Michael For Joe
Re: Bruno's responses
Tue May 21, 2019 15:27
2001:558:6027:18:4191:f004:8100:3c47



Wow Joe. That took you a couple just a couple of sentences to explain! Meanwhile, it took me 60 pages and 200 footnotes. Don't like it? Well call it from the hand of an "apologist." Make it "appear" as though its not real or something negative one might distance themselves from. Sorry, that's not me. Do I apologize for Mueller? Or do I lay out what I found and ask questions?

Footnotes and documentation discovered at the NJSP Archives are just that. And by revealing them that does not qualify me as an "apologist." The Chapter (V2, Page 501-60) simply lays out ALL of the information. That includes what people never saw and to this day still have not seen. And yet its all "wrong?" What adjective should we label someone with who evaluates material they've never even laid eyes on?

He did not write that phone number there. The man who did admitted to Lloyd Fisher that he had done it. The address is a different story.



  • Re: Bruno's responsesJoe, Tue May 21 14:49
    Hauptmann admitted to Samuel Foley it was his handwriting, but still creatively adept enough after being caught red-handed to come up with an explanation, which he felt would suffice. If he knew it... more
    • denied itRichard E Sloan, Wed May 22 09:34
      That's right, Joe; he simply would have denied it altogether. Guilty or not, he would have denied it. That's what's so perplexing.
      • Re: denied itMichael For Richard, Wed May 22 09:49
        The Reporter wrote the phone number there. He admitted it to several people but the one who counts for me is Lloyd Fisher. Since I am familiar with Fisher's material he wasn't the type to make... more
        • Re: denied itsteve for mike, Wed May 22 12:53
          that reporter was in gov hoffmans back pocket. I never believed that story, Hauptman admitted writing it his reason is so stupid a little bit interested in the case
          • Re: denied itMichael, Thu May 23 09:32
            Wrong Reporter Steve.
            • Re: denied itsteve for mike, Thu May 23 10:55
              I didn't think there was more liars
    • Re: Bruno's responses — Michael For Joe, Tue May 21 15:27
      • Re: Bruno's responsesJoe, Thu May 23 10:28
        Michael, if it takes you 60 pages and 200 pages of research writing to conclude that a reporter wrote Condon's phone number on the closet trim, based on what Lloyd Fisher claims he was told by the... more
        • Re: Bruno's responsesMichael For Joe, Mon May 27 08:37
          Unfortunately Joe it is in the source documentation - and as I demonstrated - it is anything but clear. And so it appears, in an attempt to mock the amount of research I've done, that you actually... more
          • Re: Bruno's responsesJoe for Michael, Mon May 27 12:26
            Michael, I'm not mocking the amount of research you've done, but I disagree that more is necessarily more, as you seem to believe. That would entirely depend on the irrefutable veracity and relevance ... more
            • Re: Bruno's responsesMichael , Tue May 28 07:58
              And so, by your very own position, you can determine that relevance and veracity without ever seeing or knowing what that is? Look Joe, I wrote what I did to reveal everything available that is... more
Click here to receive daily updates