Pres. Kerry's NASA

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: 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.

Yeah, even Ann Coulter seems to have let up on the NYT these day. The
media loves wars and always has. Gives them something to do.

Eric

Scott Lowther ) wrote:
: 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.

I'm talking about NK and you bring up US inner-city streets?

Eric

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

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: 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.

On the same tokan neither of you have backed up this claim. Why is that?

Eric

Jim Davis ) wrote:
: 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.

There is no proof Oswald shot Tippet or any other policeman. Didn't his
gun jamb? The number of bullets didn't match and the original reports of
the shell from the Tippett murder were of a different caliber than Oswald.

Your conclusion is based upon a false premise.

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

On the same token Oswald said to Dohrenschildt (who would up dead
supposedly of suicide before testifying to the HSCA back in 78)
that he liked Kennedy and his politics.

: : 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?

What remarkable circumstance are you hypothesising here?

: 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.

Ah, make ALL conspiracy theories on the same level as the Roswell alien
hoax. Are you following a script? Are you to become predictable now?

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

No, but you just did.

: : 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?

Probably only military defectors. For ex-military defector that are
actually redefecting with a native wife and infant child, I'd suspect that
that would be under the domain of the FBI (Legat) and/or CIA. Can you
quote ANY law that is covered under a cloak of secrecy? Noit only do I bet
that you can't, you probably are allowed to do so.

: : 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"?

It was during an interview. I'll have to check the source.
:
: 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.

Yet, no one was there and neither are there any transcripts. Not only does
the aspect of remaining silent carry the rejoinder that any information
can be used against you. The latter implies that it will be written down
or taped; recorded in some fashion. Yet, we are to believe that on the
evening of 11/22/63 and the morning of 11/23/63 in DPD NOTHING was ever
reorded and that that was noraml for the time. No!!!!

: : 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.

Close enough. It wasn't days or weeks later. The point is that he never
admitted to doing so. And that is rare in politcal assassinations.
His one chance as a loser to get heard and he denies it. And then he is
silenced. Even you must find this at odds with the Lone Nut Theory. Either
that or your truely have Orwellian-level abilities of brainwashing
inherent.

: : 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.

It is quite clear to me.

: : 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.

Or you have trouble following along.

: 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?

How do you know all what he was allowed? THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION!!!

: 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.

Right, to keep him quiet about the conspiracy that killed Kennedy.

: 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.

Exactly, yet your own healty scepticism gets tossed in the US as if we are
simply above that sort of thing. "It can't happen here" is at the root of
your belief that Kennedy was killed by a lone nut.

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

You seem to give the WC findings a pass in this case.

: : 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.

Clay Bertrand was a alias for Clay Shaw, right?

: : 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?

Well he didn't automatically tout the lone nut scenario of three bullets,
one shooter and from the SE corenet 6th floor of the TSBD like virtually
all the 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.

Penn Jones spent half a lifetime putting together a list of starnge
deaths in the case. But since he was just a general in the Army, what does
he know?

: : 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.

Are you saying that Oswald never said to leave Ruth Paine out of this?

: 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?

The only guy to stop people from going to the parking lot by flashing
credentials immeditaley after the assassination. It is in several books,
moat notably Josiah Thompson's "Six Seconds in Dallas".

: What did Bowers see?

These are not changes in the subject! They are valid challenges to the
Lone Nut Theory, which goes out its way to ignore these types of
questions. They are very valid and legitimate questions.

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

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

I'll read it.

Eric

: Jim Davis


:

(Eric Chomko) wrote in
:

Right, since our founding fathers had the sense to have elections
every four years to vote someone out.

The US founding fathers probably weren't counting on the head of the
company tasked with building the latest and greatest in record-free voting
machines pledging himself to help deliver votes to the incumbant
president...

--
Coridon Henshaw - http://www3.telus.net/csbh - "I have sadly come to the
conclusion that the Bush administration will go to any lengths to deny
reality." -- Charley Reese

Eric Chomko wrote:
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: 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.

On the same tokan neither of you have backed up this claim. Why is that?

Which claim? That it makes no difference to dollar whetever Saddam was
getting dollars or euros for oil? There is no difference because both
are freely convertible currencies and for practical purposes, there is
an infinte supply of them. Broadly speaking, what determines the exchange
rates (value of a currency) is the desirability of owning financial
instruments in that currency. Hence it matters not at all whetever
somebody bought their oil - or copper or whet or whatever - for dollars
or euros or yen, as this does not affect the desirability of owning
financial intruments in those currencies.


Eric

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

: Well, if these checks and balances are supposed to come from having
: two parties that represent different social forces, it generally
: wouldn't matter whether the Democrats were in or not, judging by
: recent democratic presidents like Carter and Clinton. Both of these
: people were economically regressive, for instance.

Neither gave us the debt that Reagan and Bush Jr. have given us. And when
you say Clinton was regressive, what do you mean. We balanced the budget
under Clinton. How is that regressive?

Well first of all the kind of economic policy in a typical state
capitalist society like the US and Europe and so on, the kind that you
want is a Keynesian policy. But you should spend the money on programs
that are going to benefit the general population, not tax cuts and
imperialist wars. The greatest good for the greatest many. A light
version of this was the New Deal and the following years probably up
until Nixon or Ford. A big example was WWII, which got us out of the
depression through really massive spending, coordination of the
economy, price fixing, and all sorts of other stuff. Economic growth
in the past quarter century has been relatively crappy because of the
increasing theft of resources by very elite social sectors and lack of
regulation. The quarter century before that was better done.

Anyway with regards to Clinton you can see the continuing decline,
which is a part of the social decline of the past quarter cenutury,
for example by noting the increasing wealth inequality and decreased
unionization rates (both of these have changed in a major way), as
well as decreasing wages (the median wage has been going down,
adjusted for inflation, since the early 1970s). Also note the
increasing prison population, which has expanded around seven times
over since 1970. And probably a lot of other stuff.


: The neoliberal
: direction has been pretty much unchallenged ever since the late 1970s.

By whom? The word "liberal" is almost a slur these days thanks to the
likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh.

Yah but neoliberal isn't even used, not in the American media. It
means somebody who wants to remove limits on corporate power, while
hindering the ability of the government to run any programs that help
the general population. A popular variation is to also favor lots of
government programs that help large corporations. More popular still
is tax breaks for them.

He is more likely than is Bush,

Probably so, but probably only because Kerry may perhaps be forced to
grant certain things by social movements, whereas Bush would probably
resist to his last breath.

Eric Chomko wrote:

Scott Lowther ) wrote:
: 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.

I'm talking about NK and you bring up US inner-city streets?

Wow. Are you even have the same conversation that I am? Or did you
somehow post a response from an entirely different thread?

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

On Fri, 05 Mar 2004 03:00:07 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : Why do you suspect it'll be peaceful?
:
: Is North Korea peaceful?

: Yup. Just like a locked-down cell block.

I'm talking about NK and you bring up US inner-city streets?

Wow. Are you even have the same conversation that I am? Or did you
somehow post a response from an entirely different thread?

Eric is the master of the non-sequitur.

Eric Chomko wrote:

There is no proof Oswald shot Tippet or any other policeman.

Words fail me. A dozen witnesses place Oswald at the scene.

Didn't his gun jamb?

No, it most certainly did not.

The number of bullets didn't match and the
original reports of the shell from the Tippett murder were of a
different caliber than Oswald.

No. Oswald's gun was a .38 rechambered to handle .38 special ammo.
He used 2 different makes of ammo: Remington-Peters and Winchester-
Western. 2 shells of each were found, while 3 of one type of bullet
and 1 of another were recovered from Tippit, meaning at least one
shell and bullet were not recovered. All four recovered shells were
matched exclusively to Oswald's revolver. All bullets were
consistent with Oswald's gun but only one could be matched
exclusively to it.

On the same token Oswald said to Dohrenschildt (who would up
dead supposedly of suicide before testifying to the HSCA back in
78) that he liked Kennedy and his politics.

He liked Kennedy's politics so much he tried to start a Fair Play
for Cuba chapter in New Orleans.

: 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?

What remarkable circumstance are you hypothesising here?

Take your pick, say Ruby shooting Oswald.

: 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.

Ah, make ALL conspiracy theories on the same level as the
Roswell alien hoax. Are you following a script? Are you to
become predictable now?

I see you don't like your intellectual integrity questioned either.

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

No, but you just did.

Yes, I did. I think I made my point.

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

Probably only military defectors. For ex-military defector that
are actually redefecting with a native wife and infant child,
I'd suspect that that would be under the domain of the FBI
(Legat) and/or CIA.

You seem to have retreated a further step. First, you claim we
don't let people like Oswald back into the US. Then, you claim we
do let people like Oswald back into the US but they're required to
be debriefed in Europe first. Now, you only "suspect that would be
under the domain of the FBI and/or CIA".

Can you quote ANY law that is covered under
a cloak of secrecy? Noit only do I bet that you can't, you
probably are allowed to do so.

That's why I restrain myself from throwing around charges of
conspiracy and murder I can't back up.

Yet, no one was there

Eric, there were plenty of people there. People *do* have memories.
Appendix XI of the WCR reproduces various reports of Oswald's
interrogation.

and neither are there any transcripts. Not
only does the aspect of remaining silent carry the rejoinder
that any information can be used against you. The latter implies
that it will be written down or taped; recorded in some fashion.

No, it does not imply that it will be; it implies that it can be.

Yet, we are to believe that on the evening of 11/22/63 and the
morning of 11/23/63 in DPD NOTHING was ever reorded and that
that was noraml for the time. No!!!!

I am sorry you find this well documented fact so hard to believe.

Close enough. It wasn't days or weeks later. The point is that
he never admitted to doing so. And that is rare in politcal
assassinations. His one chance as a loser to get heard and he
denies it. And then he is silenced. Even you must find this at
odds with the Lone Nut Theory. Either that or your truely have
Orwellian-level abilities of brainwashing inherent.

This is beyond bizzare, Eric. You are actually claiming that
Oswald's denials are inconsistent with his acting alone?

: 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?

How do you know all what he was allowed? THERE IS NO
DOCUMENTATION!!!

Again, Eric, people *do* have memories. Was Gregory Olds of the
ACLU mistaken or lying we he visited Oswald to see if he wanted a
local attorney and said that he was satisfied Oswald rights were
not being violated? Was H. Louis Nichols of the Dallas Bar mistaken
or lying we he visited Oswald and said that Oswald declined his
offer to find a local attorney but asked for help in getting Abt?
Was his brother Robert mistaken or lying? Was Mrs. Paine mistaken
or lying? You have to stop kidding yourself.

: 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.

Right, to keep him quiet about the conspiracy that killed
Kennedy.

Non sequitur, Eric.

: 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.

Exactly, yet your own healty scepticism gets tossed in the US as
if we are simply above that sort of thing.

What makes you think that my scepticism got tossed? Because I
didn't come to the same conclusions you did?

"It can't happen
here" is at the root of your belief that Kennedy was killed by a
lone nut.

And how, pray tell, could you possibly know that?

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

You seem to give the WC findings a pass in this case.

Really, why does it seem that way? Because I don't reject their
findings out of hand?

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

Clay Bertrand was a alias for Clay Shaw, right?

No, wrong. That was Jim Garrison's particular delusion.

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

Well he didn't automatically tout the lone nut scenario of three
bullets, one shooter and from the SE corenet 6th floor of the
TSBD like virtually all the others.

Textbook circular reasoning. We know that Roger Craig is a
courageous leader because he didn't tout the lone nut scenario. And
we know the lone nut scenario is nonsense because that courageous
leader Roger Craig said so.

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

Penn Jones spent half a lifetime putting together a list of
starnge deaths in the case.

None of which are strange, many of which are "in the case" only by
the most tenuous of connections, and one which might not even be a
death.

But since he was just a general in
the Army, what does he know?

I've noticed credentials only impress you when they're held by
people you agree with.

Are you saying that Oswald never said to leave Ruth Paine out of
this?

No one but Craig seems to remember this. But since there were no
records kept of Oswald's interrogation it *couldn't* have happened,
right?

: 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?

The only guy to stop people from going to the parking lot by
flashing credentials immeditaley after the assassination. It is
in several books, moat notably Josiah Thompson's "Six Seconds in
Dallas".

Only one person (Patrolman J. M. Smith) claimed to have seen a
Secret Service agent on the GK. This guy did not attempt to stop
Smith in any way; Smith went about his business which was to check
out the parked cars. The guy never claimed to be a Secret Service
agent; when he saw Smith approaching with a drawn gun he
immediately flashed his credentials which Smith assumed were Secret
Service. The man's identity has never been determined but there is
no reason to believe he had anything to do with Kennedy's murder;
indeed if he *was* involved one wonders why he hadn't left long
before.

I don't think there is too much point in continuing the exchange,
Eric. Please feel free to have the last word.

Jim Davis