The Blog With No Name

In response to:Britain's Worst Rock Stars

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 22:57:06 +0200

Hahaha. Couldn't have happened to a nicer washed up has-been.

In response to:Britain's Worst Rock Stars

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 09:15:08 +0200

Heard a little tale about Mr Pellow from the horses mouth you could say. A guy,(big truck driver) was as at a restaurant queuing to be served. Some little guy tries to jump the queue. The Big Trucker says "Hoy there's a back to this queue. Mr Pellow retorts "do you know who I am". The Big Trucker replies. Yes, your a jumped up little twat now fuck off. Alas that was the last he saw of Mr Pellow. To the best of my knowledge.

In response to:Britain's Worst Rock Stars

Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:43:53 +0100

Forgot to mention that wee fanny from chibb town Paisley David Sneddon.. Stop living a lie was his own song, Yes David is there something you would like to tell us about your homosexuality ? Take a seat and I will be right back with a cup of tea and a couple of buns.

In response to:Britain's Worst Rock Stars

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:52:54 +0100

Then there LULU, then theres that nippy sweetie from TEXAS Sharee Spaghetti if thats how one spells her name. Anyway, enuff from me in case on of the others turn out to be a distant reletive.

In response to:Britain's Worst Rock Stars

Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:45:47 +0100

Sheer brill!!! even I'm a jock and have to totally agree about our national embarrassments, You want to add another Scottish band Travis, That wee weasel face singer and his side kick pal with the ginger hair, A REAL 100% PAIR OF WANKERS.

In response to:SHIPS THAT PASS IN THE NIGHT

Tue, 05 Dec 2006 01:12:06 +0100

Dumfoonert he was. The Laird of Cockpen.

In response to:BOUND FOR GLORY

Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:35:58 +0100

They are indeed a fascinating bunch and no mistake.

In response to:BOUND FOR GLORY

Fri, 10 Feb 2006 02:07:00 +0100

Pathological liars are fascinating,I have had dealings with one or two.They actually convince themselves that what they say is the truth and everyone else is wrong! They live in a makebelieve world where they are kings/queens and everyone else is beneath them.

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:13:37 +0100

It has always facinated me and I am open to most theories, but I think we have to conclude based on present research whoever fired, fired as originally thought, from the Depository and not the knoll or elsewhere. I must say I very reluctantly gave up on the knoll, but until somebody comes up with better evidence than this...
http://www.dalemyersanimation.com/html/jfk.htm

I am going to agree with one the one rifle theory. But then again, this only proves a six floor shooter, it still doesn't put the gun in Oswald's hand, but the circumstancial evidence seems to point to him.
It is probably the greatest mystery in Western society. Let's hope society isn't disappointed when the truth finally comes out.

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:04:49 +0100

As you say we will never know though I have to admit that the Kennedy one intrigues me more than the others,it used to be the bullet theory,the one where there had to be more than one bullet from more than one place because of his wounds,however having had the opportunity to study ballistics forensics I can see how one bullet can travel through the body. Doesnt explain an entry wound where there shouldn`t be one!but does explain the damage.
From what I have read and managed to forage out it is more than possible that Oswald was a rogue Government agent,working alone or not well that is one of the great mysteries.

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Fri, 27 Jan 2006 03:41:35 +0100

I'm glad you didn't pass out with the tedium! Why many files are still unreleased is puzzling, but it doesn't necassary mean they pertain directly to a cover up. I would imagine if such a conspiracy existed any incriminating files etc would be in Swiss bank vaults and not the national archives. It would be very silly to have them there. Besides I doubt they wrote the plan down.
Copious evidence exists for the Nazi Final Solution because at the time they thought they would win the war, so why hide it. Obviously by the time they realised the game was up, they never got round to destoying everything and people kept things to incrimnate others and get themselves off.
Similarly, I think the unreleased documents could pertain to potentially embarrassing situations for a] people from the Kennedy & Johnson adminstrations who are still alive and b]members of the intelligence community who are also still with us. Consider if Oswald was infact in the CIA or ONI or the like, and sticking to the traditional view, went rogue and killed Kennedy off his own back for whatever reasons he had. It would not look very good if it came out he was an intelligence agent, albeit one who had gone off message and created his own missions, but still employed by the government. This could be the reason why his tax and employment records have never been released. Despite the passage of time, what president would risk letting all the information out whilst there are still people walking around who could have done something about it. The backlash would be too great, even after forty plus years.
I doubt there is a smoking gun lurking there, just old men wanting to die with their reputations intact. I see the cover up more as damage limitation than conspiracy. Like the current debates raging over 9/11, it seems pretty clear that no-one took any of the intelligence seriously and are continually back pedalling and passing the buck.
Of course with regard to Oswald, it is all speculation. Was he a spy or just a fantasist? Until we know this for sure one way or the other, we cannot begin to make sense of the whole thing.
If he is just a Walter Mitty type, you can be sure the official version is correct. His behaviour would be in line with less high profile killers like Barry George who killed news reader Jill Dando. James Earl Ray who killed Martin Luther King, is a good example. He claimed to be acting with others but the truth is he didn't. Perhaps if Oswald had lived he may have been exposed in the same way.
However if he was an agent, then his conversations with the Police and FBI before and afterthe assassination take on a different nature and lend more weight, but again he could still have acted alone, but could cause problems if left alive. Which leads us to Ruby, but as I said previously, he is an unlikely candidate for espionage.
So as I said until we know who Lee Oswald actually was we will still be in the dark, but I doubt any of that will come out for a long time

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:04:38 +0100

Bored not at all,I like nothing better than to hear someone elses theories and concepts.Yours are interesting,though the one point in the Kennedy affair has always intrigued me,why the elaborate locking away of the files on a thirty year mandate? Why the delay in releasing to the public those files once the thirty years was up? And where are they?
We could of course discuss this all night,but unfortunately I need my beauty sleep ( not that I have a hundred years to spare,lol) but I look forward to discussing this and other matters with you.

In response to:SHIPS THAT PASS IN THE NIGHT

Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:54:25 +0100

I don't think it is that well known to be honest, but it has always been in the back of my mind. I must admit I haven't had the pleasure of watching that particular movie, I just liked the picture.

thanks

the laird

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Thu, 26 Jan 2006 04:50:38 +0100

Yes, that's what I tend to do. I have spent numerous years studying various conspiracy theories and most of them I find to have no real value. Take the Kennedy assassination. I was until recently a fully fledged dis-believer in the Warren Commission version. Certainly no-one can consclusively prove Oswald actually fired the shots, the chances are he did. But until someone disproves Dale Myers' computer reconstruction, [remembering Myers started out as a sceptic of the 'official' version], the grassy knoll gunman must be looked upon as unlikely. Oswald, despite his high profile interest in politics was the only Book Depository employee who went home. Rather odd for a man who seemed to relish the chance to be on television. Ask yourself this question, would you go home to watch it on TV, as he later claimed, when you where right at the epicentre of world attention? Oswald's brother seems to think he did it. Jack Ruby, a man who couldn't keep a secret from one end of a room to another seems an odd choice for the plot. Whether Oswald and Ruby were set up by rogue elements in the intelligence community is another thing, again possible, I'd admit but considering the mess people like Howard Hunt made of a simple break in at the Watergate building, I think we are crediting these people with more intelligence than they actually have. There is no doubting Lee Harvey Oswald was more than he let on to be and his strange life reflects that, but sadly I think he may have acted alone. However the problem is with the passage of time and the micro-scrutiny of these events coupled with the fact people don't always tell the truth when money is involved, we are unlikely to ever get to the bottom of it. I could be proved wrong, but a grand conspiracy just doesn't fit, too many potential leaks in the chain. The only way I see a conspiracy working in the case of the Kennedy assassination is like all theories a little convoluted, but it would have to be. Oswald would have to be convinced he was part of a larger operation and Ruby convinced to kill him. What if either failed? Both of them could talk, so to prevent this both would have to be unaware of the other's involvement in the plot. So you would have to have the conspirators grooming both seperately. Two small details of both their actions each day point towards the likelyhood of the official version being nearest the truth. Oswald took off his wedding ring and left it at home, something he had never done before, so he was going to do something he though the might not come back from. Ruby left his beloved pet dog in his car outside. Surely if he planned to kill Oswald, he would have left it with a friend, knowing he would certainly be arrested or himself killed? This lends more to Ruby's claim of acting on impulse, a character trait of his, rather than being part of a sophisticated plot. Little details which could I suppose be dismissed or explained away, but for me they hold one of the many keys to understanding the whole thing.
I think I have bored you enough for one day. I too am an information junkie, but sometimes too much information just muddies the waters. The Occam's Razor theory that the simplest explanation is usually correct applies here.

Thank you again

the laird...

In response to:SHIPS THAT PASS IN THE NIGHT

Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:16:18 +0100

No not heard of that one but the film Ghost Ship was good wasn`t it?

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Thu, 26 Jan 2006 03:13:15 +0100

Do you not find it interesting to pick apart a theory,look at it from all sides and draw your own conclusions?
I love asking questions that throw up more questions and the search for the answers can take you in all sorts of directions,but then I am an information junkie and just cant seem to get enough.

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Thu, 26 Jan 2006 02:05:00 +0100

Perhaps, but a lot of conspiracy theories are just that, theories, an objective look at the facts from both sides tends to lessen the number of actual conspiracies down to comparatively few genuine cases. It is always a lot easier to accept grand cover ups than face the fact that great lives can be cut short by relative non-entities and misfits as is generally the case in the assassinations of the great and the good or in this particular case, the not so good.

thanks

the laird...

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 16:37:46 +0100

Or to obscure the fact that the people doing the cover up were the people responsible for that event.
Conspiracies abound.
I shall take time to read your other blogs and more of this one later when I have some time.

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:56:40 +0100

Very true, although I think in a lot of cover ups, the cover up is created to obscure the failure to prevent the original event occuring through laziness, slackness or bumbling, rather than anything to do with the actual incident.
Thanks for accepting

the laird...

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 15:13:12 +0100

Romantacised as with a lot of historic people like him.In some cases the truth will out and in others the cover up has been so detailed it raises more questions than it lays to rest.
Thanks for the invite.

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:53:24 +0100

Yes, I think there might be a book about it. The BBC2's Timewatch [I think], had a very good documentary about it which aired a couple of years ago. I had always suspected that the traditional story left a lot to be desired.

Thanks

the laird...

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 13:49:18 +0100

Liz

I think Rasputin was an unusual and charismatic individual and no doubt these days would have started his own cult. As for Fleming, i think you are right, for as far as I can gather he liked to watch and never got his hands dirty.

thanks

the laird...

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:40:30 +0100

I read something similar to this a while ago in one of my conspiracy books,interesting reading.

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 12:39:45 +0100

I read something similar to this a while ago in one of my conspiracy books,interesting reading.

In response to:BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE

Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:03:46 +0100

Very interesting - I've often, well now and and then, wondered at Rasputin's constitution. And I understand that Ian Fleming was advised to take up fiction to exorcise his sadistic fantasies more safely than he might, otherwise, have done.

Thanks

Liz'

In response to:DRINK LIKE A FISH, SINK LIKE A STONE

Tue, 24 Jan 2006 18:59:40 +0100

sometimes less is more. Something I am rarely guilty of in my rambling monologues.

Thanks for reading

the laird...

In response to:DRINK LIKE A FISH, SINK LIKE A STONE

Tue, 24 Jan 2006 15:47:56 +0100

I envy 'norelearning' that eloquent exclamation mark.

Liz

In response to:PLANET EARTH IS BLUE

Sun, 22 Jan 2006 22:40:38 +0100

Thanks, I'll have a look.

In response to:PLANET EARTH IS BLUE

Sun, 22 Jan 2006 21:48:34 +0100

If you'd like an insider perspective on nuclear power (in the US, but all plants in the West have similar issues) see http://RadDecision.blogspot.com for a novel by a longtime nuclear engineer, available at no cost to readers. It was written with the lay person in mind.

In response to:DRINK LIKE A FISH, SINK LIKE A STONE

Sun, 22 Jan 2006 16:25:39 +0100

That's what I thought. My subsequent trip to the hospital is equally ridiculous.