tape can be heard online.

The James Randi Educational Foundation sells T-Shirts.

http://www.randi.org/jref/index.html

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why? James Randi sells T-shirts.
Are you serious? Can you seriously be comparing t-shirts being sold by a foundation that promotes education and critical thinkg to someone making a buck off of 'earth shattering' evidence that would implicate people in the assassination of a US President?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Why? James Randi sells T-shirts.

We're not talking $50 here. $20 to burn a disc and mail it, pretty much the going rate for anything. I doubt he's getting rich from this, considering the tape can be heard online.
100 DVDs = $24 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817132389)
Priority mail flat-rate envelope = $4.05 (http://postcalc.usps.gov/mailpiecedimensions.asp#PriorityFlatRate)

Once you've paid for the PC to burn them (which many people have anyone, so it's not really fair to claim it as a cost of production) you are look at at most US$4.29/DVD to produce and ship.

ETA: and mark your edit next time

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You're right, we should be nitpicking...


Source?

It was mailed to his son in January of 2004. Hunt died January 23, 2007. So unless we know the exact date the tape was mailed, or received by Hunt's son, we can't conclusively say that three years passed!

My point, badly made I admit, is that if we're going to nitpick, let's go all the way.

Was it a "deathbed confession?" When I started this thread, I almost fell into that cliche. I almost wrote "deathbed confession." But I just knew somebody here would jump all over that. Gumboot did, even though I didn't write it.

So, if a guy is sick, and "confesses," (or spills the beans, whichever the case may be), but doesn't die for roughly three years, and dies in a different bed than the one he "confessed" in, technically, it isn't a "deathbed confession!" Right?

I still want to know about all these media outlets that are using the term "deathbed confession." Gumboot?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

It was mailed to his son in January of 2004. Hunt died January 23, 2007. So unless we know the exact date the tape was mailed, or received by Hunt's son, we can't conclusively say that three years passed!

My point, badly made I admit, is that if we're going to nitpick, let's go all the way.

Was it a "deathbed confession?" When I started this thread, I almost fell into that cliche. I almost wrote "deathbed confession." But I just knew somebody here would jump all over that. Gumboot did, even though I didn't write it.

So, if a guy is sick, and "confesses," (or spills the beans, whichever the case may be), but doesn't die for roughly three years, and dies in a different bed than the one he "confessed" in, technically, it isn't a "deathbed confession!" Right?

I still want to know about all these media outlets that are using the term "deathbed confession." Gumboot?
I'm sorry, you must have missed this in my wall of text, but I believe the gist of what I was enquiring about was a SOURCE to substantiate your claim, not an exposition.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

100 DVDs = $24 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817132389)
Priority mail flat-rate envelope = $4.05 (http://postcalc.usps.gov/mailpiecedimensions.asp#PriorityFlatRate)

Once you've paid for the PC to burn them (which many people have anyone, so it's not really fair to claim it as a cost of production) you are look at at most US$4.29/DVD to produce and ship.

ETA: and mark your edit next time

Add in the value of time, time going to Post Office, etc. Opportunity costs. All that. $20 isn't outrageous.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I'm sorry, you must have missed this in my wall of text, but I believe the gist of what I was enquiring about was a SOURCE to substantiate your claim, not an exposition.

Ask Gumboot for his source that it was three years. I'll betcha we used the same source. Google?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Add in the value of time, time going to Post Office, etc. Opportunity costs. All that. $20 isn't outrageous.
Equivocation. We're not discussing if US$20 is a "fair" price for a homegrown DVD production, we are discussing that this yahoo is making a profit off of evidence that would supposedly implicate people in the assassination of a US President rather than.. oh.. I don't know... telling EVERYONE AND THEIR DOGDANGED GRANDMOTHER ABOUT IT!

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Ask Gumboot for his source that it was three years. I'll betcha we used the same source. Google?
I'm not asking Gumboot, I'm asking you.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Are you serious? Can you seriously be comparing t-shirts being sold by a foundation that promotes education and critical thinkg to someone making a buck off of 'earth shattering' evidence that would implicate people in the assassination of a US President?

OK, forget the Educational Foundation." Mr. Randi sells lots of books, DVDs and tapes.

The point is, if people want this DVD from St. John Hunt, he has to put forth an effort to get it to the person who wants it. That takes time. $20 isn't that much in today's economy.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Equivocation. We're not discussing if US$20 is a "fair" price for a homegrown DVD production, we are discussing that this yahoo is making a profit off of evidence that would supposedly implicate people in the assassination of a US President rather than.. oh.. I don't know... telling EVERYONE AND THEIR DOGDANGED GRANDMOTHER ABOUT IT!

Seems to me this yahoo is telling anybody who will listen. Which does not include you, apparently. Or the media.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

OK, forget the Educational Foundation." Mr. Randi sells lots of books, DVDs and tapes.

The point is, if people want this DVD from St. John Hunt, he has to put forth an effort to get it to the person who wants it. That takes time. $20 isn't that much in today's economy.

Seems to me this yahoo is telling anybody who will listen. Which does not include you, apparently. Or the media.
You are excusing someone who, supposedly, has evidence implicating people in the assassination of a US President and has not sent this evidence to every single media outlet worldwide and you claim that his asking US$20 for this evidence is reasonable? If he has this evidence, not only is it unreasonable, it is unlawful to withhold it, let alone charge for access to it.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

You are excusing someone who, supposedly, has evidence implicating people in the assassination of a US President and has not sent this evidence to every single media outlet worldwide and you claim that his asking US$20 for this evidence is reasonable? If he has this evidence, not only is it unreasonable, it is unlawful to withhold it, let alone charge for access to it.

If it is unlawful to withhold it, then the media is unlawful, since nobody is picking up this story. (But then, this is nothing new).

Well, except Coast To Coast and Prison Planet, thus far (that I'm aware of).

Is James Randi breaking the law by withholding evidence of fraud, and instead peddling it in books?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Arkan, what's the name for the fallacy when one calls another a "yahoo" without knowing what they have claimed?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

If it is unlawful to withhold it, then the media is unlawful, since nobody is picking up this story. (But then, this is nothing new).
The media can't without evidence that they don't have. Remember, this guys charging for it? The whole point to this tangent?

Well, except Coast To Coast and Prison Planet, thus far (that I'm aware of).
Ah yes, paragons of journalistic integrity those two sites.

Is James Randi breaking the law by withholding evidence of fraud, and instead peddling it in books?
No, his books are recounting his public exposing of the hoaxsters. Further equivocation on your part. It's getting tiresome and you're not fooling anyone with this junior-high arguing antics.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Arkan, what's the name for the fallacy when one calls another a "yahoo" without knowing what they have claimed?
It's not. You are, wrongly, thinking of ad hom, however I did not say his claims were false because he was a "yahoo"; I merely called him a "yahoo".

Focus. Stay on target. Provide a source for your claim as you have been asked for twice now.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The media can't without evidence that they don't have. Remember, this guys charging for it? The whole point to this tangent?


Ah yes, paragons of journalistic integrity those two sites.




He's charging to send a DVD to somebody who wants it. The information is available, free, at those two outlets you so ridicule.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

It's not. You are, wrongly, thinking of ad hom, however I did not say his claims were false because he was a "yahoo"; I merely called him a "yahoo".

Focus. Stay on target. Provide a source for your claim as you have been asked for twice now.

OK, then why call him a "yahoo?" Before you know about his claims?

The source is the same ones Gumboot used, I'm sure. Wikipedia (to get Hunt's death date). The January 2004 date of receipt of the tape is found in the article at Prison Planet, which I'm sure is where Gumboot got it, too.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The media can't without evidence that they don't have. Remember, this guys charging for it? The whole point to this tangent?

They don't need evidence to run with the story that E. Howard Hunt's son has gone public with a tape purported to be his father, giving his insight into the JFK assassination.



Ah yes, paragons of journalistic integrity those two sites.



As opposed to...?

[Slayhamlet]

They don't need evidence to run with the story that E. Howard Hunt's son has gone public with a tape purported to be his father, giving his insight into the JFK assassination.




As opposed to...?


I dunno, maybe some real journalistic outlets, like a reputable newspaper or television station? Coast to Coast is the journalstic equivalent of the Jerry Springer show and Prisonplanet of some nut ranting on the public access channel.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I dunno, maybe some real journalistic outlets, like a reputable newspaper or television station? Coast to Coast is the journalstic equivalent of the Jerry Springer show and Prisonplanet of some nut ranting on the public access channel.

That may be, but these "unrepuatble" outlets broke the story. Now, the story is that the tape was released. The NEWS exists. The NEWS is that a former CIA and White House official has claimed that LBJ and others plotted to kill Kennedy. That's news. Now, it's the job of "reputable" media outlets to report the damned news.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I dunno, maybe some real journalistic outlets, like a reputable newspaper or television station?

Please name three. And explain why they are "reputable."

[Mobyseven]

That may be, but these "unrepuatble" outlets broke the story. Now, the story is that the tape was released. The NEWS exists. The NEWS is that a former CIA and White House official has claimed that LBJ and others plotted to kill Kennedy. That's news. Now, it's the job of "reputable" media outlets to report the damned news.

I highly doubt that those who work for mainstream media companies pay much attention to the 'alternative media' outlets that have reported this story.

Why don't you get all of the information together and send it off to as many newspapers as possible? Take the news to them?

[Dog Town]

Rolling Stone ran this story, over two months ago.

[gumboot]

Was it a "deathbed confession?" When I started this thread, I almost fell into that cliche. I almost wrote "deathbed confession." But I just knew somebody here would jump all over that. Gumboot did, even though I didn't write it.



The reason is because a "death bed confession" or otherwise "last words" are treated very differently in law to other statements.

The reason, I suppose, is that a person about to die has no real reason to lie.

-Gumboot

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I highly doubt that those who work for mainstream media companies pay much attention to the 'alternative media' outlets that have reported this story.

Why don't you get all of the information together and send it off to as many newspapers as possible? Take the news to them?

They sure do pay attention when a conspiracy fits their needs. I'm thinking swift boats, and AWOL documents. And all that Clinton stuff.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The reason is because a "death bed confession" or otherwise "last words" are treated very differently in law to other statements.

The reason, I suppose, is that a person about to die has no real reason to lie.

-Gumboot

I believe Hunt was sick and expecting to die soon when he made the tape.

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Rolling Stone ran this story, over two months ago.

See? There ya go. Is Rolling Stone "mainstream?" "Reputable?"

The lack of any other outlet running it is glaring.

[gumboot]

I believe Hunt was sick and expecting to die soon when he made the tape.


I don't care what you "believe".

-Gumboot

[skepticalcriticalguy]

I don't care what you "believe".

-Gumboot

It's what I have read. However, as I try to find references to his ongoing illness on the web, I can't seem to find any, since my search engines give me pages and pages of articles about this tape thing.

You know, the tape that none of you here seemed to deem worthy of discussion, until my lowly self came in and brought it up.

Y'all need to "get out" more.

[gumboot]

It's what I have read. However, as I try to find references to his ongoing illness on the web, I can't seem to find any, since my search engines give me pages and pages of articles about this tape thing.

You know, the tape that none of you here seemed to deem worthy of discussion, until my lowly self came in and brought it up.

Y'all need to "get out" more.



The reason that I aren't interested is partly because I "get out".

Can you perhaps explain to me why I should be interested in the 40-year old assassination of a foreign head of state?

Why aren't you here furiously posting about the assassination of Roman Consul Julius Caesar in 44 BC?

-Gumboot

[skepticalcriticalguy]

The reason that I aren't interested is partly because I "get out".

Can you perhaps explain to me why I should be interested in the 40-year old assassination of a foreign head of state?

Why aren't you here furiously posting about the assassination of Roman Consul Julius Caesar in 44 BC?

-Gumboot

Gumboot, you're too intelligent for posts like your last one.

I'm more concerned than you are about it, because it was the head of MY state. Not your little state. Although, should my state choose to deem your state "evil," and invade, that could change.

Perhaps I care about a 40+ year old assassination because the very cabal that took power that day are in power now, and for all intents and purposes, have been since.

[gumboot]

I'm more concerned than you are about it, because it was the head of MY state. Not your little state. Although, should my state choose to deem your state "evil," and invade, that could change.

Perhaps I care about a 40+ year old assassination because the very cabal that took power that day are in power now, and for all intents and purposes, have been since.



That's fine. But perhaps you should stop criticising other posters here for not showing the same interest you do.

It's obviously not as important to some of us.

-Gumboot

[JimBenArm]

That's fine. But perhaps you should stop criticising other posters here for not showing the same interest you do.

It's obviously not as important to some of us.

-Gumboot
Hell, it's not even important to me, and it was my head of state! JFK is so yesterday! What is it with the nutjobs that they can't let go of crap that happened a half-century ago? USS Liberty, JFK, Pearl Harbor, these are supposed to support their crap theories on things happening today? How very, what's the word, oh yeah! STUPID! The people who would have been behind these so-called conspiracies are DEAD! Long gone, out of power, no longer have any influence on the affairs of today. GET OVER IT!

[Liszt]

Hell, it's not even important to me, and it was my head of state! JFK is so yesterday! What is it with the nutjobs that they can't let go of crap that happened a half-century ago? USS Liberty, JFK, Pearl Harbor, these are supposed to support their crap theories on things happening today? How very, what's the word, oh yeah! STUPID! The people who would have been behind these so-called conspiracies are DEAD! Long gone, out of power, no longer have any influence on the affairs of today. GET OVER IT!

This a amusing. Are you serious? I bet you´re an Iran Contra denier ;)

[gumboot]

Hell, it's not even important to me, and it was my head of state! JFK is so yesterday! What is it with the nutjobs that they can't let go of crap that happened a half-century ago? USS Liberty, JFK, Pearl Harbor, these are supposed to support their crap theories on things happening today? How very, what's the word, oh yeah! STUPID! The people who would have been behind these so-called conspiracies are DEAD! Long gone, out of power, no longer have any influence on the affairs of today. GET OVER IT!


The Lizards never die.

-Gumboot

[JimBenArm]

The Lizards never die.

-Gumboot
But they do snore, and it's keeping me awake!

[Mobyseven]

They sure do pay attention when a conspiracy fits their needs. I'm thinking swift boats, and AWOL documents. And all that Clinton stuff.

Why don't you get all of the information together and send it off to as many newspapers as possible? Take the news to them?

[Brainster]

I thought it was interesting that the "confession" amounted to "I confess, they did it!" And the whole reason why E. Howard Hunt was under suspicion was a photograph taken in Dallas that day of a tramp who looked a bit like him, but Hunt purportedly told his son that he wasn't there.

[Vincent Vega]

I'm more concerned than you are about it, because it was the head of MY state. Not your little state. Although, should my state choose to deem your state "evil," and invade, that could change.

Perhaps I care about a 40+ year old assassination because the very cabal that took power that day are in power now, and for all intents and purposes, have been since.

It would be important to me too If I thought for a second that it may be true.

And why would hte US want to invade New Zealand?

[Vincent Vega]

This a amusing. Are you serious? I bet you´re an Iran Contra denier ;)

What's there to deny?

[gumboot]

It would be important to me too If I thought for a second that it may be true.

And why would hte US want to invade New Zealand?


For our sheep.

After peak oil sheep will become the new resource upon which the world's economy is balanced.

-Gumboot

[ConspiRaider]

For our sheep.

After peak oil sheep will become the new resource upon which the world's economy is balanced.

-Gumboot
Indirectly, is what I heard. Shepherds tend the sheep, and to do that one must dine on shepherd's pie, which is strip-mined all over New Zealand. Shepherd's pie produces 3 times as many BTUs when burned as anthracite coal, as we all remember from our middle school geology class (actually in my geology class I would pelt this cute girl sitting by the cloakroom with small sedimentary rocks to get her attention becuz I was kinda sweet on her).

I hear they are now blowing up mountaintops to get at the rich veins of shepherd's pie underneath more cheaply. Is that causing any environmental problems in your charming country?

[gumboot]

I hear they are now blowing up mountaintops to get at the rich veins of shepherd's pie underneath more cheaply. Is that causing any environmental problems in your charming country?



No but the Orcs are playing havoc with the demolition teams. We've had to reestablish a defence force to keep the pesky blighters away.

-Gumboot

[skepticalcriticalguy]

What's there to deny?

I fully expect you to believe the part that the government and media told you about.

Do you believe that Iran/Contra goes deeper than we have been told? Say, to Mena, Arkansas? Do you believe that Barry Seal was murdered?

I'm sure you don't believe that the drugs coming into Mena were distributed through the Walmart distribution channel. (You might not even be aware of that CT).

[Cl1mh4224rd]

For our sheep.

Well, if the truthers are to be believed *snicker*, the U.S. supply of "sheep" is dwindling exponentially! We need to restock! :p

[Mobyseven]

Hey, Skepticalcriticalguy: Why don't you get all of the information together and send it off to as many newspapers as possible? Take the news to them? Have you done this yet?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Hey, Skepticalcriticalguy: Why don't you get all of the information together and send it off to as many newspapers as possible? Take the news to them? Have you done this yet?

Just my usual emailing to networks and TV news outlets. Ya know, since it's good enough for Rolling Stone, ya'd think maybe it might be good enough to at least mention for a minute on teevee. Maybe just as a "conspiracy theory" human interest piece.

Betcha a few "real journalists" out there even read Rolling Stone.

[Mobyseven]

Just my usual emailing to networks and TV news outlets. Ya know, since it's good enough for Rolling Stone, ya'd think maybe it might be good enough to at least mention for a minute on teevee. Maybe just as a "conspiracy theory" human interest piece.

Betcha a few "real journalists" out there even read Rolling Stone.

Yes - I'm sure that given some of the 'news' that is reported nowadays (Look, a puppy up a tree! Someone call Ripleys!) at least one newspaper might run the story. It won't be front page (it will likely be buried) and it may not be given a favourable light, depending on the facts you present to them...

Might I suggest actually printing out material and mailing it to them? Emails can be easily deleted, whereas printed materials at least get a fair look at before anything is decided upon.

And do you mind if I ask what newspapers you've sent information to? So that we can be on the lookout for possible stories. And also what information you have sent them - if you don't want to post the information publicly, give me a PM about it.

Peace Out

Mobyseven

[Whiplash]

If it is unlawful to withhold it, then the media is unlawful, since nobody is picking up this story. (But then, this is nothing new).


Psst, there is a reason that mainstream media outlets don't pick up this "story" or other conspiracy theories.. and it's not because big bad evil joo run gubmint will kill them. If there was any real truth to any of that crap, they would run with it. One day you'll understand, and look back on these days with a bit of embarassment.

[PhantomWolf]

The Gravy of JFK (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm)

No but the Orcs are playing havoc with the demolition teams. We've had to reestablish a defence force to keep the pesky blighters away.

The trouble is the high unemployment rate among them. I mean, sure, having them around when you need them to do their stomping and grunting and waving a sword about as an extra in a movie is all well and good, but what do you do when there isn't a need for that? They have trouble with office work and their general management tactic is to whip anyone that dares step out of line. Employeers just don't want the hassle, even if they do work cheap. With all that time on their hands and being leaderless, what do you expect them to do other than gettig into trouble and causing crime?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Psst, there is a reason that mainstream media outlets don't pick up this "story" or other conspiracy theories.. and it's not because big bad evil joo run gubmint will kill them. If there was any real truth to any of that crap, they would run with it. One day you'll understand, and look back on these days with a bit of embarassment.

Then why did Rolling Stone run it? Just the fact that the tape exists is worth a mention on The Noos. No? C'mon, The Noos is on 24 hours a day. On many channels. Surely, they could give the tape a couple minutes, instead of repeating the same 3 stories a day ad nauseum.

(RS did)

[skepticalcriticalguy]

Coast to Coast is the journalstic equivalent of the Jerry Springer show

And I suppose you see Prison Planet as the journalistic equivalent to the National Enquirer.

[Hokulele]

Umm, did you actually read the Rolling Stone article (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13893143/the_last_confessions_of_e_howard_hunt/1)?

Nice ending.


"Oh, God," Saint says and goes looking for how The New York Times handled his father's death. The obit reads, "Mr. Hunt was intelligent, erudite, suave and loyal to his friends. But the record shows that he mishandled many of the tasks he received from the CIA and the White House. He was 'totally self-absorbed, totally amoral and a danger to himself and anybody around him. . . .' "

"Wow," Saint says. "I don't know if I can read these things. I mean, that is one brutal obituary."

But the Times is right, of course. E. Howard was a danger to anybody around him, and any list of those in danger would always have to include, right at the top, his firstborn son, St. John.

[Dog Town]

Then why did Rolling Stone run it?

(RS did)


Mostly because, it had the word, Kennedy in it! Have you read the mag?
Far left etc... 1.6 mill circ.

[Big Les]

The Gravy of JFK (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm)

I think I've spent a bit too much time reading up on JFK and wound ballistics literature. That phrase made me feel slightly ill :sour:

[Civilized Worm]

The point is, if people want this DVD from St. John Hunt, he has to put forth an effort to get it to the person who wants it. That takes time. $20 isn't that much in today's economy.


The point is; why is is he flogging it to every Tom Dick and Harry instead of taking it to the authorities like you usually do with evidence for a murder case?

[Civilized Worm]

And I suppose you see Prison Planet as the journalistic equivalent to the National Enquirer.


More like the Onion.

[Slayhamlet]

And I suppose you see Prison Planet as the journalistic equivalent to the National Enquirer.

Nope, the National Enquirer is intentionally silly. Sadly, the same can't be said for Prison Planet.

Does anyone know the url of that site which plays a loop of the audio-clip of Alex Johns whimpering "Oh my God, the NWO is upon us!!1one!" from his radio show? That was freaking hilarious.

[tabouere]

Hunt's son, Saint John, recently claimed to have an audio recording of his father describing the alleged role of the CIA in the JFK assassination. He's peddling the tale over at his own website, where- for just $20 you can obtain a DVD of an interview with Saint John.

An excerpt from the recording which Saint John played on a recent "Coast to Coast" program was far from convincing, Hunt's other children charge that Saint John manipulated a heavily medicated and confused old man, and the LA Times story on the matter noted that the Saint John's materials were "inconclusive."


JFK and CIA was like dog and cat after the bay of pig scandal.

JFK forced Allen Dulles to resign and wanna make sure CIA will not be involved in war and assassination anymore.... Then JFK was assassinated and Dulles was nominated at the Warren Commission.

Pretty funny, no?

[skepticalcriticalguy]

JFK and CIA was like dog and cat after the bay of pig scandal.

JFK forced Allen Dulles to resign and wanna make sure CIA will not be involved in war and assassination anymore.... Then JFK was assassinated and Dulles was nominated at the Warren Commission.

Pretty funny, no?

A knee-slapper.

[PhantomWolf]

Yeah a real riot when you consider that all the real evidence points at one concludsion, that LHO did it, and did it alone. Of course that hasn't stopped the JFKCTs from making up their own evidence and preaching them as fact. A bit like 9/11 when you get to it. The CT's make up a bunch of bulldust and claimed it happened, then went the real events are given they declare them to be the "planted" and "made up" ones. Talk about projection.

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

A Speech was delivered by Robert F. Kennedy on 4 April 1968, Indianapolis, IN, concerning the murder of Martin Luther King.

QUOTE
".......... those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man. "


YOUR REACTIONS WERE THE EXPECTED !

Those who reject in a flash, also accept in a flash.

In my younger days I was puzzled as to why everyone else that I knew of, accepted it as fact that " Motion " was absolutely possible, while it was clear to me that " Motion " was absolutely impossible. You see, or not see, that MOTION contains Two variables. 1) Distance and 2) Speed.

Variables range from zero to infinity, or in this case of course the variables range from greater than zero to infinity, since zero itself would obviously mean no motion at all. Now if we were to set both of these Variables to infinity, the outcome would be as follows.

1) Traveling across an infinite distance --> To continue to travel without end.
2) Traveling at an infinite speed --> To travel across any distance without the passage of any time.

Note: If it takes time to get from point "A" to point "B", this means that you can still move faster and use less time to get from point "A" to point "B", therefore you are still traveling at a finite speed, not at an infinite speed. Only if no time at all occurs while moving across any distance, is the speed actually an infinite speed.

This combination of infinities produces a paradox because,
#1) + #2) = To continue to travel without end, and all done without the passage of any time at all.
Or a more amusing version,

TO GO ON FOREVER, IN NO TIME AT ALL !

After thinking about it over and over for a period of about a year, I eventually discovered that I was correct and that infinite " Motion " was absolutely impossible and that this infinite motion can only occur Relativistically rather than Absolutely.

I then converted my understanding into equations. Years later, prior to completing grade ten, I found out that my equations were identical to those known of today as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the Lorentz Transformation equations, and also the equation for velocity addition.

Since then I have used this as a lie detector. If I mention this to people, many don't believe that I had achieved such a discovery all on my own and without having any background education in Physics. I have found that those who don't believe truths, are also those who lie.

Also, it is those such as myself who never lie, that are able to make such achievements, because our minds always point towards the truth. This then places any truth not yet known of, directly in front of us.

Those who lie, never find nor see the truth.

[gumboot]

Wait... you think you're special because you worked all by your onesies that it was impossible to travel at an infinite speed or for an infinite distant?

Give the man a nobel prize... :rolleyes:

-Gumboot

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Wow. Not only does MINISTERofTRUTH have the superhuman ability to take statements literally, but now this... Amazing...

And what did that have to do with JFK?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

<snip>
And what did that have to do with JFK?
Gir speaks the truth.

[JimBenArm]

YOUR REACTIONS WERE THE EXPECTED !


Those who reject in a flash, also accept in a flash.

In my younger days I was puzzled as to why everyone else that I knew of, accepted it as fact that " Motion " was absolutely possible, while it was clear to me that " Motion " was absolutely impossible. You see, or not see, that MOTION contains Two variables. 1) Distance and 2) Speed.

Variables range from zero to infinity, or in this case of course the variables range from greater than zero to infinity, since zero itself would obviously mean no motion at all. Now if we were to set both of these Variables to infinity, the outcome would be as follows.

1) Traveling across an infinite distance --> To continue to travel without end.
2) Traveling at an infinite speed --> To travel across any distance without the passage of any time.

Note: If it takes time to get from point "A" to point "B", this means that you can still move faster and use less time to get from point "A" to point "B", therefore you are still traveling at a finite speed, not at an infinite speed. Only if no time at all occurs while moving across any distance, is the speed actually an infinite speed.

This combination of infinities produces a paradox because,
#1) + #2) = To continue to travel without end, and all done without the passage of any time at all.
Or a more amusing version,

TO GO ON FOREVER, IN NO TIME AT ALL !

After thinking about it over and over for a period of about a year, I eventually discovered that I was correct and that infinite " Motion " was absolutely impossible and that this infinite motion can only occur Relativistically rather than Absolutely.

I then converted my understanding into equations. Years later, prior to completing grade ten, I found out that my equations were identical to those known of today as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction equation, the Time Dilation equation, the Lorentz Transformation equations, and also the equation for velocity addition.

Since then I have used this as a lie detector. If I mention this to people, many don't believe that I had achieved such a discovery all on my own and without having any background education in Physics. I have found that those who don't believe truths, are also those who lie.

Also, it is those such as myself who never lie, that are able to make such achievements, because our minds always point towards the truth. This then places any truth not yet known of, directly in front of us.


Those who lie, never find nor see the truth.

Ego much?

[MINISTERofTRUTH]

Ego much?

I have to admit, being absolutely brilliant does have its drawbacks.

Everything is relative. Relative to my sheer brilliance, all others must therefore remain stupid.

But at least this allows them to live a life, since an incomplete mind can move through the space that it does not expand across. :jaw-dropp

[gumboot]

I have to admit, being absolutely brilliant does have its drawbacks.

Everything is relative. Relative to my sheer brilliance, all others must therefore remain stupid.

But at least this allows them to live a life, since an incomplete mind can move through the space that it does not expand across. :jaw-dropp


Stundied.

-Gumboot

[Civilized Worm]

I have to admit, being absolutely brilliant does have its drawbacks.


Well in that case I have good news for you!

[JimBenArm]

I have to admit, being absolutely brilliant does have its drawbacks.

Everything is relative. Relative to my sheer brilliance, all others must therefore remain stupid.

But at least this allows them to live a life, since an incomplete mind can move through the space that it does not expand across. :jaw-dropp
Sheer brilliance? When I had to use a flashlight to find you? Must have a different meaning in your world.
So, any other meaningless drivel to throw this way, my watt-challenged friend?

[pomeroo]

JFK and CIA was like dog and cat after the bay of pig scandal.

JFK forced Allen Dulles to resign and wanna make sure CIA will not be involved in war and assassination anymore.... Then JFK was assassinated and Dulles was nominated at the Warren Commission.

Pretty funny, no?



Pretty stupid, yes.

JFK was the CIA's favorite President. The agency despised LBJ. When you know absolutely nothing about the subject, you end up making comments like yours.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

[Edit: Actually, I'm not going to derail this thread any more than it is. Ignore me. ]

[Whiplash]

nevermind.. don't feed the obvious troll.