JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: John Iacoletti on December 01, 2019, 06:16:45 PM
-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/04/fbis-flawed-forensics-expert-testimony-hair-analysis-bite-marks-fingerprints-arson.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/04/fbis-flawed-forensics-expert-testimony-hair-analysis-bite-marks-fingerprints-arson.html)
-
This is why “FBI said so” is not a good argument
Excellent, so no more of these posts! Thumb1:
Oh, one more thing: is this the same J Edgar who said that the thing he was concerned about "is having something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin"?
Just checking.
JohnM
-
False equivalence. Typical “Mytton”.
-
False equivalence. Typical “Mytton”.
Yeah yeah, whatever the FBI says can't be trusted, except when it supports your conspiracy, then you're all ears. Hypocrites, the lot of you!
JohnM
-
Yeah yeah, whatever the FBI says can't be trusted, except when it supports your conspiracy, then you're all ears. Hypocrites, the lot of you!
Hoover isn’t the FBI, and his “concerns” aren’t purported, but fallacious forensic evidence.
But nice try.
Hoover did get to decide what he was concerned about, whether you like the implications of it or not. I never said “whatever the FBI says can’t be trusted”, anyway. Typical desperate strawman “Mytton”.
-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/04/fbis-flawed-forensics-expert-testimony-hair-analysis-bite-marks-fingerprints-arson.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/04/fbis-flawed-forensics-expert-testimony-hair-analysis-bite-marks-fingerprints-arson.html)
Shameful!
Horrifyingly!
-- MWT ;)
-
False equivalence is right. Citing alleged deficiencies in the FBI's use of certain forensics used in other situations decades later (e.g. hair and bites) that was not used in this case to cast fake doubt on Oswald's guilt smacks of a contrarian's utopian fantasy. Mixing apples and oranges to suggest there is false doubt about the actual evidence. A dishonest shell game. Frame all evidence in the context of an impossible standard of proof then squeal that nothing can ever be proven for that reason. Silly.
-
False equivalence is right. Citing alleged deficiencies in the FBI's use of certain forensics used in other situations decades later (e.g. hair and bites) that was not used in this case to cast fake doubt on Oswald's guilt smacks of a contrarian's utopian fantasy. Mixing apples and oranges to suggest there is false doubt about the actual evidence. A dishonest shell game. Frame all evidence in the context of an impossible standard of proof then squeal that nothing can ever be proven for that reason. Silly.
So you think the FBI went by the book under Hoover and only recently devised their fake forensics policy? :D If anything the FBI would be less corrupt than when Hoover was also the de facto mob boss.
Maybe we should have another look at the palm print Day found on the MC. Where is that formal analysis anyway? Didn't the FBI just eyeball the print and declare it matched Oswald? Very pseudo-scientific of them, don't you think? And don't get me started on how the DPD handled all the evidence before they turned it over to the FBI.
-
Hoover isn’t the FBI, and his “concerns” aren’t purported, but fallacious forensic evidence.
Hoover wanted "something issued so we can convince the public...". Hoover was speaking for the FBI and Hoover's concerns as director was everyone in the FBI's concern!
But nice try.
No, try not. Do or do not. There is no try.
Hoover did get to decide what he was concerned about, whether you like the implications of it or not.
Hoover was the director of the FBI and always acted on behalf of the FBI, whether they like it or not.
I never said “whatever the FBI says can’t be trusted”, anyway.
I was paraphrasing and making a ct's generality. It's a public forum, it's not all about you, you know!
JohnM
-
Yeah yeah, whatever the FBI says can't be trusted, except when it supports your conspiracy, then you're all ears. Hypocrites, the lot of you!
JohnM
False equivalence. You need to bone up on your fallacies so you can avoid them.
-
False equivalence. You need to bone up on your fallacies so you can avoid them.
You first need to learn the basics of 3D, photo-interpretation and forensic re-creation.
-
“ Widely used methods to trace complex DNA samples, bullets, tread and bite marks to criminal defendants fall short of scientific standards, limitations that federal prosecutors and judges should seriously consider before entering forensic evidence in trials, a presidential panel urged Tuesday...
“For a forensic science to be scientifically valid, you need actual, empirical evidence of its reliability and accuracy, period,” said Eric S. Lander, founder of the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. “Historically that hasn’t been the case.” “
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/white-house-science-advisers-urge-justice-dept-judges-to-raise-forensic-standards/2016/09/19/42475c74-7d13-11e6-beac-57a4a412e93a_story.html
-
So you think the FBI went by the book under Hoover and only recently devised their fake forensics policy? :D If anything the FBI would be less corrupt than when Hoover was also the de facto mob boss.
Maybe we should have another look at the palm print Day found on the MC. Where is that formal analysis anyway? Didn't the FBI just eyeball the print and declare it matched Oswald? Very pseudo-scientific of them, don't you think? And don't get me started on how the DPD handled all the evidence before they turned it over to the FBI.
I merely pointed out that alleged deficiencies in hair and bite mark analysis by the FBI cited in the referenced article from decades after the Kennedy assassination have no relevance to the JFK assassination. It is part of a desperate attempt to overcome the actual evidence of Oswald's guilt by conjuring up false doubt. It goes like this: 1) falsely claim you are taking no position on the case; 2) argue that you have no obligation to explain, much less prove, what actually happened if Oswald was not the guilty party no matter how improbable or absurd the alternative scenario; and 3) then apply an impossible standard of proof to any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt to reach the desired conclusion that there is doubt of his guilt (the Alice-in-Wonderland approach of contrarian defense attorneys). For example, here we learn because the FBI may have screwed up in some instances in its long history of analyzing countless pieces of evidence that the FBI shouldn't ever be trusted. Thus, any evidence of Oswald's guilt from the FBI must be suspect and cannot be used to demonstrate his guilt because it is always possible that they screwed up (despite not a scintilla of actual support that they did). Repeat endlessly.
-
False equivalence is right. Citing alleged deficiencies in the FBI's use of certain forensics used in other situations decades later (e.g. hair and bites) that was not used in this case to cast fake doubt on Oswald's guilt smacks of a contrarian's utopian fantasy. Mixing apples and oranges to suggest there is false doubt about the actual evidence. A dishonest shell game. Frame all evidence in the context of an impossible standard of proof then squeal that nothing can ever be proven for that reason. Silly.
How about the dishonest shell game of casting fake certainty, “Richard”?
-
I was paraphrasing and making a ct's generality. It's a public forum, it's not all about you, you know!
No, what you were doing was making yet another strawman argument.
-
I merely pointed out that alleged deficiencies in hair and bite mark analysis by the FBI cited in the referenced article from decades after the Kennedy assassination have no relevance to the JFK assassination. It is part of a desperate attempt to overcome the actual evidence of Oswald's guilt by conjuring up false doubt. It goes like this: 1) falsely claim you are taking no position on the case; 2) argue that you have no obligation to explain, much less prove, what actually happened if Oswald was not the guilty party no matter how improbable or absurd the alternative scenario; and 3) then apply an impossible standard of proof to any and all evidence of Oswald's guilt to reach the desired conclusion that there is doubt of his guilt (the Alice-in-Wonderland approach of contrarian defense attorneys).
“Richard Smith” epistemology in a nut shell:
1) Try to shift the burden of proof to make the other person prove that your claims are wrong or you automatically win.
2) If that doesn’t work then blame your own failure to prove your position on an “impossible standard”.
3) If that still doesn’t work then make up a ridiculous strawman (like “the FBI shouldn’t ever be trusted”) to distract and deflect from your own failures.
-
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/04/fbis-flawed-forensics-expert-testimony-hair-analysis-bite-marks-fingerprints-arson.html (https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015/04/fbis-flawed-forensics-expert-testimony-hair-analysis-bite-marks-fingerprints-arson.html)
John,
Who else besides the FBI do you figure was in on The Conspiracy?
The JFK Assassination Conspiracy, that is.
Like "X" said in JFK, pretty much the whole Military Industrial Intelligence Community Complex?
Didn't the corrupt, fascistic Ukrainians have something to do with it?
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
“For a forensic science to be scientifically valid, you need actual, empirical evidence of its reliability and accuracy, period,” said Eric S. Lander, founder of the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT. “Historically that hasn’t been the case.” “
Exactly right. Which is why unscientific and biased handwriting “analysis” of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon from microfilm that is now “missing” is not a reliable indicator of who placed an order.
-
Who else besides the FBI do you figure was in on The Conspiracy?
Who else besides you has stopped beating your wife?
Graves — get a life.
-
Who else besides you has stopped beating your wife?
Graves — get a life.
Is that an example of your "epistemology," Iacoletti?
-- MWT ;)
-
Exactly right. Which is why unscientific and biased handwriting “analysis” of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon from microfilm that is now “missing” is not a reliable indicator of who placed an order.
John,
What makes you think it was unscientific?
Because the results weren't what you hoping for?
If the results had been "probably not Oswald," would you have been happy with that?
-- MWT ;)
PS Why the quotation marks around missing?
Do you think it was intentionally lost by the evil, evil Deep State?
-
Is that an example of your "epistemology," Iacoletti?
No, it’s an example of what you do every day on this forum.
-
Another reason why “FBI said so” is not a good argument:
https://forejustice.org/wc/mayfield/jd/brandon_mayfield_jd_issue25.htm (https://forejustice.org/wc/mayfield/jd/brandon_mayfield_jd_issue25.htm)
-
No, it’s an example of what you do every day on this forum.
How large was the conspiracy, John?
-- MWT ;)
-
How large was the conspiracy, John?
How large was the stick you used to beat your wife, Thomas?
-
How large was the stick you used to beat your wife, Thomas?
That big, huh?
What "turned you on" to the assassination, John?
Oliver "I Like KGB-Boy Vladimir Putin And My Son Works For RT" Stone's JFK?
-- MWT ;)
-
John,
What makes you think it was unscientific?
Because the results weren't what you hoping for?
If the results had been "probably not Oswald," would you have been happy with that?
-- MWT ;)
PS "Missing" like the "DNC's server in corrupt, fascistic/communistic Ukraine," or just ... missing?
Remember that when asked why he thought John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln our dishonest contrarian cited - wait for it - Booth's handwritten diary! LOL. I guess handwriting analysis is only "unscientific" when it goes against the desired outcome. The game here is to conjure up fake doubt of any evidence that lends itself towards Oswald's guilt. And the last desperation move in that game is always to claim the investigators are suspect which means nothing can ever be proven. False doubt is the inevitable result of the application of an impossible standard of proof.
-
Remember that when asked why he thought John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln our dishonest contrarian cited - wait for it - Booth's handwritten diary! LOL. I guess handwriting analysis is only "unscientific" when it goes against the desired outcome. The game here is to conjure up fake doubt of any evidence that lends itself towards Oswald's guilt. And the last desperation move in that game is always to claim the investigators are suspect which means nothing can ever be proven. False doubt is the inevitable result of the application of an impossible standard of proof.
Richard,
Great post.
The way I see it, Iacoletti is wittingly or unwittingly carrying on the KGB-approved and subsidized tradition, established by Mark Lane, of casting unwarranted doubt on most if not all of the evidence.
Vladimir Putin loves John (and his ilk) for all the chaos, confusion and doubt he creates regarding the JFK Assassination, and all of the aspersions he casts on the evil, evil FBI and the evil, evil, evil CIA.
And this from a dude who can't tell women from men in the Towner film!
LOL
-- MWT ;)
-
So I guess they got this wrong as well. Even though the mark on the FBI stand-in matches almost exactly with the back wound:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg)
But of course every single time I bring this up, the FBI Fan Boys on here will throw shade on it (as in obfuscate) by babbling about the jacket being bunched up and all other BS.
-
So I guess they got this wrong as well. Even though the mark on the FBI stand-in matches almost exactly with the back wound:
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HB1iPBCsDgI/Xd1Uxg_e6EI/AAAAAAAAFdg/eB3aG9ckbQcdoVnMZxY2O8RNsZPsg8oUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/fbi-and-autopsy.jpg)
But of course every single time I bring this up, the FBI Fan Boys on here will throw shade on it (as in obfuscate) by babbling about the jacket being bunched up and all other BS.
What's supposed to be "wrong" with the re-enactment?
Why are you showing an autopsy photo? Be specific.
-
Richard,
Great post.
The way I see it, Iacoletti is wittingly or unwittingly carrying on the KGB-approved and subsidized tradition, established by Mark Lane, of casting unwarranted doubt on most if not all of the evidence.
Vladimir Putin loves John (and his ilk) for all the chaos, confusion and doubt he creates regarding the JFK Assassination, and all of the aspersions he casts on the evil, evil FBI and the evil, evil, evil CIA.
And this from a dude who can't tell women from men in the Towner film!
LOL
-- MWT ;)
What's with your obsession with the KGB? And do you actually believe that Dulles, Angleton, Hoover and Johnson weren't evil, evil, evil enough to pull off a coup? Surely they were just as evil, evil, evil as the KGB.
Did the KGB also set up Thomas Arthur Vallee in Chicago, like they did for Oswald in Dallas? How did those evil, evil, evil KGB pull that one off? And why would they risk nuclear annihilation to whack JFK when they knew Johnson would not be the dove that JFK proved to be? It makes no sense. You have to get over your pet theory that the KGB trained Oswald then he went rogue and became a LN assassin. Is this so you can work in the KGB element and continue to be a LNer? Why would you want that title in the face of a mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise? It just sounds like more evil, evil, evil KGB disinformation to me. ;)
-
Remember that when asked why he thought John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln our dishonest contrarian cited - wait for it - Booth's handwritten diary! LOL. I guess handwriting analysis is only "unscientific" when it goes against the desired outcome.
First of all I didn't say that's why I thought John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln, or even that I thought John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln. Second of all, there was no handwriting analysis done on Booth's diary. Double failure on Lying "Richard"'s part.
Your trotting out of the Lincoln case is just one giant false equivalence, designed to evade ever having to justify your faith-based conclusion about Oswald.
The game here is to conjure up fake doubt of any evidence that lends itself towards Oswald's guilt.
No, your game is to conjure up fake certainty that evidence lends itself towards Oswald's guilt. Evidence that you never seem to get around to specifying.
-
What's with your obsession with the KGB? And do you actually believe that Dulles, Angleton, Hoover and Johnson weren't evil, evil, evil enough to pull off a coup? Surely they were just as evil, evil, evil as the KGB.
Did the KGB also set up Thomas Arthur Vallee in Chicago, like they did for Oswald in Dallas? How did those evil, evil, evil KGB pull that one off? And why would they risk nuclear annihilation to whack JFK when they knew Johnson would not be the dove that JFK proved to be? It makes no sense. You have to get over your pet theory that the KGB trained Oswald then he went rogue and became a LN assassin. Is this so you can work in the KGB element and continue to be a LNer? Why would you want that title in the face of a mountain of evidence suggesting otherwise? It just sounds like more evil, evil, evil KGB disinformation to me. ;)
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 ;)
-
You know Dishonest John is running scared when he resorts to his new buzz phrase "false equivalency." LOL. The only "false equivalency" here is that our dishonest contrarian can't reconcile his use of an impossible standard of proof in the JFK case with the Lincoln assassination (Booth is guilty but there is somehow doubt of Oswald's guilt). For example, where did Booth buy his gun? Who saw Booth shoot Lincoln using the pedantic interpretation of that term applied in the JFK assassination? Who saw Booth carry a gun into Ford's Theatre? Provide the chain of custody for Booth's pistol (e.g. who discovered it, where was it found etc). And on and on and on down the rabbit hole. The obvious equivalency is that it would not be possible to ever prove guilt in any situation if we applied dishonest John's impossible standard of proof to other situations. The absurdity and hypocrisy of that approach is highlighted by its application to other situations.
btw: Here is what Dishonest John said about Booth's diary contrary to his most recent lie:
"An entire theater box full of people saw him standing there with a derringer immediately after Lincoln was shot and they knew him. Rathbone fought with him and was stabbed by Booth. An entire theater full of people who knew who he was saw him leap from the box shouting "Sic Semper Tyrannus". He had accomplices who ratted him out. He had a diary in which he said he did it."
-
You know Dishonest John is running scared when he resorts to his new buzz phrase "false equivalency." LOL. The only "false equivalency" here is that our dishonest contrarian can't reconcile his use of an impossible standard of proof in the JFK case with the Lincoln assassination (Booth is guilty but there is somehow doubt of Oswald's guilt).
When did I ever say “Booth is guilty”, Strawman “Smith”?
btw: Here is what Dishonest John said about Booth's diary contrary to his most recent lie:
"An entire theater box full of people saw him standing there with a derringer immediately after Lincoln was shot and they knew him. Rathbone fought with him and was stabbed by Booth. An entire theater full of people who knew who he was saw him leap from the box shouting "Sic Semper Tyrannus". He had accomplices who ratted him out. He had a diary in which he said he did it."
What “most recent lie”? Be specific.
The evidence in the JFK case is nothing like the evidence in the Lincoln case, which is why it’s a false equivalence. The only reason you’re fixated on Booth is because you can’t prove your case against Oswald so you are desperately trying to divert and distract by changing the subject in a lame attempt to strawman me and shift the burden of proof yet again.
It’s pathetic, really.
-
So there is doubt of Booth's guilt? LOL Do tell! I can't wait for that one. Particularly when you said: "An entire theater box full of people saw him standing there with a derringer immediately after Lincoln was shot and they knew him." And you referenced Booth's handwritten diary as evidence against him. At the same time you repeatedly claimed handwriting analysis is "unscientific" in the JFK case. So it's difficult to reconcile how Booth's handwritten diary is evidence of his guilt but anything in Oswald's handwriting is discounted as the product of an "unscientific" process. Hypocrisy and absurdity.
-
So there is doubt of Booth's guilt? LOL Do tell!
Notice the dishonest “Smith” two-step here. He fashions a strawman and when called on it, he shifts the goalposts without missing a beat. This is not a forum about Lincoln’s assassination. Stop diverting.
I can't wait for that one. Particularly when you said: "An entire theater box full of people saw him standing there with a derringer immediately after Lincoln was shot and they knew him."
Are you disputing that? How is this anything like Oswald?
And you referenced Booth's handwritten diary as evidence against him. At the same time you repeatedly claimed handwriting analysis is "unscientific" in the JFK case. So it's difficult to reconcile how Booth's handwritten diary is evidence of his guilt but anything in Oswald's handwriting is discounted as the product of an "unscientific" process. Hypocrisy and absurdity.
Again, Strawman “Smith”, no handwriting “analysis” was done on Booth’s diary, so nobody is claiming that it was somehow scientific or reliable in Booth’s case when handwriting “analysis” didn’t even exist.
Now tell me this: was the Klein’s order coupon found on Oswald’s dead body after he was shot, or was it “found” on a piece of microfilm 1000 miles away that is now “missing”? Did this order coupon contain a confession of murder, or was it just an order for a rifle that was similar but not identical to a rifle that may or may not have even been the murder weapon? Your desperate attempts to equate the two cases just gets more and more ridiculous.
-
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?
-
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
-
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. :(
-
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.
-
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.
-
“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.
-
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...
-
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...
I disagree with most of what you said since we don't know whether Trump conspired with Putin because Trump obstructed all attempts by Mueller to investigate him. What we didn't realize at the time was that Rosenstein saved Trump by appointing Mueller to head a SC to investigate the Trump campaign. This was a shrewd move by Rosenstein because he could distance himself from the scandal as well as give the investigation the smell of legitimacy. Mueller was unimpeachable. But what we all didn't know was that Rosenstein gave Mueller such a narrow scope and limited powers that there wasn't a hope in hell of resolving any underlying issues, such as conspiracy, etc. Mueller didn't even look at Trump's tax returns or have any of Trump's family testify. Mueller was gelded from the start and the only report he could produce was to document the evidence so Trump could be tried after he leaves office. Then Barr swooped in and dashed any hope the Mueller Report would gain traction. Dead on arrival. TOTAL EXONERATION! NO COLLUSION! NO OBSTRUCTION! A TOTAL NOTHING BURGER.
Trump won by 50,000 votes over the swing states. It's not too much of a stretch to think that chants of "Lock her up!" over her hacked emails might have affected more than enough votes to make a difference. Add some more votes for Pizzagate, Comey's letter, etc. and Bob's your Uncle. Putin has been doing this a long long time and he is the grand-master of propaganda. The American people are not used to being manipulated like they were and bought into it hook line and sinker. Combine that with the general affect the Internet has had on perpetuating propaganda and conspiracies and again, Bob's your Uncle.
Hillary was unlikable because Trump told us she was. She committed the unspeakable crime of sending her pumpkin pie recipe in an email from an ILLEGAL SERVER!!! The bottom line is the GOP were ready to be taken for a ride by a grifter who told them everything they wanted to hear, and a lot they just let slide. It's all about the entertainment factor. To hell with climate change our standing in the World!
-
I disagree with most of what you said since we don't know whether Trump conspired with Putin because Trump obstructed all attempts by Mueller to investigate him. What we didn't realize at the time was that Rosenstein saved Trump by appointing Mueller to head a SC to investigate the Trump campaign. This was a shrewd move by Rosenstein because he could distance himself from the scandal as well as give the investigation the smell of legitimacy. Mueller was unimpeachable. But what we all didn't know was that Rosenstein gave Mueller such a narrow scope and limited powers that there wasn't a hope in hell of resolving any underlying issues, such as conspiracy, etc. Mueller didn't even look at Trump's tax returns or have any of Trump's family testify. Mueller was gelded from the start and the only report he could produce was to document the evidence so Trump could be tried after he leaves office. Then Barr swooped in and dashed any hope the Mueller Report would gain traction. Dead on arrival. TOTAL EXONERATION! NO COLLUSION! NO OBSTRUCTION! A TOTAL NOTHING BURGER.
Trump won by 50,000 votes over the swing states. It's not too much of a stretch to think that chants of "Lock her up!" over her hacked emails might have affected more than enough votes to make a difference. Add some more votes for Pizzagate, Comey's letter, etc. and Bob's your Uncle. Putin has been doing this a long long time and he is the grand-master of propaganda. The American people are not used to being manipulated like they were and bought into it hook line and sinker. Combine that with the general affect the Internet has had on perpetuating propaganda and conspiracies and again, Bob's your Uncle.
Hillary was unlikable because Trump told us she was. She committed the unspeakable crime of sending her pumpkin pie recipe in an email from an ILLEGAL SERVER!!! The bottom line is the GOP were ready to be taken for a ride by a grifter who told them everything they wanted to hear, and a lot they just let slide. It's all about the entertainment factor. To hell with climate change our standing in the World!
The FBI investigated Trump’s campaign in 2016. They concluded that he wasn’t working with the Russians long before Mueller was appointed.
NYT article from October 2016:
“Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia”
Oct. 31, 2016
WASHINGTON — For much of the summer, the F.B.I. pursued a widening investigation into a Russian role in the American presidential campaign. Agents scrutinized advisers close to Donald J. Trump, looked for financial connections with Russian financial figures, searched for those involved in hacking the computers of Democrats, and even chased a lead — which they ultimately came to doubt — about a possible secret channel of email communication from the Trump Organization to a Russian bank.
Law enforcement officials say that none of the investigations so far have found any conclusive or direct link between Mr. Trump and the Russian government. And even the hacking into Democratic emails, F.B.I. and intelligence officials now believe, was aimed at disrupting the presidential election rather than electing Mr. Trump.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/fbi-russia-election-donald-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
The FBI went as far as using surveillance and undercover agents to investigate Trump’s campaign. Despite all that, they found nothing linking Trump to Russian officials.
NYT article from May 2019:
“F.B.I. Sent Investigator Posing as Assistant to Meet With Trump Aide in 2016”
May 2, 2019
WASHINGTON — The conversation at a London bar in September 2016 took a strange turn when the woman sitting across from George Papadopoulos, a Trump campaign adviser, asked a direct question: Was the Trump campaign working with Russia?
The woman had set up the meeting to discuss foreign policy issues. But she was actually a government investigator posing as a research assistant, according to people familiar with the operation. The F.B.I. sent her to London as part of the counterintelligence inquiry opened that summer to better understand the Trump campaign’s links to Russia.
The American government’s affiliation with the woman, who said her name was Azra Turk, is one previously unreported detail of an operation that has become a political flash point in the face of accusations by President Trump and his allies that American law enforcement and intelligence officials spied on his campaign to undermine his electoral chances. Last year, he called it Spygate.
The decision to use Ms. Turk in the operation aimed at a presidential campaign official shows the level of alarm inside the F.B.I. during a frantic period when the bureau was trying to determine the scope of Russia’s attempts to disrupt the 2016 election, but could also give ammunition to Mr. Trump and his allies for their spying claims.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/02/us/politics/fbi-government-investigator-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
-
“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.
Silly memes that brought at least one pro-Trump demonstration into close proximity with an anti-Trump demonstration?
(Or am I confusing that with Charlottesville?)
-- MWT ;)