Re: What if John's killing could have been avoided?

On Oct 16, 10:25 am, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:53:14 -0400, "RichL" <rpleav...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





"Mack A. Damia" <mybaconbu...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7ulib6hsne9krnqb15crokc0t01b2uqcsn@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:42:25 -0700 (PDT), Fattuchus
<fattuc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 15, 11:52 pm, marcus <marcus...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Oct 15, 6:41 pm, Fattuchus <fattuc...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Oct 15, 10:07 am, marcus <marcus...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I don't think you have ever come out and said, "I think Yoko
arranged
for John's murder", but you have quoted other people and articles
who
have more than implied that ridiculous notion, and usually when a
poster brings up something for newsgroup's readers' attention
(unless
they post a disclaimer first), it is assumed that the poster tends
to
agree with it.

I've never said Yoko arranged for Chapman to murder John or conspired
with Chapman in anyway.  Show me a link where I said that.

I didn't say you did...read my post again...what I said is that you
have mentioned other peoples' opinions and articles stating that she
may have had something to do with his death...and that the fact you
have mentioned this "theory" could very well be interpreted as your
position on the subject by readers of this newsgroup.

RichL is not talking about Yoko having something very non specific or
vague or indirect to do with John's death. RichL is talking about Yoko
ENGINEERING John's death.

Once again tiptoeing around making a direct accusation while leaving the
innuendo intact.  This is PRECISELY what I'm referring to, and the only way
she can dodge it is to split hairs.

Fatts' and Parella's implications of nastiness on Yoko's part concerning her
having "sent" John on dangerous missions are perfectly clear, not
"non-specific" or "vague" or "indirect" in the least.  Had John died on that
Bermuda trip, regardless of cause, there's no doubt in the mind of anyone
but a mindless zombie that they would have claimed that Yoko engineered his
death, regardless of the specific verb they would have used.

How can *anyone* even broach the subject of a conspiracy? Chapman was
(is) a delusional schitzophrenic, and if he and his lawyers had a
notion to involve Yoko in John's death, it would be have been on the
front page by now.

Think.

As with a few other subjects, Fatts' fixation on Yoko is pathological,
approaching the level of religious fanaticism, rendering her incapable of
coherent thought.

Conspiracies do not remain hidden for long.

Lincoln's assassination - a conspiracy.

Hitler's attempted assassination - a conspiracy.

JFK's assassination - NOT a conspiracy.

Oswald's murder - NOT a conspiracy.

RFK's assassination - NOT a conspiracy.

Anwar Sadat's assassination - a conspiracy.

Gerald Ford's two attemped assassinations - NOT conspiracies.

Regan's attemped assassination - NOT a conspiracy

Lennon's assassination - NOT a conspiracy.

But you have to do your homework; that is, research the facts and the
evidence.  You cannot rely on superficial hunches and rumor.-


Of course.

The problem with RichL is that he does not like to read up on this
delicate subject at all. It pains him emotionally, and I respect
that. Believe me, I don't come here to aggravate anyone, least of all
RichL. He's a decent fellow usually, even though he treats me like
crap.

I can mention this book or that book or this interview or that
interview, and he refuses to read it because it does not fit with his
rosey world view. What I don't understand is that RichL seems
intelligent . . . he's a scientist, and I assume, he's inquisitive.
But when it comes to J & Y and their relationship or their
psychological makeup, RichL is completely closed minded, and he
criticizes and ridicules people who want to discuss it.
.

Relevant Pages