Justice Watch Discussion Board "MSNBC NOW,,,RAMSEY INTERNET GROUPS" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... MSNBC NOW,,,RAMSEY INTERNET GROUPS, pat, 14:38:37, 6/17/2000 MSNBC, sabrina, 16:46:56, 6/17/2000, (#1) watched it, ericasf, 18:22:31, 6/17/2000, (#2) ericasf, fly, 07:20:45, 6/19/2000, (#3) NBC, ericasf, 07:40:54, 6/19/2000, (#4) Oh, Well..., shadow, 07:46:11, 6/19/2000, (#5) LOL, ericasf, 07:52:42, 6/19/2000, (#6) Speaking of polygraphs, Watching you, 08:09:41, 6/19/2000, (#7) My husband, gaiabetsy, 08:49:03, 6/19/2000, (#8) thread trouble, fly, 09:07:08, 6/19/2000, (#9) fly, shadow, 09:09:19, 6/19/2000, (#10) I'm not having problems, Watching you, 09:13:56, 6/19/2000, (#11) Opinions vary, I suppose..., ConnieToo, 10:56:11, 6/19/2000, (#12) Top Secret "Stuff"..., shadow, 11:04:08, 6/19/2000, (#13) Shadow,, gaiabetsy, 11:56:40, 6/19/2000, (#14) ericasf, fly, 13:04:53, 6/19/2000, (#15) fly and ericasf,, gaiabetsy, 13:28:55, 6/19/2000, (#16) I suppose, Seeker, 14:01:58, 6/19/2000, (#18) fly, jerryz, 13:59:42, 6/19/2000, (#17) web, Cher, 03:02:47, 6/20/2000, (#19) ................................................................... "MSNBC NOW,,,RAMSEY INTERNET GROUPS" Posted by pat on 14:38:37 6/17/2000 there is a special on ramsey now,,,sat 430pm, central time,,on internet groups,,just saw jameson245 [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "MSNBC" Posted by sabrina on 16:46:56 6/17/2000 Missed Hir but saw Danny in his dark overcoat. I think this was a rerun with an update on the lie detector press conference and the infamous Dr. Gelb. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "watched it" Posted by ericasf on 18:22:31 6/17/2000 I have always liked NBC. I thought that they were unbiased as far as a media conglomerate can be unbiased. But today, i watched MSNBC and saw a program that they made called "The JonBenet Mystery". They had so many inconsistencies and out and out lies that they promoted as truths. Such as: 1. The Boulder Police Department was working with an unlimited budget. (This was stated by an NBC legal consultant, Larry P.....) That is truly false. It is said by many people at the BPD (Not only ST) that there was a budget problem when it came to the case. That they were not allotted more money for the case. In fact, the manpower was cut. 2. Patsy PASSED three lie detector tests. She did not pass three. Two were inconclusive and the third she passed. That is a very leading statement and just purely inaccurate. At the end of the program, there was a narrative by an NBC reporter standing next to a picture of JBR. That lasted about 2 seconds before he walked over to the right to stand next to a picture of Patsy and John looking oh so sad. That pissed me off more than anything. It just floored me that NBC, who i considered to be one of the more objective networks out there air this. Oh and here's the real kicker, at the end before the credits but after the lovely narrative, they showed "For a guide on "The JonBenet Mystery", go to www.cable.msnbc.com" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "ericasf" Posted by fly on 07:20:45 6/19/2000 ericasf - As I understand it, technically, PR did pass three tests. Gelb worked the three biggie questions on 3 separate occasions. In other words, although most of us might expect the 3 biggie questions to be tested in the same session on the same day, each was done on a different day. They are counting each day's session as a separate test and giving PR credit for passing each. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "NBC" Posted by ericasf on 07:40:54 6/19/2000 That's such crap, if you would please excuse my language. I just have always thought NBC better than that. Why wouldn't they even mention their own interview that Katie Couric conducted with the Ramseys in which she says that Patsy did not pass the first two actual tests. Because even if Patsy, technically, took 5 tests, the truth stands that she did not pass the first two. It really infuriated me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Oh, Well..." Posted by shadow on 07:47:41 6/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:47:41, 6/19/2000 Whether PR passed one, two or all three of the LD "tests," serves no purpose except for publicity - "the Ramsey effort to rehabilitate their reputation," if you will. While I am not very enthuasistic about LD tests, if PR took, and passed, a LD test conducted under oath by the FBI, I would believe anything she said. As for Dr. Gelb, Alex Hunter screwed-up when he hired only Barry Sheck and Dr. Lee - should have paid-off Douglas and Gelb too. Was it the "Rolling Stones" who said "you always get what you paid for?" shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "LOL" Posted by ericasf on 07:52:42 6/19/2000 Shadow, you are right. It just floored me because I had respect for NBC in regards to them airing the truth. I have lost that respect. Maybe I was niave.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Speaking of polygraphs" Posted by Watching you on 08:09:41 6/19/2000 ain't it cool about the government's giving polygraphs to 26 employees regarding the security breach at DOE? I mean, I wish someone would clarify this minor issue - either polygraphs are sufficiently reliable to implicate/clear someone, or they aren't. Why do we continue to receive such conflicting information regarding these tests? They are not acceptable in a court room, but they are acceptable to deny a person employment or condemn someone at DOE about a security breach? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "My husband" Posted by gaiabetsy on 08:49:03 6/19/2000 is a Phd. Chem. Engineer and works at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (a DOE lab like Los Alamos) and when I asked him if he would object to taking a polygraph, he said yes. I asked why and he said because they are not reliable, a person could be subjected to all kinds of rediculous problems that might cost him his job. He says he thinks the problem is there isn't much priority placed on either the workers and scientists in that top-secret division, so they find it easy to fall into less than ideal handling of important documents. It's the old, "After all, who cares?" Many people in this country as well as government object to spending any money or time in the furtherance of "weapons of war". I used to work in a highly classified section of a place called Y-12, and I lost a secret document. It was the specs to a polaris missile (this happened many years ago). The document guys came in and went through everything, every scrap of paper, numerous times. Finally, they concluded I must have tossed the document into the "confidential" burn barrel, so they downgraded the lost document to "confidential" and wrote it off. Whatcha think about that? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "thread trouble" Posted by fly on 09:07:08 6/19/2000 I'm not seeing the last several posts, including my previous one. Reloading doesn't help, neither does going offline and then returning. Let's see if posting does. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "fly" Posted by shadow on 09:09:19 6/19/2000 Try "refresh"... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "I'm not having problems" Posted by Watching you on 09:13:56 6/19/2000 fly, are you still? Gaiabetsey, years ago I worked in the quality control department in a facility that manufactured ceramic parts for the military and space program. I was privy to very sensitive information - specs and such - and was sworn to confidentiality. At no time was there any special security set up for confidential papers and such, although we all wore badges. In those days we didn't have computers, and papers with mistakes - typos etc - were thrown in the garbage - not shredded. I never was asked to take a polygraph. I personally thought the security at this top secret place was extremely lax. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Opinions vary, I suppose..." Posted by ConnieToo on 10:56:11 6/19/2000 I am subject to polygraph testing every 5 years. The DoD requires it for those of us carrying the clearances I do. The polygraphs are administered by the FBI. They are nothing to be afraid of. What they want to know is if you have had foreign contact with persons who could be trying to secure information from you. They ask questions about your dedication to the security process, your integrity when it comes to handling these documents, and so forth. They give you background questions and develop your comfort level. NO LIFESTYLE questions are asked. I had a problem on my last poly because they asked if I had foreign contact. Of course, I've met many non US citizens on the internet, and although I've met them on line, there was certainly no security issues. I asked the polygrapher if this could be the problem, and she said yes, let's go through it again. Needless to say, that was the "tremor in the blood" they found. They were happy that that was the cause. I had felt comfortable telling them I had no foreign contact, but apparently niggling in my brain somewhere was that cyberspace was foreign contact. Go figure!! Needless to say, you have nothing to fear from polygraphs unless you are trying to pull something over on them. I suspect that the FBI doing a poly on the Ramseys would entail asking some tough questions in areas that their pay/play polly never touched. The FBI are excellent polygraphers. I admire them and their techniques very much. The Ramseys would fail miserably. I wish I could be a fly on the wall if/when the FBI ever gets to test the Patsy... I can see the graph now!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Top Secret "Stuff"..." Posted by shadow on 11:05:12 6/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:05:12, 6/19/2000 I had a Top Secret clearance about 5 years ago and saw lots of "stuff" labelled TS. About 90% was BS and most could be found in military and/or science magazines if you looked hard enough. In addition, a considerable amount of information that is marked secret is secret only to the American people - our friends and ememies already have the info. When I saw the news about the use of Lie Detectors at Los Alamos, I cringed. IMHO, Lie Detector tests are simply "investigative tools" that can be fairly reliable in the hands of interogation(sp?) experts who have no agenda. Unfortunately results can be "rigged" to support agendas... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Shadow," Posted by gaiabetsy on 11:56:40 6/19/2000 I agree with you. I know when I was charged with losing a secret document, my boss remarked that there were no foreign powers who didn't already have access to that file if they wanted it. That sure made me feel a lot better at the time. And you're definitely right the people of this country are the ones who are lied to and misled about secrets and the keeping of them. Of course there was a time when secrets were really kept. My parents used to talk about this place during WWII and how practically nobody knew what was going on; especially that part of the A-bomb was made here. Workers didn't even discuss with each other what their jobs were. It was a different time, though. I hate the whole secret poop! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "ericasf" Posted by fly on 13:04:53 6/19/2000 ericasf - I think their wording somewhat distorts the situation, too. Without knowing the specific on the "inconclusive" first test, it's hard to know who much to emphasize that non-pass. Like many here, I'd love for there to be some consistency in terms of the value of polygraphs. From my perspective, they (at best) suggest areas for further investigation and provide potential leverage for getting somebody to confess. shadow & WY - As you've figured out, I'm sure, I can read again. When whatever this glitch hits me, refresh (reload on my system) doesn't necessarily help. Sometimes posting again does, but not this time. The weird thing is that it often affects only one or two isolated threads. Go figure. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "fly and ericasf," Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:28:55 6/19/2000 don't you think since the Rams took A test they could pass, they'll never consent to another? And that's the end of that game, isn't it? They'll stand on those results forever and argue there is no need to ever conduct another test. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "I suppose" Posted by Seeker on 14:01:58 6/19/2000 that Patsy's own words would continue to be "thrown" back at her. Didn't she say, "I'll take 10 of them (polys)? Of course habitual liars change their minds frequently, distort the truth constantly, and believe everyone of their lies. The only trouble they seem to have it that they cannot remember them... then of course, when they try to "remember" what they said, they make vital flaws in the retelling. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "fly" Posted by jerryz on 13:59:42 6/19/2000 Why, hello there! Sometimes the posts take a little while to appear. And yes, sometimes refresh makes them appear, but more often it does not. I believe server backlog affects delayed appearance. How's the trip look? Jerry [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "web" Posted by Cher on 03:02:47 6/20/2000 Oh what a tangled web we weave When first we practice to deceive How vastly we improve our style When we have practiced Just awhile. Cher . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]