The persistance of reputation

[Dale Thorn]

Rich Graves wrote:
> Robert Hettinga wrote:
> > At 8:02 pm -0500 11/11/96, Rich Graves wrote:

[snippo]

> No. It requires both. And sometimes, technical skill. How many people
> here know enough to evaluate the data concerning, to take a notorious
> example, the Kennedy assassination? I accept the historical consensus,
> but I know there are a lot of otherwise rational people on cypherpunks
> who are convinced that there was some sort of coverup (which sort, they
> often don't know or care; but they're conviced there was one). Oliver
> Stone got some ridiculous movie made based on this non-thesis (actually
> two, counting Nixon). People growing up today are learning pseudohistory
> and pseudoscience from Oliver Stone, "The X Files," "Dark Skies," and
> "Millenium." I find that scary. The net is better than TV, because it
> allows more responses, but I'm not sure how much better.

You accept the historical consensus?  And which historical consensus is
that?  The non-consensus investigated by the prime suspect (Johnson)?
Or the consensus investigated by the people's representatives, i.e. the
House of Representatives?

Maybe you didn't know that the #2 man should be considered the primary
suspect, huh?  And a coverup, by golly!  Imagine that the U.S. government
would do such a thing?  Couldn't be, could it?

They were just hiding the Zapruder film for 12 years in our best interest,
right?  No need to show the people Kennedy's upper torso (about 100 pounds
of weight) being blown violently *backward* as a result of a frontal shot,
since "Oswald" couldn't have been in front.  Nosiree!

Next thing you're gonna say is that "Oswald" shot Tippit with his *revolver*
and then stopped to unload the spent shells by the body, yes?

And Jack Ruby was just an irate citizen who felt sorry for Jackie, huh?

I prefer not to judge people by just one posting, but like Noam Chomsky,
with his "I can't see *anyone* who would have wanted Kennedy dead"
bullshit, I just can't buy the notion that whoever wrote the above crap
about the "historical consensus" doesn't really know what's going on.

A disinformer posing as an idiot.  Go figure.