If you don't like dictionary definitions, no one can help you. It means you can make up whatever you want (just like those you call "foe" and their fake news). How disappointing.
And you say things like "But we find that the scientific evidence indicates....." NO. You have not seen evidence. You have not studied the case except through possibly one or more of the OUTLETS you chose to study. None of us has really studied it to the depth of poring through documents and making connections. But where we disagree is you act as if you HAVE. I do not. I am open to possibilities. I am also showing THROUGH HISTORY how a many plainly affiliated with the Nazis had a dynastic family who went on to hold the highest offices in the land and many offices of power throughout America.
And they are not just called "Bush" anymore. They have different names now through marriage, etc. But Prescott's empire and family dynasty is really no different from Joe Kennedy and that whole tribe. The Kennedys were no angels either.
Lee Harvey Oswald you must ignore that he was an angry, mixed-up man full of resentments and whose loyalties could turn on anything
Who told you that? It's back to this again. Some chosen news source or book or documentary "told you" that. You did not come to that conclusion yourself.
But anyway, these "elite" families that go back WAY back in our history, they have been involved within themselves and with others of the same ilk to RULE BY FIAT. There are a set of rules for them, and a whole other set for us.
I can prove this to you by the idea the current president already accomplished the biggest success he ever could. Do you think it's about legislation or changing the world? He has already INSTALLED his family members (sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, IN-LAWS) into the global economic landscape of the future. THAT is how he legitimizes himself in his own mind. He can never be a Bush or a Clinton or even a Romney. But now, JUST by occupying the white house, he has bumped his family and his family name up higher than he ever could without the presidency. People like Bush and Obama actually have to engage with him now! In the future. FOREVER now, they have to stand beside him as a Former President.
That's what this is really about. They've made ties with China. They have made relationships with Russia. They have made inroads into every political power play that is to be had. His family was not really a TRUE oligarchy until 2016. Whether impeachment or even arrest and jail, his family has already ascended to that level and rank of power and nothing can change it now.
I encourage you to start doubting your disbelief in such oligarchical THUS cabalistic elite. Remember, Oswald is just a figure I use to say "um, no it wasn't one guy who crashed the 2008 banking system and went to congress to basically accomplish a heist in the middle of the work day in front of a thousand cameras". THAT was not Lee Oswald. It was not an "angry lone nut" who knocked over (sorry, flattened) WTC. But if it could have been an "angry lone nut" and if that would have been accepted by America, it would have been.
Instead of Lee Oswald it would just be Lami Osama. Or, "the ayrab who wants to kill us because we are free". And instead of a mail-order rifle purchased in Texas (when anyone could in 1963 go into any store in Texas and buy one anonymously) Lami Osama would have a Rider truck of fertilizer with a traceable VIN found miles away from the blast (wait that was McVeigh - another "angry lone nut"). When does the pattern become too obvious for you? Or just..... never does?
"The ayrab who wants to kill us because we are free" is the reason since 911 for anyone and anything that attacks us. And we accept it without question. Oswald didn't have that platform back then. Nothing he said or did in any trial would have been useful to anyone.
This may be a bit firm, but it's as if you shot the gun that killed Oswald yourself. Yup. You gotta think about it. You silence him. Every time you say "angry lone nut" you deny him a trial of any kind. That's why he was killed. You may have hearty disagreement with that, but if you then want to move to "Ruby killed him because he genuinely wanted to spare Jackie a trial" u got magic birds flying around your head.
I will NOT turn this into JFK debates but you speak of bullets left in the car and a back brace or something, but that limo had a bullet hole through the WINDSHIELD witnessed by many, and the vehicle was - THAT DAY - air-lifted to Detroit to remove and destroy the windshield and replace it with a new one, and ALL damage to the vehicle fixed that same day, completely restored/washed/cleaned. Really? Of course no one knows this at the time. It gets lost among all the other MANY things happening. But questions like that pile up really fast.
So many people in this very forum do this exact thing. The conclusion is already decided. Then, whatever doesn't fit into the conclusion is destroyed or altered to fit the conclusion. I don't work like that.
Lastly: I have known of his type, a troubled young man whose parents urge to join the Armed Forces to straighten him out -- and it often works to drum out delinquency and a lack of direction, both of which military discipline often counteracts effectively. In his case he learned how to get a lucky shot but remained delinquent and without direction as before he enlisted.
Lee didn't have parents. He had a mother. She did not pressure him to join anything. And you could never explain how someone you describe above is SENT to Russia after having been trained by our military in the Russian language. It was never clear exactly what he was doing there and for whom. Not just that, but how he had not a dime to his name and gets free airfare to and back from Russia -- and is able to return with a Russian bride and 2 children at the height of the Cold War. You can't explain any of that. I don't want you to. Just don't be so closed minded.
Dummies and angry screamers on the corner don't usually pick up Russian and learn Cyrillic script at the tender age of 19. But maybe you will say he learned it just because he was bored and spent a lot of time at the library. Do you mean the libraries during the McCarthy era where everyone was being accused of possible Communist ties? I think a military operative learning Russian at the library would draw attention.
And you say things like "But we find that the scientific evidence indicates....." NO. You have not seen evidence. You have not studied the case except through possibly one or more of the OUTLETS you chose to study. None of us has really studied it to the depth of poring through documents and making connections. But where we disagree is you act as if you HAVE. I do not. I am open to possibilities. I am also showing THROUGH HISTORY how a many plainly affiliated with the Nazis had a dynastic family who went on to hold the highest offices in the land and many offices of power throughout America.
And they are not just called "Bush" anymore. They have different names now through marriage, etc. But Prescott's empire and family dynasty is really no different from Joe Kennedy and that whole tribe. The Kennedys were no angels either.
Lee Harvey Oswald you must ignore that he was an angry, mixed-up man full of resentments and whose loyalties could turn on anything
Who told you that? It's back to this again. Some chosen news source or book or documentary "told you" that. You did not come to that conclusion yourself.
But anyway, these "elite" families that go back WAY back in our history, they have been involved within themselves and with others of the same ilk to RULE BY FIAT. There are a set of rules for them, and a whole other set for us.
I can prove this to you by the idea the current president already accomplished the biggest success he ever could. Do you think it's about legislation or changing the world? He has already INSTALLED his family members (sons, daughters, nephews, nieces, IN-LAWS) into the global economic landscape of the future. THAT is how he legitimizes himself in his own mind. He can never be a Bush or a Clinton or even a Romney. But now, JUST by occupying the white house, he has bumped his family and his family name up higher than he ever could without the presidency. People like Bush and Obama actually have to engage with him now! In the future. FOREVER now, they have to stand beside him as a Former President.
That's what this is really about. They've made ties with China. They have made relationships with Russia. They have made inroads into every political power play that is to be had. His family was not really a TRUE oligarchy until 2016. Whether impeachment or even arrest and jail, his family has already ascended to that level and rank of power and nothing can change it now.
I encourage you to start doubting your disbelief in such oligarchical THUS cabalistic elite. Remember, Oswald is just a figure I use to say "um, no it wasn't one guy who crashed the 2008 banking system and went to congress to basically accomplish a heist in the middle of the work day in front of a thousand cameras". THAT was not Lee Oswald. It was not an "angry lone nut" who knocked over (sorry, flattened) WTC. But if it could have been an "angry lone nut" and if that would have been accepted by America, it would have been.
Instead of Lee Oswald it would just be Lami Osama. Or, "the ayrab who wants to kill us because we are free". And instead of a mail-order rifle purchased in Texas (when anyone could in 1963 go into any store in Texas and buy one anonymously) Lami Osama would have a Rider truck of fertilizer with a traceable VIN found miles away from the blast (wait that was McVeigh - another "angry lone nut"). When does the pattern become too obvious for you? Or just..... never does?
"The ayrab who wants to kill us because we are free" is the reason since 911 for anyone and anything that attacks us. And we accept it without question. Oswald didn't have that platform back then. Nothing he said or did in any trial would have been useful to anyone.
This may be a bit firm, but it's as if you shot the gun that killed Oswald yourself. Yup. You gotta think about it. You silence him. Every time you say "angry lone nut" you deny him a trial of any kind. That's why he was killed. You may have hearty disagreement with that, but if you then want to move to "Ruby killed him because he genuinely wanted to spare Jackie a trial" u got magic birds flying around your head.
I will NOT turn this into JFK debates but you speak of bullets left in the car and a back brace or something, but that limo had a bullet hole through the WINDSHIELD witnessed by many, and the vehicle was - THAT DAY - air-lifted to Detroit to remove and destroy the windshield and replace it with a new one, and ALL damage to the vehicle fixed that same day, completely restored/washed/cleaned. Really? Of course no one knows this at the time. It gets lost among all the other MANY things happening. But questions like that pile up really fast.
So many people in this very forum do this exact thing. The conclusion is already decided. Then, whatever doesn't fit into the conclusion is destroyed or altered to fit the conclusion. I don't work like that.
Lastly: I have known of his type, a troubled young man whose parents urge to join the Armed Forces to straighten him out -- and it often works to drum out delinquency and a lack of direction, both of which military discipline often counteracts effectively. In his case he learned how to get a lucky shot but remained delinquent and without direction as before he enlisted.
Lee didn't have parents. He had a mother. She did not pressure him to join anything. And you could never explain how someone you describe above is SENT to Russia after having been trained by our military in the Russian language. It was never clear exactly what he was doing there and for whom. Not just that, but how he had not a dime to his name and gets free airfare to and back from Russia -- and is able to return with a Russian bride and 2 children at the height of the Cold War. You can't explain any of that. I don't want you to. Just don't be so closed minded.
Dummies and angry screamers on the corner don't usually pick up Russian and learn Cyrillic script at the tender age of 19. But maybe you will say he learned it just because he was bored and spent a lot of time at the library. Do you mean the libraries during the McCarthy era where everyone was being accused of possible Communist ties? I think a military operative learning Russian at the library would draw attention.