Pres. Kerry's NASA

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:54:26 +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:

I also forgot to mention that the majority of state govenors are
Republicans, further underpinning my claim that there is no check and
balance in government now as the vast majority of those in power in
government are Republicans.

And you continue to not comprehend the concept of checks and balances.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:01:08 +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:

I don't doubt that he had dollars, but by accepting euros for oil cut us
out. Hence, another need for invasion.

Eric, please go learn a little economics.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:11:21 +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:


Did you notice that NONE of the crooks came from the US, but did from all
other parts of the world? I wonder which US companies Saddam was skimming
$ from, as is your claim. The Times article seemed to have left that part
out.

Yes, must be that darned right-wing Republican bias at the New York
Times.

Eric Chomko wrote:

: 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.

1. Oswald's motives need not have been political. He killed Tippit
and try to kill another policeman without even knowing their
politics.

2. The motive could very well have been political. Kennedy was
strongly anti-communist and Oswald rabidly pro-Marxist.

: 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.

Now, why would it do that? If a remarkable circumstance is equally
consistent with both official and other theories why would it count
only against the official version?

I suspect that many a believeer
in the LNT would never believe it were it not the offical
explanation.

Sure, and Brad Guth suspects that many a believer in the Apollo
moon landings would never believe it were it not the official
explanation.

Are you sure you care to descend to this level of discourse, Eric?

: 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.

Can your father give a source for the law, regulation, order, or
whatever that *required* Oswald to be interviewed in 1962?

: 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.

When did he "elude" to this fact? What were the "certain
circumstances"?

Having counsel when charged with a crime is outlined in the 6th
Amendment.

Yes, a suspect has a *right* to counsel, but he has no *obligation*
to obtain one. A suspect has a *right* to remain silent but he has
no *obligation* to do so. There is no evidence that Oswald was not
given ample opportunity to obtain counsel and overwhelming evidence
that he was given ample opportunity to obtain counsel.

: 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.

In other words, not on the spot.

: 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.

I'm glad you are showing willingness to consider actual evidence
instead of relying solely on whether or not someone confessed. I
was worried about you.

Oh, it also shows that a shot came from the right
front!

You are badly mistaken on this point.

: 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!!

You know that but you don't know what was the content of the
interrogation?

Eric, you are the master of the non sequitur. What was said or not
said in the interrogation has no logical connection to whether
Oswald was given ample opportunity to secure counsel. He was
allowed phone calls. He was allowed a visit from the Dallas Bar. He
was allowed a visit from the ACLU. He was allowed a visit from his
family. He foolishly persisted in trying to get a New York attorney
who wasn't reachable. Are you denying any of this?

And before he gets cousel he gets killed while in
police custody. Do you not see soemthing suspicious about that?

Yes, it leads me to suspect that someone wanted to kill Oswald.

What if that scenario came out of the USSR at that time with the
premier, would you be so open minded?

I treated official pronouncements from the Soviet government with
great scepticism *regardless* of the conclusions drawn.

I treat official pronouncements from the US government with great
scepticism *regardless* of the conclusions drawn.

: 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?

Given the fact there is no such person as "Clay Bertrand", I would
guess the recant.

: 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.

Yes, they are. What leads you to suspect Craig was a greater leader
or had more courage than others?

I suspect others knew and kept their mouths shut rather than end
up like Tippet.

Eric, I repeat that comments like these say volumes about how you
approach the Kennedy assassination.

: 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?

So Craig supposed. He was chagrined to learn later that Mrs.
Paine's car was a Chevrolet. It made his story about confronting
Oswald and Oswald warning him to leave Ruth Paine out of this even
less credible than it had been.

The guy on the GK right after the assassination with SS
credentials while all the SS in Dallas that day were in the
motorcade.

Yet another change of subject. What guy is that?

What did Bowers see?

Still another change of subject. Let's go to the tape, shall we?

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/bowers.htm

Jim Davis

Eric Chomko wrote:

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?

Yup. Just like a locked-down cell block.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 14:36:13 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
Sander Vesik made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


I don't doubt that he had dollars, but by accepting euros for oil cut us
out. Hence, another need for invasion.

This is bull****. Please read up on how international trade and money
markets work.

Yes, but you have to admit, it's entertaining BS. I'm continuously
amazed at how eager Eric is to flaunt his ignorance in public, and
come back for more.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: 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.




And you're a legend....


....in your own mind.



Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 17:54:26 +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:

: I also forgot to mention that the majority of state govenors are
: Republicans, further underpinning my claim that there is no check and
: balance in government now as the vast majority of those in power in
: government are Republicans.

: And you continue to not comprehend the concept of checks and balances.

I'll take my intepretation of reality over yours every time.

Besides you have no wit. Well, perhaps half...

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Wed, 3 Mar 2004 18:01:08 +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:

: I don't doubt that he had dollars, but by accepting euros for oil cut us
: out. Hence, another need for invasion.

: Eric, please go learn a little economics.

A course in economics is not going to get into the collaboration of
business in the military.

Eric

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 17:20:06 +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:

: He was willing to STEAL dollars.

: How did he steal them?

Rand, from the article, "skim". Skim is steal.

From whom?