Daggett: <"He died, of cancer apparently after he had been deliberately injected with cancer cells after he had decided to speak the truth about his role in the assassination.">

Haha too good.

Why inject cancer cells and wait however long for them to take and produce a tumor that might or might not prove fatal - thereby providing plenty of time for him to tell someone he'd been injected etc.

Part of his legal defense was that he suffered from psycho motor epilepsy. It would have been fairly simple, fast, effective and supported by his own defense case to induce an epileptic seizure with fatal consequences.

Or, at his age, digitalis - heart attack. Oh, hang on. I think his cause of death was determined as pulmonary embolism.

So why the elaborate cancer cells biz ?

Well, at least Pericles now seems to have finally grasped that at least one government had a motive to commit an act of terrorism and then blame it on its political opponents as an excuse to deprive them of their democratic, civil and human rights.

---

Anyway, Pericles, the material about JFK was put there because that was what the discussion was about. It was not put there for your benefit, as you had shown no interest in that topic, thus far, having neither acknowledged nor responded to any of the previous arguments made by Arjay or myself.

I was not expecting that to change now as you have demonstrated once more.

Yes, it's hilarious, PynchMe.

People, in fear for their lives, because they want to tell the truth, suddenly die under mysterious circumstances.

Consequently others who want to attest to the truth in court hearings are too frightened to do so.

I am glad that you have been able to draw the attention of the rest of us to the inherent humour of this situation.

As I wrote, you're a model citizen of the New World Order and I have no doubt that you would have fitted in very well in 1930's Germany as well.

---

What I wrote of Jack Ruby's death was from a scene omitted from Olver Stone's JFK in order to reduce it to a more manageable size.

The US had extensive biological warfare programs at the time so the allegation seems far from far-fetched to me.

If you can show me where Stone has been shown to be wrong, let me know.

The funny bit Daggett is the proliferation of conspiracy theories around every interesting event. I think conspiracy theories are ok - I enjoy them actually - and I think they are better than apathy. However, some of the stuff that comes up is just plain ridiculous.

Injecting cancer cells? If FBI and CIA are using such ridiculously complicated ways of bumping people off then reading Agatha Christie should be a mandatory entry level training requirement.

I can think of at least 1/2 doz - maybe even a dozen - ways to kill someone that would be difficult to prove as murder. What about insulin injections? How about making someone drink a couple of litres of water? Choking with a block of ice down the windpipe. Ummm - anyway...

I think I read somewhere that he did have lung cancer as well but it was an embolism that killed him. In any case it would be an unpredictable and unnecessarily complex way to murder someone, if it was even possible (which I don't believe it is).

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100rubycancer.html

PynchMe, you don't strike me as an unchallenged authority on human disease and causes of death, so I don't see why we should accept your pronouncements on Jack Ruby's allegations as the final word.

Here's what is written even in Wikipedia:

Dallas Deputy Sheriff Al Maddox claimed: "Ruby told me, he said, 'Well, they injected me for a cold.' He said it was cancer cells. That's what he told me, Ruby did. I said you don't believe that ____. He said, 'I damn sure do!'

...

... on December 9, 1966, Ruby was admitted to Parkland Hospital in Dallas, suffering from pneumonia. A day later, doctors realized he had cancer in his liver, lungs, and brain.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby#Ruby_alleged_conspiracies)

So, I would suggest that Ruby's allegations should have been seriously investigated.

But they weren't.

Why do you think that was, PynchMe?

The same article tells of how the Warren Commission refused to listen to Jack Ruby's testimony.

Why do you think that was, PynchMe?

And why are you silent on the Warren Commission covering up evidence of Jack Ruby's previous association with Lee Harvey Oswald?

This is almost an apology, isn't it daggett?

>>Well, at least Pericles now seems to have finally grasped that at least one government had a motive to commit an act of terrorism and then blame it on its political opponents as an excuse to deprive them of their democratic, civil and human rights.<<

I have always understood that black ops play a part in any regime that needs justification to play the aggressor against their enemies.

The Nazis needed an excuse to beat up on Communists, so they framed one poor sap for the Reichstag fire.

Your problem is, the only people you can find to play the Nazis in this updated conspiracy scenario, are a "secret cabal of elites".

That you cannot identify.

So you are left with an imaginary group of people, with an imaginary motive.

That's a tough starting point.

It doesn't get any easier, when you have to imagine the embezzlement of billions of dollars as the financial facilitator for your 9/11 theories.

From that point, it is relatively easy to imagine a Die Hard scenario to cater for all the planning and execution parts. By this time, suspension of disbelief is the norm.

All up, it exists only in your imagination, daggett. Helped along of course by a bunch of like-minded conspiracy junkies, who seem to need the extra excitement that these fictions bring to their lives.

Or perhaps it's the only excitement.

That would explain a great deal.