On Tuesday, September 23, 2025 at 6:02:35 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, September 23, 2025 at 4:30:00 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: On Tue, Sep 23, 2025 at 2:12 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *> For example, Stone says that the two mob bosses....* *At that point if you know anything about Roger Stone there would be no reason to keep reading. Roger Stone has a long history of lying, he has zero credibility and therefore a logical person should not pay the slightest bit of attention to anything he says. It's very easy for him or for anybody to make noises with their mouth, but some people have a reputation for credibility and some people do not.* * It would be different if Stone were presenting a logical argument but that's not what he's doing, he's claiming he has new evidence, he's claiming he knows what two bosses conspired to do in private, but I have no way of knowing if those two mob bosses actually did what Stone claims they did, and given his reputation I would judge that to be extremely unlikely. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* *Except for the fact that in this case, his overall claim makes sense, as distinguished from the standard model which makes little sense. For example, do we even really know why Oswald allegedly shot JFK? I do recall from my previous study at the time, that Oswald failed the paraffin test, so it's highly unlikely he fired a gun that day. And several witnesses at the School Book Depository saw Oswald on the 2nd floor, in or near the lunchroom, at the time JFK was murdered. They weren't called by the Warren Commission. Why not? And of course, the Zapruder film which clearly shows JFK's skull being blow BACK, indicating shot from the front, from the grassy knoll. I also recall from other sources from my previous study, that Marcello was deported summarily by RFK as Stone claims. And we mustn't ignore the deathbed confession of Trafficante recounted by his personal attorney. So, IMO, Stone presents a logical argument, drawing in part, as he says, from other reputable sources, but for the reasons you cite, isn't in the best position to present it. If Stone's argument isn't logical, as you claim, what argument is, the government one which is totally suspect? I assume you're shooting from the hip and haven't viewed the video. And, as I stated, his book is well documented, each chapter with numerous citations. AG* *If the Warren Commission wanted to do a comprehensive, legitimate investigation of the assassination, don't you think it would have interviewed Ruby? IMO, it was a scam. Stone, with all his faults, has given us a comprehensive analysis. AG * -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6ecaad14-8a16-48fc-adf1-0b728849afa7n%40googlegroups.com.
