The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995)

[BeAChooser]

I feel a moral duty to help fight ignorance.

Then you should educate yourself to the real facts in the Foster case, not continue spreading the Truther-like disinformation and lies that you do about it.

You make it difficult to do that, though, when you completely ignore everything we've said in both this thread and the previous one

As well as pushing disinformation and lies about my posts. Anyone reading these threads can see that I most certainly have addressed every single claim any of you have made regarding the facts in this case. Over and over I've shown that what you folks claim is either untrue or a distortion of the facts. As I just did with fullflavormenthol's posts.

 

[A'isha]

Are you ever going to answer my question, BAC?

 

[BeAChooser]

My four posts in ten months?

You forgot some Tricky. You forgot the 31 posts in this http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129329 from about 13 months ago.

Well, I was curious to see if you had ever gotten around to answering any of the big questions as to how many people were in on the cover-up and why some of them are enemies of the Clintons or family of the Fosters.

I did … then and now … but again you aren't really bothering to read or remember what I post. Are you. Very Truther-like.

Tell us, Tricky, since you are basically repeating the exact same thing you posted 13 months ago, what was your purpose in posting then? Obviously this conspiracy was just as dead then as it is now. So why did you waste any time on something that you claim no one is or will listen to?

You may now continue with your "wall of text" arguments

Yes, Tricky, I know that Truthers have great difficulty when facts are presented in a logical and complete manner. Their eyes glaze over.

 

[BeAChooser]

Truth of the matter is that any list of anomalies in the Vince Foster case is debunked by actually looking into it, taking a deep breath and realizing that with the amount of people it would take to cover it up, someone would have spoken.

Really?

How does the issue of how many people are involved in this conspiracy in any way alter the photos, eyewitness testimony and Police records that all prove the oven mitt didn't exist until Starr and his team dreamed it up?

How does that issue alter the eyewitness testimony of the only doctor who was visited the scene, and about dozen other first responders, who all said they saw a neck wound and did not see the gaping exit wound in the back of the head that's part of the Official FairyTale?

How does that issue alter the gunpowder residue pattern that proves that Foster's hands must have been in front of the gun, not holding the handle and pulling the trigger as claimed by Starr?

How does that issue change the statements of the family members and other associates the night of the death that Foster was NOT in any way depressed and had been sought medication from the doctor only to help him sleep?

How does that issue change the sworn testimony of the first person to find Foster's body that there wasn't a gun and that his hands were not in the position shown in the "official" photo of the scene?

How does that issue change the fact that contrary to what the Dr Beyer claimed, documents prove the x-ray machine was not broken or the fact that Dr Beyer had checked the box in his autopsy report stating that x-rays were taken?

And I could go on and on and on.

And you won't answer.

Because you don't have a rational answer to any of these questions.

So you what Truther's do.

 

[BeAChooser]

Are you ever going to answer my question, BAC?

I did. Like Tricky, you just won't listen. How Truther-like.

 

[tsig]

Don't you know know there is no statute of limitation on murder ... or covering up a murder? Maybe I just want to see justice done ... eventually. This wouldn't be the first case of a murder tried decades after it occurred.

I see now, it was Hildo with the dildo in the Ballroom.

Shame, I had Clintdo in the orfice with the bimbo.

 

[A'isha]

I did. Like Tricky, you just won't listen. How Truther-like.

Really? What post number was this, pray tell?

Because all I see is you frantically ducking and weaving around it like a nerdy kid in playing dodgeball in gym class.

The only responses to my question were to first offer vague generalities in post 321 about "want[ing] to see justice done" (though you haven't yet offered any explanation whatsoever for how you expect to "see justice done" by posting your conspiracy theory here at JREF, even though I pressed you directly about that), and then by asking Tricky and I just today in post 337 why, if we thought you were being ineffectual, were we even bothering to engage you.

So please, point me to where you answered the question about what you're doing to bring the perpetrators of this terrible crime to justice, and how posting your reams of dross here on this message board is helping you achieve that goal.

 

[BeAChooser]

So please, point me to where you answered the question about what you're doing to bring the perpetrators of this terrible crime to justice, and how posting your reams of dross here on this message board is helping you achieve that goal.

Why do you care, ANTPogo? Isn't this conspiracy already dead as a doornob in your opinion? You seem to be wasting an awful lot of your time trying to attack a conspiracy that you and Tricky have already said went nowhere and is going nowhere. I think most people might understand my motives for pursuing this given all the facts I've brought to light in this thread regarding the dishonesty and sloppy work of the FBI, Fiske and Starr (facts that you, Tricky and the others have simply ignored). But what are your motives? It can't just be "curiosity" about my motives because my motives are clear as day. So let's have some honesty. What are YOUR motives?

 

[332nd]

Why do you care, ANTPogo? Isn't this conspiracy already dead as a doornob in your opinion? You seem to be wasting an awful lot of your time trying to attack a conspiracy that you and Tricky have already said went nowhere and is going nowhere. I think most people might understand my motives for pursuing this given all the facts I've brought to light in this thread regarding the dishonesty and sloppy work of the FBI, Fiske and Starr (facts that you, Tricky and the others have simply ignored). But what are your motives? It can't just be "curiosity" about my motives because my motives are clear as day. So let's have some honesty. What are YOUR motives?

Why does this sound familiar?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Why does this sound familiar?

Because we have all read this from everyone from Holocaust Deniers to Moon Hoax believers. It is a CT'ist staple.

Of course the easy answer to the question posed is my interest as it were would be one of simply making fun of wooish nonsense, especially universally accepted woo as the Vince Foster CT.

BAC>

To answer your attempt at a question about what it all means. It means that your anomalies are not at all convincing because the amount of people needed to pull off the CT you line out would mean the someone would have come forward, got a book deal, had a movie of the week, and been on Oprah by now.

Oh and nice touch with "The official fairytale" line, I haven't read anything so stuck on stupid since reading the thousands of times truthers wrote about the "official conspiracy theory."

"Truther, not a skeptic, not rational." All these attempts at an insult are pretty funny when taken in the context of the one using them. Lets face it, the Vince Foster CT is the partisan Clinton bashing CT of the 90's. It was stupid then, and to support it now is to...dare I say be stuck on stupid? The VF CTers are just the birthers of the 90s or proto-birthers as it were.

 

[kookbreaker]

Why do you care, ANTPogo? Isn't this conspiracy already dead as a doornob in your opinion? You seem to be wasting an awful lot of your time trying to attack a conspiracy that you and Tricky have already said went nowhere and is going nowhere.

I won't presume to speak for ANTpogo, but in my case the answer is simple: an unchallenged assertion can fester and root. Take the case of 9/11 theories. They started small, but mostly unchallenged because to the world it was pretty obvious what happened. But since they went unchallenged they grew a bit. Fortunately, some dedicated skeptics acted pretty quickly to challenge the truthers before they got out of hand. I am glad that I had a small part in that (wheras you, who are free and loose with laughable 'truther' accusations, did nothing from what I can see). I can honestly say that 9/11 trutherism is dead in the water.

But does that mean it is completely gone? No. A ludicrous conspiracy theory (such as the 911 truth or Vince Foster ones) can sometimes be like a disease you survive: you live, you are healthy, but you have some itch, some aches, whatever.

Evidence of this can be seen recently: one of Obama's micro-czars had to resign because he idioticly signed a truther petition some years ago. The Texas governor's race has just had a recent revelation with one of the candidates who all but said they were a truther, but then denied it...too late.

I think most people might understand my motives for pursuing this given all the facts I've brought to light in this thread regarding the dishonesty and sloppy work of the FBI, Fiske and Starr (facts that you, Tricky and the others have simply ignored).

Again, I don't speak for everyone, but I don't think your motives are anything less that hyper-partisanism. The fact that earlier in the thread you happily accused me of 'defending the democratic party' speaks volumes, as is you willingness to accuse widows of taking bribes.

Even if I am totally wrong about your motives, it still brings the question: why are you so passionate about something you refuse to do anything with? That smacks of several forms of cowardice, or someone who is more interesting in raking mud than actually solving anything.

But what are your motives? It can't just be "curiosity" about my motives because my motives are clear as day.

Yes they are: hyper-partisanism. That is obvious except to everyone but you.

So let's have some honesty. What are YOUR motives?

Seems like you've already asked this question and had it answered. It is not a very good smokescreen for hiding the 'why aren't you doing anything with this evidence' question.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

It isn't only the countless "...stuck on stupid" threads, but the nice birther thread here that gives up a clue towards the partisan motivation. Since the motivations of forum members are now apparently part of the discussion.

 

[BeAChooser]

Because we have all read this from everyone from Holocaust Deniers to Moon Hoax believers. It is a CT'ist staple.

Dig dig dig, Truther.

 

[BeAChooser]

I won't presume to speak for ANTpogo, but in my case the answer is simple: an unchallenged assertion can fester and root.

But you didn't challenge the assertions. All you did was make some dishonest statements regarding a few of the facts (as I proved) and totally ignore the vast majority of the incriminating facts. That's not challenging anything. That's hiding from the facts and acting like a 911Truther.

Again, I don't speak for everyone, but I don't think your motives are anything less that hyper-partisanism.

Except that when Bush was in office, I didn't let up on the demand that this be investigated and when it wasn't I warned that his not doing so would make him complicit in this coverup. That statement is one of the reasons I was thrown off Free Republic. That doesn't sound like a hyper-partisan. The partisans were the ones who elected to simply move on because they were afraid pursuing this would cause problems for Bush and his agenda.

why are you so passionate about something you refuse to do anything with?

Like I've told you folks several times (don't you ever listen), you don't know what I've tried to do. And there is no sense in my claiming anything since it's totally unverifiable unless I give my name … and I don't intend to do that.

Furthermore, like I asked you folks above (and didn't get answered) … why would any of you think one lone person will have any success when so many others, like Judicial Watch and eyewitnesses (like Patrick Knowlton), filed lawsuit against the government and specific individuals involved in the coverup, and had no success in getting the matter reopened. Who are you to say that the best approach now is not simply to keep the issue alive at some level and hope eventually to build a feeling in the public at large that something really stinks with the previous *investigations* and that perhaps the matter should be reopened.

That smacks of several forms of cowardice, or someone who is more interesting in raking mud than actually solving anything.

The only cowards I see around here are the ones who won't address the actual facts in this case. The ones hiding behind such spurious claims as *the conspiracy is too big*. The ones accusing me of being a coward because *I* haven't done anything.

 

[fullflavormenthol]

BAC>

Yes, yes we are all truthers here. You got us. You blew our cover, years of shinning the light on ridiculous conspiracy theories was all a cover for promoting 9/11 truth.

Now back to actually defending the Clinton Body Count CT. Isn't it funny that those who originally started this nonsense, the Arkansas Project, gave up on it as soon as Bush was elected? I mean they dropped it in a moment, and in fact the main person behind the Arkansas Project actually backed Hilary Clinton in her presidential bid. Kind of funny that suddenly the murder of Vince Foster wasn't important anymore was it. I suppose they felt it was stupid, and that people and organizations still promoting it are...stuck on stupid?

 

[BeAChooser]

Now back to actually defending the Clinton Body Count CT.

More dishonesty. I have never mentioned or supported the Clinton Body Count CT. In fact, I have on numerous occasions argued against it. It is being dishonestly used to discredit the Vince Foster allegation. Isn't it curious folks how fullflavormenthol refuses to debate the validity of 99% percent of the incriminating facts presented in this thread and was dishonest in his presentation of the other 1% (as I noted earlier). And then he switches to dishonest debating tactics like this.

Isn't it funny the those who originally started this nonsense, the Arkansas Project, gave up on it as soon as Bush was elected?

This statement too is dishonest. The folks who started the Vince Foster allegations were NOT involved in the so-called Arkansas Project. The folks who started this were eyewitnesses in the Foster case (like Patrick Knowlton) and the US Attorney that Starr picked as his top investigator, Miquel Rodriguez.

Why is every statement you make is false, FFM? Because that's what Truther's do?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

BAC>

Yes, yes...truther...okay got it.

Nevertheless, why is it that the people who promoted and started this CT, the Arkansas Project, gave up on it the minute Bush got elected; and the founder of said group went so far as to support Hilary Clinton? Perhaps they felt that continued support for such a obviously stupid CT would be being stuck on stupid?

 

[332nd]

More dishonesty. I have never mentioned or supported the Clinton Body Count CT. In fact, I have on numerous occasions argued against it. It is being dishonestly used to discredit the Vince Foster allegation. Isn't it curious folks how fullflavormenthol refuses to debate the validity of 99% percent of the incriminating facts presented in this thread and was dishonest in his presentation of the other 1% (as I noted earlier). And then he switches to dishonest debating tactics like this.



This statement too is dishonest. The folks who started the Vince Foster allegations were NOT involved in the so-called Arkansas Project. The folks who started this were eyewitnesses in the Foster case (like Patrick Knowlton) and the US Attorney that Starr picked as his top investigator, Miquel Rodriguez.

Why is every statement you make is false, FFM? Because that's what Truther's do?

When are you (and those others who use this "evidence" that shows Vince Foster was "murdered") going to use said "evidence" to bring his killers to justice?

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Here is tonights talking points memo.

BAC seems to think he is addressing an audience, while we at the Factor acknowledge that people may read the forum, we at the Factor doubt that BAC has that much influence. Of course we at the Factor know the anyone can research the Arkansas Project and see them as the primary originator of the Clinton Body Count CT, of which the Vince Foster CT was a center piece. Much in the same way WTC 7 is the center piece of the 9/11 CT.

Of course those who promoted this CT in the 90s gave up on it, and we at the Factor wonder...were they afraid of being stuck on stupid?

And thats the Memo, now to the rest of my program folks.

(towards speaking to an imaginary audience.)

In all seriousness the information is available to look up, and most of it is on this thread. BAC would want us to believe that a conspiracy played out that was so systemic that it was ignored by administrations that were hostile to Clinton, a Congress that would have and did go after him at the drop of a hat; and could only be figured out by those on the internet.

Of course folks, you don't mind if I call you folks? I feel like I know all of you folks personally. Isn't funny how BAC refuses to acknowledge those organizations that promoted and still promote this CT? It would almost seem as if he was trying to hide a partisan reason? And I know you folks wouldn't want that. Especially with your baby on the way, and after you put in that new addition to the living room.

 

[BeAChooser]

why is it that the people who promoted and started this CT, the Arkansas Project

They didn't start these allegations. Why do you keep repeating a falsehood?

Because that's the only way you can find to attack the veracity of the facts cited in this thread?

That's as pathetic as the way 911 Truthers argued.