On Sat, 11 Jun 2011 04:15:49 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by Brad Guth
:

On Jun 11, 3:55*am, HVAC wrote:
On 6/11/2011 6:46 AM, Brad Guth wrote:



So, Mr. all-knowing wise guy spook/mole, tell us why the version of
history that involves JFK, as interpreted and told by William Mook is
wrong.

Who the **** is William Gook?

Real funny, but then aren't all FUD-masters.

I'll tell you what's REALLY funny. Kooks like you *never* have
a sense of humor and seemingly take zero pleasure in life.

Why is that, Bradley?

In the words of the Joker....Why so serious?

--
"OK you ****s, let's see what you can do now" -Hit Girlhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjO7kBqTFqo

In other words, William Mook's interpretation of what got JFK and RFK
each killed isn't in dispute.

Since no one knows what that "interpretation" consists of,
or what it's based on, how can we know? Knowing you from
your posts, however, I'd venture that it's not in dispute
because it's imaginary.

Here's a suggestion, Sparky: If you'd like to see how *real*
forensic analysis is done, pick up and read the book "Mortal
Error" by Bonar Menninger, ISBN 0-312-08074-3. He makes a
strong argument, based on actual physical evidence,
regarding how JFK died.

It's good to know what skulduggery side a devout ZNR redneck like
yourself is on.

What's a "ZNR"? And just to satisfy my curiosity, what's
your personal definition of "redneck"?
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless