PDA

View Full Version : Another El Dub prediction comes true ...



LWW
11-30-2011, 04:20 AM
In early 2009 I predicted that by the re-election season Barack Hussein Obama Junior would become politically radioactive to the point that his approval numbers would make Bush the Younger and Jimmuh Cahtuh look like rock stars in comparison.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">President Obama's slow ride down Gallup's daily presidential job approval index has finally passed below Jimmy Carter, earning Obama the worst job approval rating of any president at this stage of his term in modern political history.

Since March, Obama's job approval rating has hovered above Carter's, considered among the 20th century's worst presidents, but today Obama's punctured Carter's dismal job approval line. On their comparison chart, Gallup put Obama's job approval rating at 43 percent compared to Carter's 51 percent. </div></div>

Let's review the postwar presidents in order of approval ratings at this point in their regime:



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>-- Dwight Eisenhower: 78 percent.</span>

<span style='font-size: 23pt'>-- George W. Bush: 55 percent.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>-- Ronald Reagan: 54 percent.</span>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>-- Harry S. Truman: 54 percent.</span>

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>-- George H.W. Bush: 52 percent.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>-- Bill Clinton: 51 percent.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>-- Richard M. Nixon: 50 percent.</span>

<span style='font-size: 8pt'>-- Lyndon B. Johnson: 44 percent.</span>

<span style='font-size: 8pt'>-- Barack Hussein Obama Junior: 43 percent.</span>

</div></div>

LET THE DEFLECTIONS BEGIN! (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/11/29/obamas-job-approval-drops-below-carters)

eg8r
11-30-2011, 09:03 AM
He sucks and has sucked since day 1. The lefties here all know this is the truth, they just don't have the gumption to admit it. The rest of America is finally admitting it.

eg8r

sack316
11-30-2011, 10:13 AM
Why are y'all so racist? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

LWW, since you have Cartman as your sig, did you happen to catch the 1% episode? Specifically Cartman's reasoning for using Token's house as a safe haven? Seemingly so true!

Sack

Soflasnapper
11-30-2011, 01:27 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Back in 1979, Carter was far below Obama until the Iran hostage crisis, eerily being duplicated in Tehran today with Iranian protesters storming the British embassy. The early days of the crisis helped Carter's ratings, though his failure to win the release of captured Americans, coupled with a bad economy, led to his defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980.</div></div>

Note, this is a discussion of presidential approval numbers and comparing them, not any kind of deflection from the subject at hand.

Carter gained 29 percentage points in his job approval as the hostage situation began. As of this time in his term, he had soared to 51%, on his way to 58%, based on the same thing that eventually doomed his re-election bid as it kept going on for 14 months.

So, to be clear, Obama has not fallen below the Carter numbers when Carter was unpopular. He was well ahead of them until Carter's numbers soared (briefly) into positive territory based on a nearly unprecedented spike up in so short a time.

Interestingly as well, Obama started this 3rd year some 15% ahead of Reagan's approval number, and per the Gallup interactive chart, stayed ahead of him through mid-July of the respective 3rd year approval numbers.

As for falling below W's numbers, at this point in W's third year of his second term (you know, when he got unpopular?), Obama remains 10 percentage points ahead of W for the early November period.

So no, the prediction isn't really coming true at all. It appears true only when you think the horrible Carter numbers were the brief time he picked up 29 points in approval to have gone into over 50% territory during the beginning of a crisis.

eg8r
11-30-2011, 02:35 PM
I have to know, do you get some sort of kickback from Obama? Do you own a solar company? The numbers are clear as day, Obama's numbers are lower at this given point in time. Why do you strive so hard to fight back every time there is some negative mention about Obama? Can't you just accept that your rose-colored glasses misled you, if not just a tiny bit?

Obama's numbers keep dropping and frankly I just don't think there are enough Libya's for him to bomb, or enough terrorists for him to illegally murder, to save them. As Boortz mentioned today, his polling numbers probably will not matter in the end anyways though so why do you feel the need to defend to the very bitter end?

eg8r

hondo
11-30-2011, 03:36 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Why do you strive so hard to fight back every time there is some negative mention about Obama? Can't you just accept that your rose-colored glasses misled you, if not just a tiny bit?



eg8r </div></div>

Yeah. It's kind've like when you characters so vehemently defended Bush as he rather quickly destroyed the country.
I kept waiting for some epiphany when you would realize what happened. It never came.
Oh, after he got out, dub and a few others started pretending that they were critical of him all along but that was way after the fact and not very convincing. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

LWW
11-30-2011, 05:13 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are y'all so racist? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

LWW, since you have Cartman as your sig, did you happen to catch the 1% episode? Specifically Cartman's reasoning for using Token's house as a safe haven? Seemingly so true!

Sack </div></div>

Yes ... classic.

LWW
11-30-2011, 05:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Back in 1979, Carter was far below Obama until the Iran hostage crisis, eerily being duplicated in Tehran today with Iranian protesters storming the British embassy. The early days of the crisis helped Carter's ratings, though his failure to win the release of captured Americans, coupled with a bad economy, led to his defeat by Ronald Reagan in 1980.</div></div>

Note, this is a discussion of presidential approval numbers and comparing them, not any kind of deflection from the subject at hand.

Carter gained 29 percentage points in his job approval as the hostage situation began. As of this time in his term, he had soared to 51%, on his way to 58%, based on the same thing that eventually doomed his re-election bid as it kept going on for 14 months.

So, to be clear, Obama has not fallen below the Carter numbers when Carter was unpopular. He was well ahead of them until Carter's numbers soared (briefly) into positive territory based on a nearly unprecedented spike up in so short a time.

Interestingly as well, Obama started this 3rd year some 15% ahead of Reagan's approval number, and per the Gallup interactive chart, stayed ahead of him through mid-July of the respective 3rd year approval numbers.

As for falling below W's numbers, at this point in W's third year of his second term (you know, when he got unpopular?), Obama remains 10 percentage points ahead of W for the early November period.

So no, the prediction isn't really coming true at all. It appears true only when you think the horrible Carter numbers were the brief time he picked up 29 points in approval to have gone into over 50% territory during the beginning of a crisis.


</div></div>

Other golden oldies:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Slavish defenses can only go so far! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/tired.gif </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,'</div></div>

LWW
11-30-2011, 05:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have to know, do you get some sort of kickback from Obama? Do you own a solar company? The numbers are clear as day, Obama's numbers are lower at this given point in time. Why do you strive so hard to fight back every time there is some negative mention about Obama? Can't you just accept that your rose-colored glasses misled you, if not just a tiny bit?

Obama's numbers keep dropping and frankly I just don't think there are enough Libya's for him to bomb, or enough terrorists for him to illegally murder, to save them. As Boortz mentioned today, his polling numbers probably will not matter in the end anyways though so why do you feel the need to defend to the very bitter end?

eg8r </div></div>

The only difference between he and charlotte is that his agitprop theater is a little more polished.

Soflasnapper
11-30-2011, 06:19 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have to know, do you get some sort of kickback from Obama? Do you own a solar company? The numbers are clear as day, Obama's numbers are lower at this given point in time. Why do you strive so hard to fight back every time there is some negative mention about Obama? Can't you just accept that your rose-colored glasses misled you, if not just a tiny bit?

Obama's numbers keep dropping and frankly I just don't think there are enough Libya's for him to bomb, or enough terrorists for him to illegally murder, to save them. As Boortz mentioned today, his polling numbers probably will not matter in the end anyways though so why do you feel the need to defend to the very bitter end?

eg8r </div></div>

Since I voted for McGovern for president in '72, I have voted for the Democratic Party's nominee every time. I am a left-leaning Democrat, if I haven't made that clear enough before. That's probably enough of an answer right there.

But to go further (lol!), since the creation of the right-wing mighty Wurlitzer propaganda megaphone, which roughly tracks the rise of Reagan, the Democratic Party and its members have been the target of shameful and grotesque lie campaigns. Prior to the rise of Fox, Rush was the prominent leader of the effort, until Gingrich came around to take the public lead on the effort.

Before blogging, back in the dark days of menu-driven text-based websites like CompuServe, I was making public counter-arguments to their propaganda. So partially, this is force of habit.

But their tactics never changed, except perhaps to worsen, and we are now in a period where their lies have reached a new peak of volume and vitriol. Why would I take a pass now?

But I need not explain why I post true statements to counter false ones. Do you have a problem with the truth? If so, that would be your problem, not mine.

So, I ask you, do Obama's numbers now prove LWW's claim of a correct prediction that they make W's look like a rockstar by comparison, considering that at this identical point in his time of having bad polling numbers, Obama beats his approval number by 10 points?

Is it really fair play to say he's down below the depths of Carter's low approval numbers, when that is based on the timing of when the hostage taking occurred and his numbers exploded by nearly 30 percentage points?

Is Obama the most disapproved president of all time as some claim, if as of the beginning of his 3rd year in office (this very year), he led Reagan's approval rating by 15 percentage points, and had continued that lead until mid-July of this year?

I don't believe that to be the case, and I have explained why, using the Gallup presidential approval numbers in context.

Gayle in MD
11-30-2011, 06:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Why do you strive so hard to fight back every time there is some negative mention about Obama? Can't you just accept that your rose-colored glasses misled you, if not just a tiny bit?



eg8r </div></div>

Yeah. It's kind've like when you characters so vehemently defended Bush as he rather quickly destroyed the country.
I kept waiting for some epiphany when you would realize what happened. It never came.
Oh, after he got out, dub and a few others started pretending that they were critical of him all along but that was way after the fact and not very convincing. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

LMAO! SHEEP!

Repiglicans controlled the congress from 1994 through January of 2007!!!!

Repiglican policies destroyed this country!

Bush left two unfinishced wars, a crashed economy, a lost and wasted surplus, huge deficits, a franchised al Qaeda, the worst legacy EVER LEFT TO ANY PRESIDENT! and then they have the colossal NERVE, to attack President Obama, and blame him for all of it! IDIOTS~!

They attacked all of us for blaming Bush for the mess we watched him create, for eight years, attacks and slander, condescending pigs, who didn't know their asses from a hole in the ground, then when the undeniable result of his incompetence and corruption hit them in their faces, all of a sudden, they were against Bush Policies!

BWA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Why bother with any of them. I'd be satisfied if they would just stay the hell out of MY THREADS and end their incessant lies and denials, distractions and diversions, all of it partisan RW Radical Bull***T.

We were right about Bush and the Blank check Repiglican Congress, and their FAILED ECONOMIC, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC POLICIES, and they were WRONG!

These are the brilliant Repiglican loving flyovers who deny Climate Change, and The Theory Of Evolution!

Knuckle Dragging Neanderthals! Who cares what they think? Take a look at their candidates, that should tell us the whole story about Repiglicans right there.

End Of Story!

G.

Soflasnapper
11-30-2011, 06:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Other golden oldies:

Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper
Slavish defenses can only go so far!


Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper
I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,'
_________________________ </div></div>

???!?!?!

I'm surprised to find you following the Romney tactic of falsely quoted ('true') quotes.

I figured you as a supporter of someone more conservative than he.

But here you are mimicking your Mormon god-king? Dishonest, and more than a bit shocking.

Soflasnapper
11-30-2011, 06:29 PM
Sounds like if if someone attacked Obama by saying he was a convicted felon, and I then objected by stating that wasn't true, you'd find that defense a knee-jerk partisan reaction rather than a simple statement of fact.

That's an extreme example, but how false can an attack be before you would acknowledge correcting the record is just that-- correcting the record-- and not a partisan spin job?

LWW
12-01-2011, 05:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Other golden oldies:

Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper
Slavish defenses can only go so far!


Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper
I always and on all occasions 'slavishly defend dear leader,'
_________________________ </div></div>

???!?!?!

I'm surprised to find you following the Romney tactic of falsely quoted ('true') quotes.

I figured you as a supporter of someone more conservative than he.

But here you are mimicking your Mormon god-king? Dishonest, and more than a bit shocking. </div></div>

Must I link to them?

LWW
12-01-2011, 05:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But here you are mimicking your Mormon god-king? Dishonest, and more than a bit shocking. </div></div>

That was precious ... Romney and Obama are pretty much two peas in a pod.

LWW
12-01-2011, 05:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... why do you feel the need to defend to the very bitter end?

eg8r </div></div>

That is what cult members do. Many stayed in der Fuehrerbunker till the bitter end, and then obediently bit the cyanide capsule. Remember Jim Jones?

Qtec
12-01-2011, 05:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He sucks <span style='font-size: 20pt'>and has sucked since day 1.</span> The lefties here all know this is the truth, they just don't have the gumption to admit it. The rest of America is finally admitting it.

eg8r </div></div>

So, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>you admit</span> that <span style='font-size: 17pt'>before he had even done anything, you thought he sucked!</span> <u>YOU had already made up your mind </u>and ALL your posts prove this.

Q

LWW
12-01-2011, 05:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He sucks <span style='font-size: 20pt'>and has sucked since day 1.</span> The lefties here all know this is the truth, they just don't have the gumption to admit it. The rest of America is finally admitting it.

eg8r </div></div>

So, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>you admit</span> that <span style='font-size: 17pt'>before he had even done anything, you thought he sucked!</span> <u>YOU had already made up your mind </u>and ALL your posts prove this.

Q </div></div>

Not at all ... he had done plenty.

In his books he revealed what he was ... but the left denied it.

His church membership also revealed what he was ... but the left denied it.

Those who actually researched Obama realized his was a thugocrat ... and now that this opinion has been proven correct, you blame those who were smart enough to figure it out?

Go bow before your statue of your godking and do 20 "Hail Barrys."

Sev
12-01-2011, 05:01 PM
So would you defend Obama if a video of him beating Michelle and the kids came out?

Somehow I believe you "left leaning" democrats would come up with all sorts of excuses.

Soflasnapper
12-01-2011, 06:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... why do you feel the need to defend to the very bitter end?

eg8r </div></div>

That is what cult members do. Many stayed in der Fuehrerbunker till the bitter end, and then obediently bit the cyanide capsule. Remember Jim Jones? </div></div>

Yeah, actually, I do.

You apparently do not.

Most of the victims at Jonestown were shot in the back trying to flee, and had not taken the poisoned Kool-Aid.

Soflasnapper
12-01-2011, 06:03 PM
Must I link to them?

I recognize them as my own writing, as stated ironically to tweak you, however.

So again, lying with accurate quotes. As Gingrich said anyone quoting his prior remarks about the Ryan plan was doing.

LWW
12-02-2011, 02:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah, actually, I do.

You apparently do not.

Most of the victims at Jonestown were shot in the back trying to flee, and had not taken the poisoned Kool-Aid.</div></div>

No, actually, you don't.

What you do is fabricate a reality ... which exists only within the confines of your mind ... on the fly to defend your godking and his perverse ideology.

Now, if you have the courage, read on as I expose your latest lie ... and the truth that Jonestown was a radical moonbat crazy leftist totalitarian cult which existed solely to serve it's godking:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Jonestown was the informal name for the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project, an intentional community in northwestern Guyana formed by the Peoples Temple led by Jim Jones. It became internationally notorious when, on November 18, 1978, 918 people died in the settlement as well as in a nearby airstrip and in Georgetown, Guyana's capital. The name of the settlement became synonymous with the incidents at those locations.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>A total of 909 Temple members died in Jonestown, all but two from apparent cyanide poisoning, in an event termed "revolutionary suicide"</span> by Jones and some members on an audio tape of the event and in prior discussions. ...

The Peoples Temple was formed in Indianapolis, Indiana, during the mid-1950s.[2]<span style='font-size: 14pt'> It purported to practice what it called "apostolic socialism".</span>[3][4] In doing so, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the Temple preached to established members that "those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment — socialism."</span> ...

After Peoples Temple participation proved instrumental in the mayoral election victory of George Moscone in 1975, Moscone appointed Jones as the Chairman of the San Francisco Housing Authority Commission.[10] Unlike other figures considered as cult leaders, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Jones enjoyed public support and contact with some of the highest level politicians in the United States. For example, Jones met with Vice Presidential Candidate Walter Mondale and Rosalynn Carter several times.[11] Governor Jerry Brown, Lieutenant Governor Mervyn Dymally, and Assemblyman Willie Brown, among others, attended a large testimonial dinner in honor of Jones in September 1976.</span> ...

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Jones saw Jonestown as both a "socialist paradise"</span> and a "sanctuary" from media scrutiny. ...

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Jones purported to establish Jonestown as a benevolent communist community, stating: "I believe we’re the purest communists there are."</span> ...

After Jones arrived, Jonestown life significantly changed.[36] <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Entertaining movies from Georgetown that the pioneers had watched were eliminated in favor of propaganda shorts on Soviet life provided by the Soviet embassy</span> ...

Jones directed Temple members to write to over a dozen foreign governments<span style='font-size: 14pt'> inquiring about immigration policies relevant to another exodus by the Temple.[73] He also wrote to the U.S. State Department inquiring about North Korea and Albania</span>, then enduring the Sino-Albanian split.[73]

In Georgetown, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>the Peoples Temple conducted frequent meetings with the embassies of the Soviet Union, North Korea, Yugoslavia and Cuba.</span>[74] Their negotiations with the Soviet Union included extensive discussions of possible resettlement there and the Temple produced memoranda discussing potential places within the Soviet Union in which they might settle.[74] Sharon Amos, Michael Prokes and other <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Temple members took active roles in the "Guyana-Korea Friendship Society", which sponsored two seminars on revolutionary concepts of North Korean leader Kim Il Sung.</span>[75]

On October 2, 1978, Feodor Timofeyev from the Soviet Union embassy in Guyana visited Jonestown for two days and gave a speech.[76] Jones stated before the speech that <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"For many years, we have let our sympathies be quite publicly known, that the United States government was not our mother, but that the Soviet Union was our spiritual motherland,"</span> ...</div></div>

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>LEAPING LIZARDS! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonestown)</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I must say in LWW's defence, he really shot down Sofla with this line by line rebuttal.

Q </div></div>

llotter
12-02-2011, 04:18 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Most of the victims at Jonestown were shot in the back trying to flee, and had not taken the poisoned Kool-Aid.

</div></div>

I did not know that. Oh wait, Wiki says that of the 909 that dies, all but two were from drinking the 'kool-aid' or other drug related causes.

LWW
12-02-2011, 04:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Most of the victims at Jonestown were shot in the back trying to flee, and had not taken the poisoned Kool-Aid.

</div></div>

I did not know that. Oh wait, Wiki says that of the 909 that dies, all but two were from drinking the 'kool-aid' or other drug related causes. </div></div>

If dear leader says they were shot in the back, sofa believes they were shot in the back.

And, BTW, how many times have we heard charlotte refer to Jones as a conservative and/or a republican?

Bottom line ... it was a moonbat crazy leftist cult headed my a moonbat crazy leftist self proclaimed godking.

The similarities between the Cult of Jones, the Cult of Hitler, the Cult of Lenin, the Cult of Stalin, the Cult of Mao, The Cult of Che, the Cult of Minh and the Cult of Obama are striking.

Soflasnapper
12-02-2011, 08:47 PM
Yes, that's the story. From the US side and what history relates.

History is the lie commonly agreed upon. -- attributed to Voltaire

What then is, generally speaking, the truth of history ? A fable agreed upon. -- attributed to Napoleon

History will tell lies, as usual. -- George Bernard Shaw

But what did the Guyanese coroner report, and what were the headlines at the time?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "Coroner Says 700 Who Died in Cult were Slain," Miami Herald, 12/17/78; NYT, 12/12/78 (injections, upper arm), 11/17/78 (700 were murdered), 12/18/78 (Mootoo shocks American Academy of Forensic Scientists meeting).

Raven, p. 576 and Miami Herald, 12/17/78 (grand jury decision); Strongest Poison, p. 194 (Gurvich, evidence of shooting, over 600 bodies); NYT, 12/13/78 (grand jury set up), 12/14,15,17/78 (Mootoo testimony, tour of site), 12/23/78 (conclusion, "persons unknown," Katsaris, Moore suicides).

Hold Hands, p. 260, and see footnotes 17, 28, 33 or Lloyd Barker; "Cult Defectors Suspect Cover-up," LAT, 12/18/78; "Jonestown & the CIA, Daily World, 6/23/81; NYT, 12/3,8/78 (Lloyd Barker collusion), 12/7,8,24/78 (Deputy Prime Minister Reid's role), 12/25/78 (U.S. attempts to discredit coroner's jury). Some of the 291 footnotes in this John Judge article. (http://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/Jonestown.html#p8)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The headlines the day of the massacre read: "Cult Dies in South American Jungle: 400 Die in Mass Suicide, 700 Flee into Jungle."[13]</span> By all accounts in the press, as well as People's Temple statements there were at least 1,100 people at Jonestown.[14] There were 809 adult passports found there, and reports of 300 children (276 found among the dead, and 210 never identified). The headline figures from the first day add to the same number: 1,100.[15] <span style='font-size: 14pt'>The original body count done by the Guyanese was 408, and this figure was initially agreed to by U.S. Army authorities on site.[16] However, over the next few days, the total of reported dead began to rise quickly. The Army made a series of misleading and openly false statements about the discrepancy. The new total, which was the official final count, was given almost a week later by American authorities as 913.[17]</span> A total of 16 survivors were reported to have returned to the U.S.[18] Where were the others?

At their first press conference, the Americans claimed that the Guyanese "could not count." These local people had carried out the gruesome job of counting the bodies, and later assisted American troops in the process of poking holes in the flesh lest they explode from the gasses of decay.[19] Then the Americans proposed another theory -- they had missed seeing a pile of bodies at the back of the pavilion. The structure was the size of a small house, and they had been at the scene for days. Finally, we were given the official reason for the discrepancy -- bodies had fallen on top of other bodies, adults covering children.[20]

It was a simple, if morbid, arithmetic that led to the first suspicions. The 408 bodies discovered at first count would have to be able to cover 505 bodies for a total of 913. In addition, those who first worked on the bodies would have been unlikely to miss bodies lying beneath each other since each body had to be punctured. Eighty-two of the bodies first found were those of children, reducing the number that could have been hidden below others.[21] A search of nearly 150 photographs, aerial and close-up, fails to show even one body lying under another, much less 500.[22]

It seemed the first reports were true, 400 had died, and 700 had fled to the jungle. The American authorities claimed to have searched for people who had escaped, but found no evidence of any in the surrounding area.[23] <span style='font-size: 14pt'>At least a hundred Guyanese troops were among the first to arrive, and they were ordered to search the jungle for survivors.[24] In the area, at the same time, British Black Watch troops were on "training exercises," with nearly 600 of their best-trained commandos. Soon, American Green Berets were on site as well.[25] The presence of these soldiers, specially trained in covert killing operations, may explain the increasing numbers of bodies that appeared.

Most of the photographs show the bodies in neat rows, face down. There are few exceptions. Close shots indicate drag marks, as though the bodies were positioned by someone after death.[26] Is it possible that the 700 who fled were rounded up by these troops, brought back to Jonestown and added to the body count?[27]</span>

If so, the bodies would indicate the cause of death. A new word was coined by the media, "suicide-murder." But which was it?[28] Autopsies and forensic science are a developing art. The detectives of death use a variety of scientific methods and clues to determine how people die, when they expire, and the specific cause of death. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>Dr. Mootoo, the top Guyanese pathologist, was at Jonestown within hours after the massacre. Refusing the assistance of U.S. pathologists, he accompanied the teams that counted the dead, examined the bodies, and worked to identify the deceased. While the American press screamed about the "Kool-Aid Suicides," Dr. Mootoo was reaching a much different opinion.[29]</span>

There are certain signs that show the types of poisons that lead to the end of life. Cyanide blocks the messages from the brain to the muscles by changing body chemistry in the central nervous system. Even the "involuntary" functions like breathing and heartbeat get mixed neural signals. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>It is a painful death, breath coming in spurts. The other muscles spasm, limbs twist and contort. The facial muscles draw back into a deadly grin, called "cyanide rictus."[30] All these telling signs were absent in the Jonestown dead. Limbs were limp and relaxed, and the few visible faces showed no sign of distortion.[31]</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Instead, Dr. Mootoo found fresh needle marks at the back of the left shoulder blades of 80-90% of the victims.[32] Others had been shot or strangled.</span> One survivor reported that those who resisted were forced by armed guards.[33] The gun that reportedly shot Jim Jones was lying nearly 200 feet from his body, not a likely suicide weapon.[34] As Chief Medical Examiner, Mootoo's testimony to the Guyanese grand jury investigating Jonestown led to their conclusion that all but three of the people were murdered by "persons unknown." Only two had committed suicide they said.[35] Several pictures show the gun-shot wounds on the bodies as well.[36] The U.S. Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Schuler, said, "No autopsies are needed. The cause of death is not an issue here." The forensic doctors who later did autopsies at Dover, Delaware, were never made aware of Dr. Mootoo's findings.[37] </div></div>
</div></div>

While it remains true that some were shot, I was mistaken to say most were. The reports were instead that most showed fresh hypodermic needle wound in the back, not gunshots in the back as I misremembered.