#311
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
Sander Vesik wrote:
: Gregg Germain wrote: : : I think the issue to adherents of the Euros for oil pretext for the : war was not so much that Saddam's taking Euros would cause a collapse : of the US dollar...but that if Saddam's example caused other nations : to also sell their oil in Euros, THEN it becomes a problem for the : US. : In what way? Do you know how the commodities markets work? Do me a favor would you? READ. This isn't MY theory I'm trying to defend. It's a theory I've read about from economists. That's why I write above: "I think the issue to adherents of the Euros for oil pretext...." If you wish to demolish the theory you'd have to ask that question of them - not me. : : And the notion explains the French and German opposition to the war: : : they are looking to cause that switch to happen. : : Yeah right. When you learn to read, I'll take wha tyou have to say seriously. --- Gregg "Improvise, adapt, overcome." Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Phone: (617) 496-1558 |
#312
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
|
#313
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 21:13:44 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away, : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: : : It's odd how radical teens convert to more conservative politics once : : they get a job, house, kids, etc... : : : Actually, it's not odd at all. : : I guess older liberal Democrats are simply the odd ones in your book? : Yes. Sorry that you let your beliefs get in the way of your ability to learn things. Eric |
#315
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
|
#316
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
Scott Lowther ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote: : : What, that the US should not fight wars that have nothing to do with us : : or our interests? Sounds fair to me. If the South Koreans want the US : : out... let them face the million man North Korean army on their own. : : You seem to think that the reunification of North and South Korea won't : favor the north. : Why do you suspect it'll be peaceful? Is North Korea peaceful? Eric : -- : Scott Lowther, Engineer : Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam : gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#317
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 3 Mar 2004 08:14:59 -0500, in a place far, far away, Gregg Germain : made the phosphor on my monitor glow in : such a way as to indicate that: : I think the issue to adherents of the Euros for oil pretext for the : war was not so much that Saddam's taking Euros would cause a collapse : of the US dollar...but that if Saddam's example caused other nations : to also sell their oil in Euros, THEN it becomes a problem for the : US. : : And the notion explains the French and German opposition to the war: : : they are looking to cause that switch to happen. : It doesn't explain it as well as the fact that the end of Saddam meant : the end of lucrative under-the-table contracts in violation of the : sanctions, the end of bribes via oil vouchers (also described in the : NYT article), and the end of keeping all that a secret. What better person to steal from than a thief. Eric |
#318
|
|||
|
|||
OT: JFK books (was Pres. Kerry's NASA)
Jim Davis ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote: : : You're surely not under the impression that length of time away : : from the US has any citizenship implications? : : Well, it takes 7 years to become a citizen through : naturalization. : True, but not relevant since Oswald was a natural born US citizen. : : The lone nut theory relies on Oswald as being a citizen that : rightly came back to the US through normal means. : No, Eric. It by no means relies on that. One can easily construct : scenarios where Oswald gets special treatment getting back to the US : but still kills Kennedy on his own. Just off the top of my head: the : US government, receiving Oswald's requests to return to the US, : decides that he might be an ideal informant in various left wing : domestic groups. The US expedites his return. The FBI, in later : interviews with Oswald, decides he is just too unstable to be a : reliable informant and drops the idea. Oswald, pursuing his own : agenda, kills Kennedy. Doesn't follow is politics. I get the attack of Walker, but not Kennedy. : You seem to be locked into the mindset that remarkable circumstances : *must* imply conspiracy. That is by no means the case. The only way : one can prove conspiracy is presenting evidence of conspiracy. : Pointing out remarkable circumstances that are just as consistent : with lone gunman as they are conspiracy is pointless. Not pointless at all. What it does is make one question the lone nut theory, or offcial version. I suspect that many a believeer in the LNT would never believe it were it not the offical explanation. : : Because it is not regular practice to debrief returning : : defectors in Europe or even debrief them at all. : : Totall bull****!!! In the military they get debriefed (or did) : in Oberammagau, Germany, and if civilian it was the CIA's job in : either Oberusal, Germany or the Netherlands before coming back : to the states. : : I have a source. My dad worked at Oberammgau, Germany debriefing : military defectors 40 years ago! Oswald not being debriefed is : unthinkable given his background. The fact that officially is : didn't happen raises more questions than it answered. : Well, 40 years ago was 1964. Oswald returned in June, 1962. Perhaps : policy changed after Novenber, 1963 given recent events? Can your : father give a source for the law, regulation, order, or whatever that : *required* Oswald to be interviewed in 1962? He lived in Garmisch from 1960-65. He had the job there for that timeframe. I'll ask him about the probability of a redefector coming back into the US and NOT getting debriefed. : : The House Select Committee : : on Assassinations discovered that of 22 US defectors returning : : between 1958 and 1963 only 4 were interviewed. : : That is the evidence that they were given. Somebody is not : telling the truth. : Perhaps that somebody wasn't testifying under oath? Or, simply lying. Dick Helms eluded to the fact that spooks will lie even under oath under certain circumstances. : : Completely untenable; all present at the interrogations agree : : that no formal records were kept. : : : : : Pretty much. : : : : I don't believe it, It is just too convenient. : : : The testimony isn't what you want to hear so you just dismiss : : it as being "too convenient"? Hardly the sign of an open mind. : : But what you are saying is that what happened was : unconstitutional, yet it was regular practice. Sure, the lack of : evidence can be used to procesute. But don't tell me that this : is normal. : What *are* you talking about? There is no constitutional requirement : for interviews with suspects to be recorded. Having counsel when charged with a crime is outlined in the 6th Amendment. : No kidding! Try that and see for yourself what the precentage : is. : Oh, the percentage of confessions is very high but that is probably : due to the corresponding high percentage of instances where the : suspect is nabbed on the spot. Denials are not particularly useful in : those cases. Oswald was nabbed 1 hour after the assassination. : Perhaps you would like to suggest that Kennedy could not have been : assassinated at all because no one was arrested on the spot like most : other assassinations and attempts? No, the Zapruder film clearly shows he was killed as it was on the spot. Oh, it also shows that a shot came from the right front! : : Are you suggesting that the Dallas police should have released : : Oswald when he denied killing Kennedy and Tippit and waited for : : the real culprit to walk in and confess? : : No. But at that point he should have gotten legal counsel. Any : legal counsel. : Yes, he would have been wise to do that. But wisdom was not Oswald's : strong suit. Is there from of his denying counsel? You have no record of interrogation, but you can prove Oswald denied counsel. Fascinating!! : And cut the crap about refusing counsel, because : during a press seession Oswald admitted that he had had no : counsel. Hardly, what a guy would say demanding only one guy. : Scruptulous adherence to the facts was also not one of Oswald's : strong suits. Oswald was permitted phone calls, visits from the : Dallas Bar, the ACLU, and his family. He refused all offers to secure : a local attorney, insisting on Abt. You know that but you don't know what was the content of the interrogation? And before he gets cousel he gets killed while in police custody. Do you not see soemthing suspicious about that? What if that scenario came out of the USSR at that time with the premier, would you be so open minded? : Wasn't Dean Andrews suppose to represent Oswald at some point? : Andrews claims that "Clay Bertrand" called him on November 23 about : representing Oswald. Andrews admitted many times that he invented the : whole story. But this launched the whole Jim Garrison fiasco. Dean Andrews claim and then recanted. Right, the claim came in in 1963, the recant in 1967. Which one seems more likely? : : Roger Craig? : : : Why the change of subject? He wasn't present when Oswald was : : interrogated. : : Sure he was. There is a photo. : There is a photo of him in Fritz's office. Oswald was not interviewed : there but in a small room close by used for specifically for : interviewing suspects. : : : Surely you know what he has to say? His testimony is a matter : : of public record. : : Right, be is the one person in the DPD that realized what utter : crap had happened that weekend. : Craig was a Deputy Sheriff, not a Dallas policeman. And your phrase : "the one person" says volumes about your approach to the Kennedy : assassination. But more about Craig below. Hey, leaders and people with courage are few and far in between. I suspect others knew and kept their mouths shut rather than end up like Tippet. : We are impasse. What evidence do you see of a conspiracy? : Well, there is some evidence for a conspiracy. Unfortunately, the : evidence for conspiracy is incoherent, i.e. not logically consistent, : leading me to conclude it's noise, not signal. : Some examples: : Some witnesses at the scene claim that more than 3 shots were fired. : This is evidence of conspiracy since Oswald fired only 3. However, : only about 5% claim this. Between 80 and 90% claim only 3 shots were : fired. So are reports of 4 or more shots signal or noise? : The aforementioned Roger Craig claims that he saw Oswald leave the : TSBD *15 or 20 minutes* after the shooting and get in a Nash Rambler : which drove off with the occupants. This is evidence of conspiracy. : But this is completely inconsistent with every other witness, some of : whom knew Oswald, who have Oswald fleeing the TSBD immediately before : it was sealed off. But even ignoring this, why would Oswald hang : around the TSBD for so long if he shot at Kennedy? If he didn't shoot : at Kennedy why avoid the employee muster and why flee at all? How did : he manage to slip out of the TSBD at all? And if he did have : accomplices in the Rambler why did they abandon him so quickly : ensuring his quick capture and danger to the conspiracy? None of : Craig's testimony is consistent with the testimony of others or even : self consistent. It just makes no sense at all. Is Craig's testimony : signal or noise? Wasn't that Nash Rambler suppose to be Ruth Paine's car? : One Julia Ann Mercer claims that on the morning of the assassination : she saw Oswald take a gun case from a truck driven by Jack Ruby and : carry it to the grassy knoll. This is evidence of a conspiracy. Does : it strike you as likely that preparations for an assassination would : be carried out in so public a fashion? That only one person would : notice? Is this signal or noise? The guy on the GK right after the assassination with SS credentials while all the SS in Dallas that day were in the motorcade. What did Bowers see? Eric : Jim Davis : |
#319
|
|||
|
|||
OT: JFK books (was Pres. Kerry's NASA)
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On 2 Mar 2004 04:31:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis : made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such : a way as to indicate that: : We are impasse. What evidence do you see of a conspiracy? : : Well, there is some evidence for a conspiracy. Unfortunately, the : evidence for conspiracy is incoherent, i.e. not logically consistent, : leading me to conclude it's noise, not signal. : much snippage : Jim, I'm curious. I occasionally spar with Eric, as long as I can : whip off a quick response, but I'm curious. : Why do you argue so extensively with someone incapable of arguing : (i.e., presenting positions based on facts and logic)? Because your assessment is wrong? "Hey, Rand Simberg says I am incapable of sound argument. It must be true!" Yeah, right. Hey, Randie boy, maybe your self-important pomposity is wearing off? Eric |
#320
|
|||
|
|||
Pres. Kerry's NASA
On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:55:26 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: : : It's odd how radical teens convert to more conservative politics once : : they get a job, house, kids, etc... : : : Actually, it's not odd at all. : : I guess older liberal Democrats are simply the odd ones in your book? : Yes. Sorry that you let your beliefs get in the way of your ability to learn things. Eric, you're hilarious. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | April 2nd 04 12:01 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes | Michael Ravnitzky | Space Shuttle | 5 | January 16th 04 04:28 PM |
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes | Michael Ravnitzky | Space Station | 5 | January 16th 04 04:28 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | September 12th 03 01:37 AM |