• Re: Trendscendental Moleification - Extracting Wisdom Teets - Zero Surf

    From Jeremy H. Denisovan@1:229/2 to slider on Saturday, May 05, 2018 08:42:10
    From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

    On Friday, May 4, 2018 at 9:54:36 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
    On Fri, 04 May 2018 16:51:07 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

    The episodes identified three men as the assassins of Kennedy: deceased drug trafficker Lucien Sarti and two living men (Roger Bocagnani and Sauveur Pironti). All three were later revealed to have strong alibis: Sarti was undergoing medical treatment in France, another was in prison
    at the time, and the third had been in the French Navy. One of the two living men threatened to sue, and Central Television's own subsequent investigation into the allegations revealed they were "total nonsense".

    ### - the question isn't 'who' killed kennedy; it's 'why' he was killed?

    check it out...

    joe (the ambassador) kennedy, one of the richest men in america at the
    time, would have done (and/or paid) just about 'anything' to have his
    (nearly crippled from addisons disease) son jack elected; his comment on
    this at the time being: "I've spent so much on this I could have gotten my 'chauffeur' elected!" (sic.) - him apparently finally swinging it via
    reputed connections to the mob on the basis that organised crime would
    then be given a squeeze (or 3) in law when his son took office...

    unfortunately, the first thing jack did upon being elected was to make
    bobby the head of actively 'crushing' organised crime! something that
    didn't then go down too well with the mob??

    the rest is history...

    You seem to think Joe Kennedy got John elected president by using
    his connections to the mob so that the mob could then be crushed?
    That wouldn't even make sense (for the mob).

    Besides, we've had this whole conversation already.
    The reality of that election was far more complex.

    .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)
  • From slider@1:229/2 to david.j.worrell@gmail.com on Saturday, May 05, 2018 16:56:42
    From: slider@anashram.com

    On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:42:10 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

    You seem to think Joe Kennedy got John elected president by using
    his connections to the mob so that the mob could then be crushed?
    That wouldn't even make sense (for the mob).

    ### - you've totally misread that? - 'coz not 'so' the mob could then get crushed (what kinda deal would 'that' be??) but so the mob would then get
    kinda have a blind eye turned towards them when it came to prosecuting
    them... john/bobby then attacking the mob upon taking office (implying
    that he/they didn't personally know about the deal made by joe) ultimately bringing the wrath of the mob right down on their heads for crossing them
    up...

    (the direct key/clue to mob involvement being jack ruby...)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)
  • From Jeremy H. Denisovan@1:229/2 to All on Friday, May 04, 2018 08:51:07
    From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

    Re: the songs. All good stuff... EXCEPT "American Woman". Bleh.

    Re: The Kennedy material - Wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Men_Who_Killed_Kennedy

    Excerpts:

    Originally broadcast in 1988 in two parts (with a subsequent studio discussion), it was rebroadcast in 1991 re-edited to three parts with additional material, and a fourth episode added in 1995. The addition of three further episodes in 2003 caused great
    controversy, particularly in the final episode implicating Lyndon B. Johnson and the withdrawal of these additional episodes.

    The episodes identified three men as the assassins of Kennedy: deceased drug trafficker Lucien Sarti and two living men (Roger Bocagnani and Sauveur Pironti). All three were later revealed to have strong alibis: Sarti was undergoing medical treatment in
    France, another was in prison at the time, and the third had been in the French
    Navy. One of the two living men threatened to sue, and Central Television's own
    subsequent investigation into the allegations revealed they were "total nonsense".

    Turner justified his failure to interview one of the accused on the grounds that the individual was "too dangerous". Turner was censured by the British Parliament. The Independent Broadcasting Authority forced Central Television to
    produce a third
    episode dedicated to the false allegations, which aired on November 16, 1988, which was later referred to as a "studio crucifixion" of Turner and his inaccuracies.

    In November 2003, three additional segments ("The Final Chapter") were added by
    the History Channel, entitled, respectively, "The Smoking Guns", "The Love Affair" and "The Guilty Men".

    Its airing in 2003 created an outcry among Johnson's surviving associates, including Johnson's widow, Lady Bird Johnson, former LBJ aides Bill Moyers and Jack Valenti (longtime president of the Motion Picture Association of America),
    as well as U.S.
    Presidents Gerald Ford – who was the last-living (at the time of the outcry) Warren Commission member – and Jimmy Carter. These Johnson supporters lodged complaints of libel with the History Channel, and subsequently threatened legal
    action against
    Arts & Entertainment Company, owner of the History Channel.

    The History Channel responded by assembling a panel of three historians, Robert
    Dallek, Stanley Kutler, and Thomas Sugrue. On a program aired April 7, 2004, titled "The Guilty Man: A Historical Review," the panel agreed that the documentary was not
    credible and should not have aired. The History Channel issued a statement saying, in part, "The History Channel recognizes that 'The Guilty Men' failed to offer viewers context and perspective, and fell short of the high standards that the network sets
    for itself. The History Channel apologized to its viewers and to Mrs. Johnson and her family for airing the show." The channel said it would not show the episode again.

    ***

    But of course, it's still on YouTube...

    .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)
  • From slider@1:229/2 to david.j.worrell@gmail.com on Friday, May 04, 2018 17:54:31
    From: slider@anashram.com

    On Fri, 04 May 2018 16:51:07 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

    The episodes identified three men as the assassins of Kennedy: deceased
    drug trafficker Lucien Sarti and two living men (Roger Bocagnani and
    Sauveur Pironti). All three were later revealed to have strong alibis:
    Sarti was undergoing medical treatment in France, another was in prison
    at the time, and the third had been in the French Navy. One of the two
    living men threatened to sue, and Central Television's own subsequent investigation into the allegations revealed they were "total nonsense".

    ### - the question isn't 'who' killed kennedy; it's 'why' he was killed?

    check it out...

    joe (the ambassador) kennedy, one of the richest men in america at the
    time, would have done (and/or paid) just about 'anything' to have his
    (nearly crippled from addisons disease) son jack elected; his comment on
    this at the time being: "I've spent so much on this I could have gotten my 'chauffeur' elected!" (sic.) - him apparently finally swinging it via
    reputed connections to the mob on the basis that organised crime would
    then be given a squeeze (or 3) in law when his son took office...

    unfortunately, the first thing jack did upon being elected was to make
    bobby the head of actively 'crushing' organised crime! something that
    didn't then go down too well with the mob??

    the rest is history...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)
  • From Jeremy H. Denisovan@1:229/2 to slider on Sunday, May 06, 2018 17:59:52
    From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

    On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:56:48 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
    On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:42:10 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
    wrote:

    You seem to think Joe Kennedy got John elected president by using
    his connections to the mob so that the mob could then be crushed?
    That wouldn't even make sense (for the mob).

    ### - you've totally misread that? - 'coz not 'so' the mob could then get crushed (what kinda deal would 'that' be??) but so the mob would then get kinda have a blind eye turned towards them when it came to prosecuting them... john/bobby then attacking the mob upon taking office (implying
    that he/they didn't personally know about the deal made by joe) ultimately bringing the wrath of the mob right down on their heads for crossing them up...

    (the direct key/clue to mob involvement being jack ruby...)

    That doesn't make any better sense.
    That way their Dad got them killed without warning them?
    Baloney. :)

    .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)
  • From slider@1:229/2 to david.j.worrell@gmail.com on Monday, May 07, 2018 03:20:37
    From: slider@anashram.com

    On Mon, 07 May 2018 01:59:52 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan <david.j.worrell@gmail.com> wrote:

    On Saturday, May 5, 2018 at 8:56:48 AM UTC-7, slider wrote:
    On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:42:10 +0100, Jeremy H. Denisovan
    wrote:

    You seem to think Joe Kennedy got John elected president by using
    his connections to the mob so that the mob could then be crushed?
    That wouldn't even make sense (for the mob).

    ### - you've totally misread that? - 'coz not 'so' the mob could then
    get
    crushed (what kinda deal would 'that' be??) but so the mob would then
    get
    kinda have a blind eye turned towards them when it came to prosecuting
    them... john/bobby then attacking the mob upon taking office (implying
    that he/they didn't personally know about the deal made by joe)
    ultimately
    bringing the wrath of the mob right down on their heads for crossing
    them
    up...

    (the direct key/clue to mob involvement being jack ruby...)

    That doesn't make any better sense.
    That way their Dad got them killed without warning them?
    Baloney. :)

    ### - nah methinks i've cracked it heh + if you accept/explore the initial premise then there's several possible scenarios for how it all went
    down... 'and' possibly all went wrong too?

    would imagine, for example, that joe initially tried to 'buy' the favour
    from his erm, friends, but may have also had to promise some kinda
    reciprocal treatment if/when pressed (would be quite a thing to have a
    prez in your pocket huh, could come in very handy occasionally from a gangster's pov etc...) only joe obviously couldn't deliver! possibly
    because he never told them what he'd done/didn't directly involve them in
    it? (didn't make them complicit) and then maybe *couldn't* tell them when
    they started clamping down on organised crime as the 'spearhead' of their campaign upon taking office! that, or they DID know, or came to know, but something else altogether went wrong, maybe joe was threatened and then
    they openly defied them, even attacking them directly as a counterpoint?? that's the bit we'll likely never ever know about for sure, but on the
    surface of things they did the opposite of relenting on the mob; that if
    they (the mob) really had any involvement with getting him elected then i
    can see how they might possibly really fuckin' resent that??

    that IF that's all true, then it also suggests the whole 'political' angle
    was just a ruse/distraction! (oswald said he was just a patsy didn't he?
    plus why would mobster ruby shoot oswald if it was all only political??)

    am all ears though if you've got a 'better' idea :)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)
  • From Jeremy H. Denisovan@1:229/2 to All on Monday, May 07, 2018 10:29:10
    From: david.j.worrell@gmail.com

    Well, the people whose long documentary began this thread thought
    they'd cracked it too. They thought they had "a better idea".
    They got debunked by three historians and threatened with lawsuits
    and the station apologized and promised not to show it again. :)

    .

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)
  • From slider@1:229/2 to All on Monday, May 07, 2018 18:53:34
    From: slider@anashram.com

    Well, the people whose long documentary began this thread thought
    they'd cracked it too. They thought they had "a better idea".
    They got debunked by three historians and threatened with lawsuits
    and the station apologized and promised not to show it again. :)

    ### - ahaha well i wont be making any documentaries heh...

    but if i ever do, i'll just use your name ok? (really laffing...) :)

    c'mon tho, have ya ever heard a better/more-plausible explanation than
    that?

    it flies! ;)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)