From: Michael Lorrey (retroman@tpk.net)
Date: Sun Nov 10 1996 - 19:50:12 MST
Ira Brodsky wrote:
>
> Ian Goddard wrote:
>
> >As to Ira's claim to enjoying battling "clueless paranoids" --
> >i.e., those guilty of the sin of skeptical inquiry regarding
> >proven to be false and misleading GovtMedia new feed -- I'd note
> >that I've presented much evidence of GovtMedia conspiracy and
> >have not seen Ira disprove a single feature of any theory. This
> >document, listing many such case, was posted here in reply to
> >a request to prove that some conspiracies are true:
>
> IRA to IAN: I don't "claim" to enjoy battling clueless paranoids -- I can
> prove that I enjoy battling them. <g>
>
> Funny that you claim the mantle of "skeptical inquiry." I remain skeptical
> about the Navy missile theory. I don't think the issue is whether one of
> us is skeptical and the other is not, I think the issue is what each of us
> thinks is a proper target of skepticism.
>
I did hear that the FBI examined Salinger's papers, and announced that
they were the same one's publihsed over the internet which were
"discounted" already in the investigation.
Question: If they were discounted, why did a Secret Service Agent give
these to him now, when they are apparently worthless. Perhaps they were
not and this person was trying to get some one who had experience in the
WHite House operations to see that maybe they were not fake. I would
like to see an invenstigation of the investigation.
If you recall, this is the same thing the FBI said about the "shoot to
kill" orders they gave agents at Ruby Ridge. The truth eventually came
out in the end there, and showed that the FBI is a lying pack of dogs.
Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:35:50 MST