This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument  (Read 24044 times)

Online Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #35 on: December 04, 2019, 08:35:40 PM »
Jack,

Look at where we are today with a Putin-installed president, and look at all the dumbing-down of American society that had to take place for that to happen, and look at all of the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories on several different issues we have had over the past fifty or so years that have contributed to that dumbing down process, and think about how the JFK assassination gave rise to many of those conspiracy theories, and think about how the recent "Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the DNC's emails," propaganda came out of Russia, and read Tennent H. Bagley's  Spy Wars and Mark Reibling's Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA (especially chapter 10 regarding your contention that the Kremlin wouldn't have risked nuclear war to kill JFK), and read Edward J. Epstein's Deception, and watch PBS's Putin's Way, etc, etc, etc, ... and, ... well, ... connect the dots.

--  MWT  ;)

But you never address how the KGB could have set up the Big Event because you are a CT (Coincidence Theorist) who thinks Oswald acted alone. If this wasn't a conspiracy then you have failed to refute a ton of evidence suggesting it was. And if this was a conspiracy then there is no way the KGB could have sheep-dipped Oswald to be the patsy. Only the CIA & FBI could have done that, not the KGB. The CIA/FBI may have recruited Khrushchev to participate but they reassured him he would not be blamed for the Big Event and they were portraying Oswald as a lone nut assassin. But other than that the Rooskies were just happy to watch it all play out. What else could they do?

If Johnson actually suspected the Rooskies were behind the Big Event, then why didn't he have the nuclear football with him on AF1?

Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2692
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #36 on: December 04, 2019, 11:35:00 PM »
But you never address how the KGB could have set up the Big Event because you are a CT (Coincidence Theorist) who thinks Oswald acted alone. If this wasn't a conspiracy then you have failed to refute a ton of evidence suggesting it was. And if this was a conspiracy then there is no way the KGB could have sheep-dipped Oswald to be the patsy. Only the CIA & FBI could have done that, not the KGB. The CIA/FBI may have recruited Khrushchev to participate but they reassured him he would not be blamed for the Big Event and they were portraying Oswald as a lone nut assassin. But other than that the Rooskies were just happy to watch it all play out. What else could they do?

If Johnson actually suspected the Rooskies were behind the Big Event, then why didn't he have the nuclear football with him on AF1?

Jack,

Oswald probably killed JFK all by him widdle self, and the Kremlin took advantage of the assassination propaganda-wise to convince you and others that the the evil, evil, evil CIA did the foul deed, and the evil, evil FBI helped with the cover up.

Ergo oodles and gobs of FBI and CIA-bashing Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theories, and ergo, eventually, Russia-loving Donald J. Trump as president, voted into office (with a little help from those nice Russians) by an electorate dumbed-down and made apathetic by decades and decades of said CTs.

--  MWT  ;)

PS  I don't have to try to refute anything, Jack. If you have any questions, refer to the likes of David Von Pein and that McAdams guy.

"But, but, but ... Oswald got 'Maggie's Drawers' at five hundred yards!"

LOL
« Last Edit: December 04, 2019, 11:55:45 PM by Thomas Graves »

Online Jack Trojan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 864
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #37 on: December 05, 2019, 12:12:43 AM »
PS  I don't have to try to refute anything, Jack. If you have any questions, refer to the likes of David Von Pein and that McAdams guy.

Then you are a typical LNer that obfuscates when the facts don't fit your pet theory. Ok. And all this time I thought you were a CTer (Coincidence Theorist). Don't you think you need to put down all that Roosky propaganda you've been reading and back away from the Kremlin? I'm starting to worry about you.  :(

Offline Thomas Graves

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2692
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #38 on: December 05, 2019, 02:08:49 AM »
Then you are a typical LNer that obfuscates when the facts don't fit your pet theory. Ok. And all this time I thought you were a CTer (Coincidence Theorist). Don't you think you need to put down all that Roosky propaganda you've been reading and back away from the Kremlin? I'm starting to worry about you.  :(

Jack,

That's a suggestion I refuse to accept.

Regardless, it's funny how the "evil, evil, evil" CIA changed from the organization that murdered JFK in 1963 to an organization that arrived at a conclusion in 2017 that you apparently agree with: The GRU hacked DNC's emails and gave them to Julian Assange to distribute at critical points during the campaign in order to subvert Hillary Clinton and, concomitantly, to get Russia-loving Trump "elected," huh?

LOL

--  MWT  ;)

PS  I'm reading too much Russian propaganda?

What the hell are you talking about?

Tennent H. Bagley, Mark Riebling, and Edward J. Epstein aren't Russian. They're patriotic Americans who know a lot about "KGB" active measures counterintelligence operations and strategic deception counterintelligence operations, and how the latter went into effect in 1961 -- when Oleg Penkovsky had finally been secretly "cornered like a bear in a cave" in Moscow, and GRU Colonel Dimitri Polyakov at the U.N. in New York City had finally been given the go-ahead to "volunteer" to spy for the FBI and CIA -- and how they (strategic deceptions) were interwoven with good-old (from 1921, on)  active measures to form "inside man/outside man" feedback loops, and ... well ... they really started messing up CIA Counterintelligence and the already messed-up FBI.

Wake up, Neo.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2019, 03:54:15 AM by Thomas Graves »

Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #39 on: December 06, 2019, 10:33:35 PM »
Jack,

Look at where we are today with a Putin-installed president, and look at all the dumbing-down of American society that had to take place for that to happen, and look at all of the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories on several different issues we have had over the past fifty or so years that have contributed to that dumbing down process, and think about how the JFK assassination gave rise to many of those conspiracy theories, and think about how the recent "Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the DNC's emails," propaganda came out of Russia, and read Tennent H. Bagley's  Spy Wars and Mark Reibling's Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA (especially chapter 10 regarding your contention that the Kremlin wouldn't have risked nuclear war to kill JFK), and read Edward J. Epstein's Deception, and watch PBS's Putin's Way, etc, etc, etc, ... and, ... well, ... connect the dots.

--  MWT  ;)

“Putin Installed Trump” is a conspiracy theory.

62 million Americans voted for Trump. There’s no evidence that Russia tampered with vote tallies. It hasn’t been proven that Trump won because of Russia posting silly memes on Social Media.



Offline Gary Craig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 907
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #40 on: December 06, 2019, 10:57:06 PM »
“Putin Installed Trump” is a conspiracy theory.

62 million Americans voted for Trump. There’s no evidence that Russia tampered with vote tallies. It hasn’t been proven that Trump won because of Russia posting silly memes on Social Media.

The Mueller Report's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election says Trump obstructed the investigation and would have been prosecuted except for a DOJ rule that prevents prosecution of a sitting president.

Trump is now in the process of being impeached for mis-using his office to compel a foreign government to get involved in the 2020 election in his favor, Obstruction of Congress and Obstruction of Justice among other possible charges.


Offline Jon Banks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1400
Re: This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2019, 11:03:47 PM »
The Mueller Report's investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 election says Trump obstructed the investigation and would have been prosecuted except for a DOJ rule that prevents prosecution of a sitting president.

Trump is now in the process of being impeached for mis-using his office to compel a foreign government to get involved in the 2020 election in his favor, Obstruction of Congress and Obstruction of Justice among other possible charges.

While all that is true, it’s not true that Trump conspired with Putin or that Russia’s meddling in the election caused Hillary to lose. Mueller found no proof of any conspiracy between Trump and Russian officials. There’s no proof that the election outcome was changed by Russia’s intervention.

I voted for Clinton but have come to accept that she just was too unlikable.

Yes, American voters are idiots and tend to vote for the candidate they’d rather have a Beer with...