Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Web Site Mocking Conspiracy Nut Michael Rivero Launched
Anti Rivero Site ^

Posted on 04/12/2002 5:21:54 PM PDT by Republican_Strategist

A HREF="http://whatreallyhappened.tripod.com/ ">Anti Rivero web site


Here’s a web site that is going after Michael Rivero’s conspiracy web site whatreallyhappened.com


TOPICS: Announcements; Free Republic; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: michaelrivero; tinfoil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-267 next last
To: mlo
Yep, I'm now an 'incoherant liar'. - Sure.

Just more desperate ad hominum BS.

241 posted on 04/16/2002 12:52:08 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 239 | View Replies]

To: Stand Watch Listen
great citation for context of the new world order issue of x41.

I also like to post the translation of the Novus Ordo Seclorum motto of the Great Seal of the United States. A New Order for the Ages, whose latin roots make citations of a new world order, in the context that George Herbert Walker Bush used them as entirely in keeping with the heritage of our Republic.

Charles Thomson, in suggesting the motto that was adopted for the seal was probably borrowing from Virgil. Virgil wrote the phrase, "Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo," in the fifth line of his classic Eclogue IV.
This is, and its context in Virgil is translated as:
A mighty order of ages is born anew.
The great series of ages begins anew.
The ages' mighty march begins anew.
The majestic roll of circling centuries begins anew

242 posted on 04/16/2002 1:00:15 PM PDT by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 217 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
It doesn't relate the shooting scenario in what you quoted from the HSCA. Elsewhere it does confirm that Oswald fired three shots from behind, that the second and third shots hit, and that the second shot went through Kennedy's neck and caused all of the Governor's wounds.

The "high probability" of a second gunmen is a direct reference to the acoustic evidence. Without it the HSCA would not have found in favor of a conspiracy (even some vague unspecified one). That fact is revealed in the dissent of some of the members.

The acoustic evidence was later disproven by a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

243 posted on 04/16/2002 1:01:40 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Yep, I'm now an 'incoherant liar'. - Sure.

Just more desperate ad hominum BS.

If you tell lies, expect to be called a liar. Note that, unlike you, I didn't simply resort to calling you names. I proved that you were lying. You don't like it? Don't engage in it.

Unfounded though it may be, you complaining about "ad hominum" has to be the most hypocritical thing I've seen in a long time.

244 posted on 04/16/2002 1:04:56 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Interpret the wording all you like. - The conclusion was a political document.
245 posted on 04/16/2002 1:16:48 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Yep, I'm now an 'incoherant liar'. - Sure. Just more desperate ad hominum BS.

If you tell lies, expect to be called a liar. Note that, unlike you, I didn't simply resort to calling you names. I proved that you were lying.

--- Proved? -- That is an absolute fantasy on your part. You are delusional.

You don't like it? Don't engage in it. Unfounded though it may be, you complaining about "ad hominum" has to be the most hypocritical thing I've seen in a long time.

-- You 'say', as you hypocritically call be a liar once again. -- You are out of control. For shame.

246 posted on 04/16/2002 1:26:50 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 244 | View Replies]

To: max61
nobody is perfect

I had a T-shirt with "Pobody is Nerfect" on the front.
I always had to explain it to supervisors, but my co-workers understood.

247 posted on 04/16/2002 1:30:36 PM PDT by ASA Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Interpret the wording all you like. - The conclusion was a political document.

Do you think everything is about wording? I didn't "interpret the wording", I was discussing the substance. Read it again.

248 posted on 04/16/2002 1:30:56 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
--- Proved? --

Yes, proved. Either that, or it wasn't intentional and you were just full of bad information. You can have that interpretation if you prefer it.

249 posted on 04/16/2002 1:33:25 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: mlo
The only thing you have 'proved' here is your own ability to be a 'conspiracy nut'. -- You imagine that I have some reason to lie? - How weird.
250 posted on 04/16/2002 2:14:43 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 249 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Read the HSCA conclusion again.
251 posted on 04/16/2002 2:16:49 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You imagine that I have some reason to lie?

I haven't given your motives a thought. Your untruthful statements are documented on this thread.

252 posted on 04/16/2002 2:17:28 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Read the HSCA conclusion again.

I read it. So?

I repeat. I discussed the substance of what it said, not the wording. You disagree? Let's hear it.

253 posted on 04/16/2002 2:19:37 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Your untruthful statements are documented on this thread.

Hogwash. Post these statements, in context, & explain how they are 'untruthful'.

You can't, & won't, because they don't exist.

-- You are out of control, - why?

254 posted on 04/16/2002 2:33:40 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: mlo
You drew some conclusions of your own and claimed they were connected somehow to the part I quoted. -- Dream on.
255 posted on 04/16/2002 2:42:08 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
OK, you asked. Each of your following statements is a falsehood. The proof of such has been provided. If you insist I will go back and collate that too.

"And of course, Fred's rifle should also have a six-groove barrel, as per the markings on one bullet supposedly recovered from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital."

"Even the warren report admits the problems with oswalds rifle, & its inability to perform as needed without a 'magic bullet' scenario."

"-- That oswalds rifle was a piece of junk should be beyond argument. -- The WC admitted the scope was misaligned, & the action to slow to shoot in the time alloted."

"It [the scope] was initialy installed improperly, according to the WC report."

"you deliberatly ignore the time factor of an inherently 'slow' action, that made the 'magic bullet' a necessary fiction."

"The Warren report could not correlate the filmed record of shots hitting JFK with the time necessary to operate oswalds rifles action. This made necessary the 'magic bullet' that hit the Gov after it hit JFK."

"The WC was forced to the above 'magic bullet' conclusion because one shot missed."

"Your 'logic' wordplay attempted to make a point not in dispute."

256 posted on 04/16/2002 3:29:22 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You drew some conclusions of your own and claimed they were connected somehow to the part I quoted. -- Dream on.

I'm sorry that it seemed to go over your head, but I posted direct refutations of claims you made.

As for being "out of control", not at all. I guess you aren't used to people challenging you, probably because they don't like the abusiveness they get in return. I'm just answering each falsehood you post in this thread.

257 posted on 04/16/2002 3:34:38 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You drew some conclusions of your own and claimed they were connected somehow to the part I quoted. -- Dream on.

Correction. I didn't see which message you were replying to here and I thought you were talking about the WC stuff, not the HSCA comments.

My comments were connected. It's a discussion. You posted the conclusions and I commented on them, pointing out they support the WC conclusions and the basis for the conspiracy finding was later refuted.

258 posted on 04/16/2002 3:40:55 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Your untruthful statements are documented on this thread.

Hogwash. Post these statements, in context, & explain how they are 'untruthful'.
You can't, & won't, because they don't exist.

-- You are out of control, - why?

OK, you asked. Each of your following statements is a falsehood. The proof of such has been provided.

What a bizarre, out of context list. -- With NO explantion of how they are 'untruthful'.

I'd bet that you contested nearly every one of those statements as I made them, without calling them lies, -- and were answered in turn.

Now, they are all suddenly 'falsehoods'. -- You started accusing me of these deliberate lies just several posts ago. -- I don't get it. -- Why am I supposed to be lying? -- Why would I risk my crediblity here? - Is it supposedly just to make you look 'bad'?

This behavior of yours is really getting weird, maybe paranoid. Lighten up.

259 posted on 04/16/2002 4:21:24 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
OK, you asked. Each of your following statements is a falsehood. The proof of such has been provided.

What a bizarre, out of context list. -- With NO explantion of how they are 'untruthful'.

Hey, it's your list. You said those things.

The explanations are in the thread.

I'd bet that you contested nearly every one of those statements as I made them, without calling them lies, -- and were answered in turn.

No, you're not real good at answering when you've been shown wrong. You usually just move on to something else, or you start bizarre claims about 'ad hominem' or try to characterize it as semantics, or whatever other technique you can think of to get out of it.

What's bizarre is that you think these previous posts can't be looked at so you can imply I didn't prove you wrong or that you answered everything. They're still here. I can go back and do it over if you want, but I'm starting to suspect it's just a way to keep me busy :-)

Now, they are all suddenly 'falsehoods'. -- You started accusing me of these deliberate lies just several posts ago. -- I don't get it. -- Why am I supposed to be lying? -- Why would I risk my crediblity here? - Is it supposedly just to make you look 'bad'?

They aren't suddenly falsehoods. They've been falsehoods all along, and I've said so. That's what you didn't like.

This behavior of yours is really getting weird, maybe paranoid. Lighten up.

I'm just answering you. What is weird about that?

260 posted on 04/16/2002 4:33:18 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260261-267 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson