Hoover-Johnson Transcript 11/23/63

[Steve M. Galbraith]

If I didn't "follow your argument," it's because you haven't actually made one. So far, you've managed a tautology, an unsupported assertion dressed up as a question, and a non sequitur. Your "examples" don't address or rebut the point I made about the amount of manpower pressed into service in the investigation.

However, your continuing fascination with finding "secret Nazi's" betrays the idols that you pray to. And that your information is carved from the loose, weathered boards you've been prying off of shipwrecks dotting the shores of the Crackpot archipelago.

After these fascists killed JFK they put into power LBJ (who was one of them too). LBJ then proceeded to use the assassination, to cite it, to pass civil rights. Yes, the fascists who wanted to stop the traitor Kennedy because of his liberal policies then saw LBJ *use* their act to end racial fascism. Oops. LBJ then ended the covert war on Cuba, the fascist program to kill Castro; which was pushed by the Kennedys anyway and with JFK dead RFK was no longer interested in pushing it. In any case, it ended with JFK's death; the one the fascists did. Double oops. But one more: then the fascists who killed JFK staged a fake investigation that *cleared* Castro. Yes, the fascists who wanted war to overthrow Castro cleared him of any involvement and thus a cause for his removal. Triple oops.

But one more again (okay, it's really two more) then after being elected, LBJ proceeded to pass the most liberal/progressive policies in US history. Yes, the fascist LBJ and the fascists who put him into power then enacted the most anti-fascist set of policies in American history. Oops again.

In conspiracy world this all makes sense. In this one, not so much.

[Jack Trojan]

After these fascists killed JFK they put into power LBJ (who was one of them too). LBJ then proceeded to use the assassination, to cite it, to pass civil rights. Yes, the fascists who wanted to stop the traitor Kennedy because of his liberal policies then saw LBJ *use* their act to end racial fascism. Oops. LBJ then ended the covert war on Cuba, the fascist program to kill Castro; which was pushed by the Kennedys anyway and with JFK dead RFK was no longer interested in pushing it. In any case, it ended with JFK's death; the one the fascists did. Double oops. But one more: then the fascists who killed JFK staged a fake investigation that *cleared* Castro. Yes, the fascists who wanted war to overthrow Castro cleared him of any involvement and thus a cause for his removal. Triple oops.

But one more again (okay, it's really two more) then after being elected, LBJ proceeded to pass the most liberal/progressive policies in US history. Yes, the fascist LBJ and the fascists who put him into power then enacted the most anti-fascist set of policies in American history. Oops again.

In conspiracy world this all makes sense. In this one, not so much.

LBJ may or may not have sympathized with fascism, but in this case he was only complicit in the Big Event. He obviously made some sort of deal to allow it to happen and had no intentions of starting WW3, which was the whole point of Oswald being portrayed as a lone nut. LBJ was probably responsible for preventing another Cuban Missile Crisis. Since JFK didn't bite on WW3, LBJ was next in line to carpe diem. Phew, another narrow escape from Armagedon. No wonder LBJ never appointed a VP.  He also made an extra effort to make up for his sin of complicity. You realize he went mad in the end, right?

[Mitch Todd]

Have you ever posted anything substantive? Rhetorical.

That's what we all wonder about you.

BTW, of all the substantive things I've posted over the years, this is the one I'm proudest of:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/bJGkReeSuuk/m/yIuVw_0Pz2wJ

[Jack Trojan]

That's what we all wonder about you.

BTW, of all the substantive things I've posted over the years, this is the one I'm proudest of:

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk/c/bJGkReeSuuk/m/yIuVw_0Pz2wJ

Well done Squidly, you solved the case and we can all go home now! Sarcasm aside, this explains why you tend to dissect the structure of an argument rather than address the substance. I like to do both. But you're in the LNer game where all critical thinking gets tossed out the window and logic be damned. Stay the course and deny, deflect and look away. You apparently being such a person of logic, I'm surprised that being a LNer doesn't make your head explode.

BTW you had a couple of glitches in your derivations, but we're already off topic.

[Mitch Todd]

Well done Squidly, you solved the case and we can all go home now! Sarcasm aside, this explains why you tend to dissect the structure of an argument rather than address the substance. I like to do both. But you're in the LNer game where all critical thinking gets tossed out the window and logic be damned. Stay the course and deny, deflect and look away. You apparently being such a person of logic, I'm surprised that being a LNer doesn't make your head explode.

As I've already noted, your arguments here lack substance, and are conspicuous in that regard. You started with one circular argument, a followed up with a baseless assertion, ran a Gish Gallop attempt to deflect away from the problem with the baseless assertion. And you went downhill from there. If you are unhappy because you think I'm emphasizing structure rather than substance, you might want to reflect that the lack of substance is entirely your own doing, and has been since you dropped the OP.

BTW you had a couple of glitches in your derivations, but we're already off topic.

I welcome any corrections to the math in the post. You (or anyone else) are free to point them out so that they can be corrected.

[Jack Trojan]

As I've already noted, your arguments here lack substance, and are conspicuous in that regard. You started with one circular argument, a followed up with a baseless assertion, ran a Gish Gallop attempt to deflect away from the problem with the baseless assertion. And you went downhill from there. If you are unhappy because you think I'm emphasizing structure rather than substance, you might want to reflect that the lack of substance is entirely your own doing, and has been since you dropped the OP.
I welcome any corrections to the math in the post. You (or anyone else) are free to point them out so that they can be corrected.

According to whom, you? Your problem is that this is all you got. You don't debate anything, you just want to ridicule the conspiracy nutjobs as part of your disinformation campaign to deny, deflect and look away at anything that pokes holes in the LN myth. Not very logical of you, but you're not here to solve math problems are you?

I've already spent my allotted time here, because it is a total time suck addressing ad homs from the LNers. So don't think I'm ignoring you if I don't respond to you anymore. I've got better things to do. Later.

[Richard Smith]

According to whom, you? Your problem is that this is all you got. You don't debate anything, you just want to ridicule the conspiracy nutjobs as part of your disinformation campaign to deny, deflect and look away at anything that pokes holes in the LN myth. Not very logical of you, but you're not here to solve math problems are you?

I've already spent my allotted time here, because it is a total time suck addressing ad homs from the LNers. So don't think I'm ignoring you if I don't respond to you anymore. I've got better things to do. Later.

You believe that you have evidence that demonstrates a conspiracy to kill an American president but you have better things to do?  LOL.  You don't even believe this nonsense yourself or you wouldn't be here in the first place.  You would either take your "evidence" to the media or some law enforcement authority to pursue those responsible or be too frightened of the conspirators to post on the Internet.  But you do neither.