JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: W. Tracy Parnell on October 31, 2021, 08:52:18 PM
-
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-jfk-files-rhetoric-vs-truth.html
-
Says the guy spewing LN rhetoric...
-
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-jfk-files-rhetoric-vs-truth.html
My threads on this forum explain that SSA Hickey fired an accidental auto burst of his AR15, & that the last shot hit JFK at Z313.
Then after that there was a conspiracy to cover the accident up.
Oswald saw it happen. He knew he was a patsy.
Oswald fired 2 shots, the first ricocheted off the signal arm, some lead fragments showing up in Xrays (on the back of JFK's head).
The second shot is the magic bullet at about Z218.
It will be interesting to see if there is much documentation re this real conspiracy.
I doubt that there have been any additional conspiracy(s). What could they be wanting to hide? They could only be about peripheral issues of secondary importance. In theory we cant rule out the possibility of parallel plans to assassinate (highly unlikely), which never reached fruition.
Anyhow, there were no shots from the grassy knoll or elsewhere.
And there were no snipers on the grassy knoll or elsewhere.
We had a Carcano & an AR15. And a dead President.
But, that aint the end of story.
Lots more to come, one day.
-
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-jfk-files-rhetoric-vs-truth.html
Mark Zaid, a Democratic Political Operative and Deep State national security lawyer said:
… there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now.
Let's unpack what Zaid said...
He's completely speculating about what's in the files. He clearly doesn't know anymore than you or I.
He suggests that they could be protecting sources who are still alive, which is true but becoming rarer as times moves on. Zaid also overlooks that the CIA is still keeping secret, files on long deceased people of interest in JFK assassination lore like:
- David Atlee Phillips
- William King Harvey
- George Joannides
I still doubt that there's a "smoking gun" hidden in the remaining documents. What I expect is that the remaining files will create more "smoke" and lead to more questions than answers...
-
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-jfk-files-rhetoric-vs-truth.html
This article makes some excellent points.
Namely, it’s possible that these documents do not show any compelling evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. I think this is very probable. And, without a doubt, they do hold sensitive information that should not be released. It is inconceivable that they do not.
In any case, the U. S. government continuing to withhold this information is not any kind of a proof of the governments guilty in this matter. CTers just assume otherwise.
-
What could still be "sensitive" 60 years later? Embarrassing maybe.
-
The only rhetoric that I see consistently is how exhaustive and thorough the Warren Commission was in their quest for the facts. Who said recently we choose truth over facts or was it the other way around?
From the article--
To his credit, at least one conspiracy-minded author agrees with Zaid’s assessment of no “smoking gun.” David Kaiser, a former history professor at the Naval War College and author of The Road to Dallas, told Politico:
Do I believe the CIA has a file that shows former CIA Director Allen Dulles presided over the assassination? No. But I’m afraid there are people who will believe things like that no matter what is in the files.
Actually...Dulles presided over quite a bit of intelligence interests...Why do we think he was selected? Because he was a sweet and kindly jurist?
If the Report was so thorough and exhaustive then why all the other inquests?
As for the proof that Oswald killed JFK, government investigations including a preliminary inquiry by the FBI, the Rockefeller Commission, the Clark Panel, the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) reaffirmed all or part of the WC’s conclusions
So?
Exactly who here has actually read all those reports?
The easiest myth to debunk is that the WC was merely a vehicle used to coverup a vast conspiracy. That notion was put to bed by Howard Willens’ 2013 book History Will Prove Us Right
Another Oswald did it book? Another? Really.. another?
-
What could still be "sensitive" 60 years later? Embarrassing maybe.
From the article quoting Mark Zaid:
"there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now."
-
Another Oswald did it book? Another? Really.. another?
It is more a book about how they went about conducting the investigation (Willens shows that the investigation was dilligent and comprehensive). Which I use to counter the argument that the WC was merely a coverup vehicle.
-
...and who do these hypothetical sources in their 80s need protecting from?
-
Willens shows that the investigation was dilligent and comprehensive. Which I use to counter the argument that the WC was merely a coverup vehicle.
The WC was merely a coverup vehicle. A rubber stamp followed by other rubber stamps that gave a Thumb1: to the Dallas police, Secret Service, CIA and the FBI---moderately admonishing carelessness respectively.
The district attorney of Dallas [Henry Wade] declared the evening of the assassination that "We have our man on all counts"...so what was the need of any further investigation?---There really was no investigation.
Jean Davison, Priscilla McMillan, Gerald Posner, Norman Mailer, Vincent Bugliosi and others have shown that the key to the case lies in a detailed study of the entirety of Oswald’s life. Their work proves that he was a misanthropic loner
Don't leave David Belin and Gerald Ford out. Even if Oswald was a derelict that doesn't prove that he was a cold blooded killer.
Much more sinister motives lie in the assassination and the government chose to ignore them.
-
...and who do these hypothetical sources in their 80s need protecting from?
Who knows? You would have to know the circumstances regarding each source to answer that. But they have the right to be protected. I'll give you an example. John Whitten, who famously went by the alias John Scelso in certain documents, wanted his name to be protected because he lived in Europe and reasonably believed he could be in danger if his CIA employment were common knowledge. The ARRB agreed with him. Upon his death, the name was released. And when it was, no one knew anything more about the "JFK assassination truth" than they did before.
-
Who knows? You would have to know the circumstances regarding each source to answer that. But they have the right to be protected. I'll give you an example. John Whitten, who famously went by the alias John Scelso in certain documents, wanted his name to be protected because he lived in Europe and reasonably believed he could be in danger if his CIA employment were common knowledge. The ARRB agreed with him. Upon his death, the name was released. And when it was, no one knew anything more about the "JFK assassination truth" than they did before.
There are several dead CIA officers’ files still being kept secret.
Why does the ghost of William Harvey need protection?
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/C1QtRy9h/ENDURING-10-TH-PATTON.png)
billchapman
Nothing sinister nor any rhetoric needed. Watch this:
Oswald signed off—in full view—at 10th & Patton as a cold-blooded killer
Oswald served himself up on a silver platter and got what he deserved
'What goes around comes around'
What went around came around:
A) Oswald ambushes Tippit
B) Ruby ambushes Oswald
An eye for an eye
Justice is served
And that's the truth
(https://i.postimg.cc/5yHjh1Nf/GOES-OSWALD-TIPPIT.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jzh7vMTv/GOES-RUBY-OSWALD.png)
billchapman
-
What goes around comes around
I believe everyone has seen Chapman's position here. Now if he will do the board a favor and go back and delete all of those idiotic images that have been posted and recover untold gigabytes of valuable web space ::)
-
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-jfk-files-rhetoric-vs-truth.html
It's dishonest to be blaming President Biden for not releasing the JFK Files when we had several previous Presidents who could have already released the JFK Files. Obviously something is still being protected from coming out which is why they are still under wraps. What that is who knows, but to falsely state that Biden is refusing to release them is very dishonest when we had previous Presidents that never released them as well. Why aren't you blaming them?
-
There are several dead CIA officers’ files still being kept secret.
Why does the ghost of William Harvey need protection?
I wasn't talking about Harvey. But to answer your question, there could be sources and methods in Harvey's file that need to be protected or that the CIA at least believes need protection.
-
I wasn't talking about Harvey. But to answer your question, there could be sources and methods in Harvey's file that need to be protected or that the CIA at least believes need protection.
From day one, the CIA has prioritized protecting the CIA from serious inquiries.
Hundreds of books have been published about Espionage sources and methods from 60 years ago.
Harvey’s adventures in Europe have been pretty well documented.
Espionage today is more high-tech. No one really buys the “sources and methods” thing anymore.
-
I believe everyone has seen Chapman's position here. Now if he will do the board a favor and go back and delete all of those idiotic images that have been posted and recover untold gigabytes of valuable web space ::)
:'(
Boo-hoo.
-----------
Meantime
-----------
So far I have contributed US$150.00 to the forum. I haven't noticed any contributions from you. You're a freeloader, Freeman.
Now, maybe stop running your mouth and leave a little oxygen for the rest of us.
-
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2021/10/the-jfk-files-rhetoric-vs-truth.html
Tracy: Aren't these documents the same ones that were found and reviewed by the AARB ARRB and then withheld on national security concerns? These are the ones that Judge Tunheim said he saw and that, in his opinion, contained sources and methods and nothing indicating a conspiracy?
Or is this a different batch?
As to Morley: at this point the man has turned into a tabloid style conspiracy writer. He's gotten progressively irresponsible over the years and now seems to hit bottom. Anyone who writes that the CIA is an "incipient Gestapo" is, frankly, not very reliable. That idea may have made sense - or was debatable - after the "Family Jewels" revelations in the 1970s that showed the agency engaging in lawless and immoral activity (almost all approved by presidents including JFK). But the CIA today is a far different entity. Gestapo? They're largely a incompetent bureaucracy that can't get out its way.
Nalli's comment that you quote summarizes this whole controversy quite well (if that's possible):
"Once we start denying key pieces of evidence (e.g., the Zapruder Film, autopsy materials, physical evidence, etc.) without ironclad proof (i.e., other more fundamental evidence), we can then deny all the evidence on the same grounds. And once we have descended to that point, we no longer have any basis for investigation or argument, nor any basis for ‘believing it’—we are simply wasting our time debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin."
That's it. Oswald defenders/apologists and conspiracists think that by finding that an official lied (some did), or an eyewitness was wrong (some were), or aspects were covered up (they were) that that itself constitutes enough evidence to show a conspiracy. That Oswald was framed. That larger forces were behind the event. Sorry, it's not.
But here we are some almost six decades later with the same arguments, the same discussions. At this point the evidence is sufficient: one can accept the fact that a nobody like Oswald changed history or that no, it has to be much more than that simple explanation. People have a need to believe that great events must have a great cause behind it. They can't or won't believe that Oswald was the agent that altered the world so much. The Oswald cult is like the Trump cult. Their guy simply didn't do anything wrong.
-
You could say the same thing about the cult that believes the WC got it right.
-
From the article quoting Mark Zaid:
"there is the possibility there's some information within these files that still needs to be protected … I'll give you one example. Lee Harvey Oswald, the expected assassin, went to Mexico City in September of 1963. We know he visited the Soviet and the Cuban embassies. We might have had, probably did, sources in those embassies, both human and technical, and protecting those sources, especially human, they could still be alive 58 years later. They could be in their 80s right now."
In Jefferson Morley's book on Win Scott he shows pretty convincingly that the US government, through the CIA, had essentially bribed much of the Mexican government to follow US policy.
I'll guess that some of those officials are still alive and were promised anonymity in return for, er, let's say "cooperation".
As to sources in the embassies: the CIA was pretty adamant that Oswald never met Cuban officials or had any dealings with Cuban connected people outside of the incidents in the embassies and consulates. This included the so-called "twist party" that Oswald allegedly went to where he was seen with some Cuban embassy officials including the consul Azcue. The CIA said it never happened. I'll guess that sources - Duran? - who did attend the party said Oswald never was there. Would they still be alive?
-
In Jefferson Morley's book on Win Scott he shows pretty convincingly that the US government, through the CIA, had essentially bribed much of the Mexican government to follow US policy.
I'll guess that some of those officials are still alive and were promised anonymity in return for cooperation.
As to sources in the embassies: the CIA was pretty adamant that Oswald never met Cuban officials or had any dealings with Cuban connected people outside of the incidents in the embassies and consulates. This included the so-called "twist party" that Oswald allegedly went to where he was seen with some Cuban embassy officials including the consul Azcue. The CIA said it never happened. I'll guess that sources - Duran? - who did attend the party said Oswald never was there. Would they still be alive?
Who in the Mexican government from back in 1963 is still serving in their government today? ???
They’ve gone through several changes in government since the 1960s and the current regime doesn’t have a cozy relationship with the US.
Names of sensitive government assets usually can be redacted.
Does it violate the JFK Records Act to release the records with redactions?
-
You could say the same thing about the cult that believes the WC got it right.
And the HSCA cult? And the Washington Post cult? And the PBS cult?
We've had numerous investigations by the government and by the media and by private reporters/historians directly and indirectly into this event. They found nothing (yes, I'm including the HSCA).
You just dismiss all of this. Everybody lied, everybody was corrupted, everybody was fooled.
Right, who really has a faith based view on Oswald's innocence here?
-
I believe everyone has seen Chapman's position here. Now if he will do the board a favor and go back and delete all of those idiotic images that have been posted and recover untold gigabytes of valuable web space ::)
'untold gigabytes'
_the average image bandwidth hit is as seen below, Giggles
'valuable web space'
_I have yet to see you contribute money to the forum
--------------
INFO for ???
'THE UNTOLD'
(AKA CTers)
--------------
(https://i.postimg.cc/MGcSk88X/bald-01.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/R0g5b8zF/bald-02.png)
billchapman
(https://i.postimg.cc/mkfp6vbx/UNTOLD-GIGS.png)
One thousand KB = One MB
One thousand MB = One GB
The posted samples are each a mere 714Kb
Not even ONE Mb
Do the math, GIGgles
And consider yourself TOLD
-
'untold gigabytes'
_the average image bandwidth hit is as seen below, Giggles
'valuable web space'
_I have yet to see you contribute money to the forum
--------------
INFO for ???
'THE UNTOLD'
(AKA CTers)
--------------
One thousand KB = One MB
One thousand MB = One GB
The posted sample is a mere 714Kb
Not even ONE Mb
Do the math, GIGgles
And consider yourself TOLD
O idiotic pictures = O MB bandwith
-
And the HSCA cult? And the Washington Post cult? And the PBS cult?
We've had numerous investigations by the government and by the media and by private reporters/historians directly and indirectly into this event. They found nothing (yes, I'm including the HSCA).
You just dismiss all of this. Everybody lied, everybody was corrupted, everybody was fooled.
Right, who really has a faith based view on Oswald's innocence here?
The 10th & Patton sightings of the 'Gang of 4' doing his/their thing by the 'Gang of 12+' requires no cultish behaviour on anybody's part except the gang of 'AnybodyButOswald'.
(https://i.postimg.cc/cCqBZbSY/GANG-OF-4.png)
billchapman
Gang of 4_Oswald/Hidell/OH Lee/Dirty Harvey
(https://i.postimg.cc/jd28KptQ/QUOTES-PATTON-2.png)
billchapman
Gang of 12+_Rosetta-stone environs
-
O idiotic pictures = O MB bandwith
Says the zero who doesn't know the difference between ''0" and "O" on the keyboard
(https://i.postimg.cc/fy21804r/ZEROED-IN.png)
-
And the HSCA cult? And the Washington Post cult? And the PBS cult?
We've had numerous investigations by the government and by the media and by private reporters/historians directly and indirectly into this event. They found nothing (yes, I'm including the HSCA).
You just dismiss all of this. Everybody lied, everybody was corrupted, everybody was fooled.
Right, who really has a faith based view on Oswald's innocence here?
There’s lots of room for speculation and not everyone who believes there was a conspiracy assumes Oswald was framed.
Some people involved with all the investigations that you mentioned suspected or believed there was a conspiracy. It just can’t be proven that there was a conspiracy at this point and may never be proven.
The biggest Tell for me is that both Lyndon Johnson and Robert Kennedy privately suspected that there was a conspiracy while publicly supporting the Warren report (Johnson publicly admitted so suspecting a conspiracy shortly before he died). Why did they feel the need to support the Warren Report? We’ll never know but we can speculate.
I’m afraid the complete declassification of JFK assassination related files will never happen as they will keep using the same excuses for delaying compliance with the Law…
-
Says the zero who doesn't know the difference between ''0" and "O" on the keyboard
Well, you would know more than anybody about zero! After all it takes one to know one.
-
So far I have contributed US$150.00 to the forum. I haven't noticed any contributions from you.
This is a research forum? = None, no, nada, ziltch that is--"0" gainful knowledge from you here.
So keep posting your silly cartoons, gifs, and bogus youtube clips if you really think you've earned it :D
I have contributed thoughtful scrutiny here...judge lest you be judged---pitiful one.
-
We've had numerous investigations by the government and by the media and by private reporters/historians directly and indirectly into this event. They found nothing (yes, I'm including the HSCA).
These "investigations" relied on all of the same conjectures, assumptions, and flawed source material as the WC. Don't pretend that they were somehow independent. Or actual investigations.
-
Well, you would know more than anybody about zero! After all it takes one to know one.
There's nothing 'zero' about the truth regarding the very low bandwidth
hits of my innovative, to-the-point method of communication
So as you pair of rats scurry off your stinking, sinking ship-of-fools,
I will remind others that my push-back re Freeman concerns his
charge that the images involved score Gigabyte levels of bandwidth usage
Watch this, and keep in mind that you can pull the original image off the forum
page onto your desktop and get the image size using your own 'Get info' app.
Here: Pull this off the forum page and yank it to your desktop
(https://i.postimg.cc/MGcSk88X/bald-01.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0KkBsdw/BALD-01-INFO.png)
-
Tracy: Aren't these documents the same ones that were found and reviewed by the AARB ARRB and then withheld on national security concerns? These are the ones that Judge Tunheim said he saw and that, in his opinion, contained sources and methods and nothing indicating a conspiracy?
Or is this a different batch?
To my knowledge, we are indeed talking about the same documents and they were all reviewed by Tunheim. He saw no smoking guns.
I couldn't agree more with the rest of your comments and the way you have expressed them. Morley can't be taken seriously as a journalist anymore-he is a far left conspiracy activist. I wish everyone would read Nalli's article. The case against Oswald is as ironclad in 2021 as it was in 1964. Perhaps even more so.
Thanks for reading my article.
-
This is a research forum? = None, no, nada, ziltch that is--"0" gainful knowledge from you here.
So keep posting your silly cartoons, gifs, and bogus youtube clips if you really think you've earned it :D
I have contributed thoughtful scrutiny here...judge lest you be judged---pitiful one.
(https://i.postimg.cc/MpyV6CRz/cartoon-library-section.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/g032nC8c/me-i-thought-that-was-you.png)
Your 'thoughtful scrutiny' has only revealed your ridiculous, adolescent 'asks'. The worst, most useless I've seen on this forum. That, amid six decades of nameless 'conspirators', and shooter(s) not named Oswald. What... too soon?
Now, be a man.. answer your charges and tell us how you came with any GB-sized bandwidth hits. What, too soon?
UPDATED 7:38PM EST
-
There's nothing 'zero' about the truth regarding the very low bandwidth
hits of my innovative, to-the-point method of communication
So as you pair of rats scurry off your stinking, sinking ship-of-fools,
I will remind others that my push-back re Freeman concerns his
charge that the images involved score Gigabyte levels of bandwidth usage
Watch this, and keep in mind that you can pull the original image off the forum
page onto your desktop and get the image size using your own 'Get info' app.
Here: Pull this off the forum page and yank it to your desktop
There's nothing 'zero' about the truth regarding the very low bandwidth
That may be, but there is everything zero about you.
And the next time you call forum members "rats", I will demand that admin enforces the rules of the forum.
-
...there is everything zero about you. And the next time you call forum members "rats", I will demand that admin enforces the rules of the forum.
You see Bill Chapman....nobody likes you.
-
There's nothing 'zero' about the truth regarding the very low bandwidth
That may be, but there is everything zero about you.
And the next time you call forum members "rats", I will demand that admin enforces the rules of the forum.
LOL. All of a sudden you're lilly white.
The guy who insults every LN in every post. The guy who, when new rules were announced concerning paying a fine if rules were broken said 'nobody is going to tell me what to say'
You're a real piece of work, Slick..
-
LOL. All of a sudden you're lilly white.
The guy who insults every LN in every post. The guy who, when new rules were announced concerning paying a fine if rules were broken said 'nobody is going to tell me what to say'
You're a real piece of work, Slick..
You're a real piece of work, Slick..
It takes one to know one. But go ahead and try your luck...
-
You see Bill Chapman....nobody likes you.
:'(
I'm all shook up
-
:'(
I'm all shook up
Of course your not... you're used to people not liking you all your life, so why should you be shook up.
-
To my knowledge, we are indeed talking about the same documents and they were all reviewed by Tunheim. He saw no smoking guns.
You guys love to use strawmen.
No JFK assassination researcher to my knowledge has the expectation that there’s a smoking gun in the government’s JFK files.
I couldn't agree more with the rest of your comments and the way you have expressed them. Morley can't be taken seriously as a journalist anymore-he is a far left conspiracy activist. I wish everyone would read Nalli's article. The case against Oswald is as ironclad in 2021 as it was in 1964. Perhaps even more so.
Thanks for reading my article.
Morley is a great journalist and JFK assassination researcher.
We may never find the truth about who killed JFK but I think Morley, John Newman and others are onto something with their research into how much James Angelton and others knew about Oswald prior to 11/22/63.
-
.... everybody was fooled.
Not everybody.... "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."-----Abraham Lincoln
Right, who really has a faith based view on Oswald's innocence here?
A person is considered innocent of a crime until convicted in a court of law---6th Amendment
-
Of course your not... you're used to people not liking you all your life, so why should you be shook up.
You and Freeman started this attempted/failed bullying:
Now lets see you take your own medicine:
You're so unlikeable that even kids and dogs can't stand you. You're so unliked that even the only friends you've ever had (Tom Collins, Jim Beam and Jack Daniels) can't stomach you.—Bill Chapman/Hunter of Trolls
In short, you're the one needing approval, acceptance and respect. You're the one who needing ego-bolstering.
Now name names regarding your conspiracy/shooters JAQing around
Or shut up... you unskilled, talentless amateur
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNq47qmv/WAITWHAT-2.png)
biilchapman
------------------------------------------------
Bandwidth hit on Wait/What image: 338Kb
------------------------------------------------
-
Not everybody.... "You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time."-----Abraham LincolnA person is considered innocent of a crime until convicted in a court of law---6th Amendment
Your man-crush got what he deserved
(https://i.postimg.cc/5yHjh1Nf/GOES-OSWALD-TIPPIT.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jzh7vMTv/GOES-RUBY-OSWALD.png)
billchapman/hunter of trolls
-------------------------------
BANDWIDTH HIT_338Kb x2
-------------------------------
-
You and Freeman started this attempted/failed bullying:
Now lets see you take your own medicine:
You're so unlikeable that even kids and dogs can't stand you. You're so unliked that even the only friends you've ever had (Tom Collins, Jim Beam and Jack Daniels) can't stomach you.—Bill Chapman/Hunter of Trolls
In short, you're the one needing approval, acceptance and respect. You're the one who needing ego-bolstering.
Now name names regarding your conspiracy/shooters JAQing around
Or shut up... you unskilled, talentless amateur
(https://i.postimg.cc/SNq47qmv/WAITWHAT-2.png)
biilchapman
------------------------------------------------
Bandwidth hit on Wait/What image: 338Kb
------------------------------------------------
LOL.... You don't even understand just how pathetic this post is, do you now?
-
LOL.... You don't even understand just how pathetic this post is, do you now?
Another CT nothingburger
Keep dodging, Slick
Wait.. still no names?
What.. too soon?
You don't understand how pathetic you are, do you now..
-
Another CT nothingburger
Keep dodging, Slick
Wait.. still no names?
What.. too soon?
You don't understand how pathetic you are, do you now..
And another temper tantrum from a nobody.... keep 'm coming.
Btw, next time when you ask a question, don't forget the question mark!
-
And another temper tantrum from a nobody.... keep 'm coming.
Btw, next time when you ask a question, don't forget the question mark!
A) No temper tantrum necessary. Just the observation that you lot still cannot produce names to back up your claims
B) I wonder why you think a statement — not a question — needs a question mark..
keep 'm coming
Try 'keep 'em coming' next time you try to be clever, Bubba
-
A) No temper tantrum necessary. Just the observation that you lot still cannot produce names to back up your claims
B) I wonder why you think a statement — not a question — needs a question mark..
keep 'm coming
Try 'keep 'em coming' next time you try to be clever, Bubba
No temper tantrum necessary.
Then why throw one?
I wonder why you think a statement — not a question — needs a question mark..
So, you don't know the difference between a statement and a question?..... The "do you now" part at the end is the give away.
-
No temper tantrum necessary.
Then why throw one?
I wonder why you think a statement — not a question — needs a question mark..
So, you don't know the difference between a statement and a question?..... The "do you now" part at the end is the give away.
Then why throw one?
A temper tantrum requires the presence of emotion. Point out the emotion in 'you lot still cannot produce names to back up your claims.'
The fact is, you lot always pull the 'temper' thing out when you cannot defend your claims, or even just attempt to form a sensible answer.
The "do you now" part at the end is the give away.
_TIP: Try 'giveaway' next time you want to pretend to be educated
_The ellipsis at the end of 'do you now' — rather than a question mark — indicate that I am not asking a question... rather, it's used in mockery in this case.
-
Then why throw one?
A temper tantrum requires the presence of emotion. Point out the emotion in 'you lot still cannot produce names to back up your claims.'
The fact is, you lot always pull the 'temper' thing out when you cannot defend your claims, or even just attempt to form a sensible answer.
The "do you now" part at the end is the give away.
_TIP: Try 'giveaway' next time you want to pretend to be educated
_The ellipsis at the end of 'do you now' — rather than a question mark — indicate that I am not asking a question... rather, it's used in mockery in this case.
Your desperate need to reply to everything and your vain, comical, attempts to "prove" your superiority would be hilarious, if they were not so pitiful.
-
We may never find the truth about who killed JFK but I think Morley, John Newman and others are onto something with their research into how much James Angelton and others knew about Oswald prior to 11/22/63.
I don't believe it, but for the sake of argument let's say Angleton was closely monitoring Oswald's activities. Since all the credible evidence points to Oswald, all that proves is that (in a perfect world) the CIA could have warned the FBI or Dallas police that Oswald was a potential threat. Then we could add the CIA to the list of agencies (along with the FBI and Secret Service) that could have averted the tragedy if they had acted "properly." But that's in a perfect world and we don't live in one.
In any case, the likelyhood is that Angleton had Oswald's file but paid little attention to it. And after he realized Oswald killed JFK, he obviously wasn't anxious for his "knowledge" of the assassin to get around.
-
I don't believe it, but for the sake of argument let's say Angleton was closely monitoring Oswald's activities. Since all the credible evidence points to Oswald, all that proves is that (in a perfect world) the CIA could have warned the FBI or Dallas police that Oswald was a potential threat. Then we could add the CIA to the list of agencies (along with the FBI and Secret Service) that could have averted the tragedy if they had acted "properly." But that's in a perfect world and we don't live in one.
In any case, the likelyhood is that Angleton had Oswald's file but paid little attention to it. And after he realized Oswald killed JFK, he obviously wasn't anxious for his "knowledge" of the assassin to get around.
It seems plausible that some government agencies are covering up their knowledge of and/or relationships with the President's alleged assassin.
But it also seems plausible that the CIA suspects that some agents or contractors that they employed in the early 60s might be connected to the JFK assassination. No smoking gun in the files but maybe more smoke surrounding some of the deceased agents whose files are still being kept secret.
The former seems less politically problematic than the latter...
-
Your desperate need to reply to everything and your vain, comical, attempts to "prove" your superiority would be hilarious, if they were not so pitiful.
No need to prove anything: You lot are still writing cheques that you can't cash.
And when someone comes at me the way you do, they will face severe push-back.
AND I'm not about to stand down regarding your failure to attach names to your claims
_You and Freeman started the 'nobody likes you' thing, to which I responded in kind
_Failure to attach names to your claims, your desperation led you to bring up what you claim was a punctuation error... while at the same time committing your own punctuation errors. Now that's what I call hilarious.
_Your issues with superiority come as no surprise, given your (failed) attempts to bully everybody who disagrees with you.
-
No need to prove anything: You lot are still writing cheques that you can't cash.
And when someone comes at me the way you do, they will face severe push-back.
AND I'm not about to stand down regarding your failure to attach names to your claims
_You and Freeman started the 'nobody likes you' thing, to which I responded in kind
_Failure to attach names to your claims, your desperation led you to bring up what you claim was a punctuation error... while at the same time committing your own punctuation errors. Now that's what I call hilarious.
_Your issues with superiority come as no surprise, given your (failed) attempts to bully everybody who disagrees with you.
No surprise that you couldn't resist to reply, again.....
You and Freeman started the 'nobody likes you' thing, to which I responded in kind
You can respond all you want. It doesn't alter the fact that nobody likes you.
Btw, I have no issues with superiority and have never claimed or even insinuated to be superior. It's all in your paranoid mind.
-
No surprise that you couldn't resist to reply, again.....
Btw, I have no issues with superiority and have never claimed or even insinuated to be superior. It's all in your paranoid mind.
No surprise that you couldn't resist to reply, again.....
_aka pushback
You can respond all you want. It doesn't alter the fact that nobody likes you.
_I don't expect or want trolls to like me
Btw, I have no issues with superiority and have never claimed or even insinuated to be superior
_BS: You claimed to have a 'superior education' about two years ago
It's all in your paranoid mind.
_You are mistaking me for a CTer.. you lot have had the market on paranoia cornered since Day One
-
No surprise that you couldn't resist to reply, again.....
_aka pushback
Btw, I have no issues with superiority and have never claimed or even insinuated to be superior
_BS: You claimed to have a 'superior education' about two years ago
It's all in your paranoid mind.
_You are mistaking me for a CTer.. you lot have had the market on paranoia cornered since Day One
You claimed to have a 'superior education' about two years ago
I seriously doubt that, but even if it is true (quod non), it is extremely telling that such a remark on a public forum should still trouble you so much after two years..... :D
Btw somebody who feels a compulsive need to reply to (and explain) everything displays a massive insecurity. Why are you so insecure?
-
You claimed to have a 'superior education' about two years ago
I seriously doubt that, but even if it is true (quod non), it is extremely telling that such a remark on a public forum should still trouble you so much after two years..... :D
Btw somebody who feels a compulsive need to reply to (and explain) everything displays a massive insecurity. Why are you so insecure?
I seriously doubt that, but even if it is true (quod non), it is xtremely telling that such a remark on a public forum should still trouble you so much after two years..... :D
_'Seriously doubt' all you want. That doesn't change the fact that you are, by far, the phoniest individual on this forum. And a toothless debater to boot.
_'Trouble' >> No worries here, Bubba. More like filing memories for possible future reference. Its what artists do.
Btw somebody who feels a compulsive need to reply to (and explain) everything displays a massive insecurity. Why are you so insecure?
_'Explain everything' >>You lot have the market cornered on word-salads, Chucky.
_'Compulsive need to reply' >> aka pushback
_'Insecure' >>Your attack-dog, superficial presentation here points directly to you as the insecure party
-
I seriously doubt that, but even if it is true (quod non), it is xtremely telling that such a remark on a public forum should still trouble you so much after two years..... :D
_'Seriously doubt' all you want. That doesn't change the fact that you are, by far, the phoniest individual on this forum. And a toothless debater to boot.
_'Trouble' >> No worries here, Bubba. More like filing for future reference. Its what artists do.
Btw somebody who feels a compulsive need to reply to (and explain) everything displays a massive insecurity. Why are you so insecure?
_'Explain everything' >>You lot have the market cornered on word-salads, Chucky.
_'Compulsive need to reply' >> aka pushback
_'Insecure' >>Your attack-dog, superficial presentation here points directly to you as the insecure party
From earlier
You can respond all you want. It doesn't alter the fact that nobody likes you.
_Correction: No CTer likes me
_As for the rest, I don't expect or want trolls to like me... especially you
-
Engaging with "Waste of Oxygen" in any way is like playing chess with a pigeon.
-
I seriously doubt that, but even if it is true (quod non), it is xtremely telling that such a remark on a public forum should still trouble you so much after two years..... :D
_'Seriously doubt' all you want. That doesn't change the fact that you are, by far, the phoniest individual on this forum. And a toothless debater to boot.
_'Trouble' >> No worries here, Bubba. More like filing memories for possible future reference. Its what artists do.
Btw somebody who feels a compulsive need to reply to (and explain) everything displays a massive insecurity. Why are you so insecure?
_'Explain everything' >>You lot have the market cornered on word-salads, Chucky.
_'Compulsive need to reply' >> aka pushback
_'Insecure' >>Your attack-dog, superficial presentation here points directly to you as the insecure party
"Chucky"
:D :D :D
-
I seriously doubt that, but even if it is true (quod non), it is xtremely telling that such a remark on a public forum should still trouble you so much after two years..... :D
_'Seriously doubt' all you want. That doesn't change the fact that you are, by far, the phoniest individual on this forum. And a toothless debater to boot.
_'Trouble' >> No worries here, Bubba. More like filing memories for possible future reference. Its what artists do.
Ah... another insult. No surprise there.... But what I don't get is, why would anybody file as a memory for possible future reference an alleged comment (that never happened) by a person, he knows nothing about, on a public forum? Seems a pretty pointless exercise to me. Not that I believe a word you say.....
And calling yourself an "artist" doesn't make you one.
Btw somebody who feels a compulsive need to reply to (and explain) everything displays a massive insecurity. Why are you so insecure?
_'Explain everything' >>You lot have the market cornered on word-salads, Chucky.
_'Compulsive need to reply' >> aka pushback
_'Insecure' >>Your attack-dog, superficial presentation here points directly to you as the insecure party
Call it pushback as much as you want. People reading this will understand fully it's a massive compulsion, no more no less.
It's kinda comical for you to say; Your attack-dog, superficial presentation here points directly to you as the insecure party, which makes no sense at all, and then accuse "you lot" (whoever they are) of writing word-salads.
As per usual you're all over the place and no doubt your compulsion will make you reply again. When you do, please try a bit more creative in your insults, as so far they have all been boring.
-
Ah... another insult. No surprise there.... But what I don't get is, why would anybody file as a memory for possible future reference an alleged comment (that never happened) by a person, he knows nothing about, on a public forum? Seems a pretty pointless exercise to me. Not that I believe a word you say.....
And calling yourself an "artist" doesn't make you one.
Call it pushback as much as you want. People reading this will understand fully it's a massive compulsion, no more no less.
It's kinda comical for you to say; Your attack-dog, superficial presentation here points directly to you as the insecure party, which makes no sense at all, and then accuse "you lot" (whoever they are) of writing word-salads.
As per usual your all over the place and no doubt your compulsion will make you reply again. When you do, please try a bit more creative in your insults, as so far they have all been boring.
Ah... another insult. No surprise there.... But what I don't get is, why would anybody file as a memory for possible future reference an alleged comment (that never happened) by a person, he knows nothing about, on a public forum? Seems a pretty pointless exercise to me. Not that I believe a word you say.....
_You don't 'get' anything.
_Tell us why I should stand down after you keep hurling insult-upon-insult my way.
_Your word-salads are peppered with enough insults to choke a horse
And calling yourself an "artist" doesn't make you one.
_Others call me an artist.
-
"Chucky"
:D :D :D
Suits him to a 'T':
Wooden head & no soul
-
Here is a companion piece to my original article. It discusses a new article by Peter Isackson that Morley is promoting.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2021/11/morley-and-monkey.html
-
Engaging with "Waste of Oxygen" in any way is like playing chess with a pigeon.
It was Oswald, Neil, and he got what he deserved
(https://i.postimg.cc/5yHjh1Nf/GOES-OSWALD-TIPPIT.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Jzh7vMTv/GOES-RUBY-OSWALD.png)
billchapman/hunter of trolls
-
Who in the Mexican government from back in 1963 is still serving in their government today? ???
They’ve gone through several changes in government since the 1960s and the current regime doesn’t have a cozy relationship with the US.
Names of sensitive government assets usually can be redacted.
Does it violate the JFK Records Act to release the records with redactions?
I'm quite sure that some Mexican officials - in their 20s and 30s in 1963 - are still around. Not in government but still alive. You can redact names and still figure out who they were. They were promised anonymity; that doesn't end when they leave government. Especially if they were given money or bribed or broke Mexican/foreign government law.
If you promise people not to reveal their names in return for help and then reveal them don't be surprised if nobody helps you in the future when you ask them.
In any case I'm all for releasing them. It won't satisfy conspiracy people; nothing will. They'll just say it's more evidence of a conspiracy. This has been the most investigated crime/event in US history. Multiple government investigations, multiple news investigations, historians and scholars and investigative reporters have looked into it. They've found nothing. But it doesn't matter. It's always "the Warren Commission did this and the Warren Commission did that." All of these other investigations are ignored.
-
Engaging with "Waste of Oxygen" in any way is like playing chess with a pigeon.
I'll take the pigeon over you. At least a pigeon sees the chess pieces. You deny that any even exist. They're all lies, fake, staged.
Waitresses, steam fitters, used car salesmen, shoe salesmen, ticket takers, cab drivers....on and on and on. All of them for you just made up fake chess pieces. They don't really exist.
It's easier reasoning with a pigeon than an Alex Jones type conspiracist.
-
I'm quite sure that some Mexican officials - in their 20s and 30s in 1963 - are still around. Not in government but still alive. You can redact names and still figure out who they were. They were promised anonymity; that doesn't end when they leave government. Especially if they were given money or bribed or broke Mexican/foreign government law. If you promise people not to reveal their names in return for help and then reveal them don't be surprised if nobody helps you in the future when you ask them.
Come on Steve. Do you really believe the current Mexican government doesn't know who those people were?
Same for the Russians. Secrets like that can't be kept forever. By now the Mexicans, Cubans, and Russians know who was working with the US in the 1960s.
Secondly, the entire geopolitical map has changed in the last 60 years.
Fidel Castro is dead. His brother Raul is no longer in charge.
The Soviet Union is long gone
The only consequence of naming names of people who might still be alive are domestic politics. We can be certain that they have legal immunity if they worked for US intelligence but in the court of public opinion, some Americans might suffer depending on the nature of what it is they did. If there are no crimes being covered up, what do those people have to worry about?
Thirdly, the CIA is still fighting disclosure of files involving CIA agents and assets who are long deceased. Which makes even less sense unless there's something nefarious or embarrassing in those remaining files.
-
Here is a companion piece to my original article. It discusses a new article by Peter Isackson that Morley is promoting.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2021/11/morley-and-monkey.html
"Conspiracy theorist Jefferson Morley should learn to choose his friends more carefully"
Jeff Morley isn't a "Conspiracy Theorist". He has never proposed his own alternative theory of how JFK was killed. Morley, like Josiah Thompson, Cyril Wecht, John Newman, and other JFK researchers are just skeptics of the Warren Report narrative.
Some in the JFK research community ARE conspiracy theorists but you're widely missing the mark if you put all JFK assassination researchers in the same bucket.
In our current age where every person has instant access to the Internet via a cell phone in their pocket and where any number of nonsensical narratives of all types are perpetuated daily by “journalists” using blogs, social media and a variety of means, “official commentators” are being “bribed” and “intimidated” to hide the truth about the JFK case?
I agree that the idea that people in the media have been "bribed" is unlikely. Maybe there are some cases of that sort of thing but I doubt it's widespread.
However, there are certain topics that mainstream journalists may avoid because they know (or have been told) it won't be published or that it could hurt their career (ie Gary Webb). So that sort of thing leads to journalists pretty much censoring themselves.
Outside of the mainstream media, there aren't as many gatekeepers, hence why most reporting on JFK conspiracy stuff mostly comes from independent and alternative media sources.
For the last 58 years, the mainstream news media has for the most part endorsed the Warren Report and whenever anyone deviates from the official narrative, they get painted in the Press as "wacky" despite the fact that 60-70% of Americans don't believe the official narrative.
For example, a few years ago when John Kerry expressed his doubts that Oswald acted alone it was met with mostly negative press in the mainstream media.
https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/11/john-kerry-declines-to-elaborate-on-jfk-conspiracy-comments
It seems that Morales kept quiet about his father’s allegations for the familiar and trite reason that he was “scared to death.”
I agree that we shouldn't accept the Morales story at face value but it does invite further journalistic curiosity because it's at the very least plausible based on the stuff about him that has been confirmed.
Morales is confirmed to have worked as a CIA contractor and FBI informant off and on between the 1960s and 1970s. Per Morley, some of the files on Morales are still classified.
In 1964 Morales informed the CIA on a Cuban exile group that operated in New Orleans. It's not implausible that his relationship with the New Orleans group began in 1963 or earlier. He might've been asked to inform on the group because he was already involved with them.
And yes, there were CIA-linked paramilitary training camps operating in Louisiana near New Orleans in 1963 per former CIA agent, Robert Baer.
-
Ah... another insult. No surprise there.... But what I don't get is, why would anybody file as a memory for possible future reference an alleged comment (that never happened) by a person, he knows nothing about, on a public forum? Seems a pretty pointless exercise to me. Not that I believe a word you say.....
_You don't 'get' anything.
_Tell us why I should stand down after you keep hurling insult-upon-insult my way.
_Your word-salads are peppered with enough insults to choke a horse
I'm beginning to like this compulsion of yours and have no intention of telling you why you should "stand down". I have no reason to, when you are doing such a magnificent job of making a complete fool of yourself. Please carry on.... it's so much fun.
And calling yourself an "artist" doesn't make you one.
_Others call me an artist.
As nobody likes you, those "others" must be your imaginary friends... :D
There is nothing artistic about you.
-
I'll take the pigeon over you. At least a pigeon sees the chess pieces. You deny that any even exist. They're all lies, fake, staged, made up.
Waitresses, steam fitters, used car salesmen, shoe salesmen, ticket takers, cab drivers....on and on and on. All of them made up fake chess pieces. They don't really exist.
Well if you ever get near Neil—or any Cter at all**—you'd better BYOO* because
these characters need all the oxygen they can get to whatever that thing is
between their ears.
(https://i.postimg.cc/8kxjk1jY/breathe.png)
*Bring Your Own Oxygen
** Just stay away from Oswald's grave and you should be fine
-
I'm beginning to like this compulsion of yours and have no intention of telling you why you should "stand down". I have no reason to, when you are doing such a magnificent job of making a complete fool of yourself. Please carry on.... it's so much fun.
As nobody likes you, those "others" must be your imaginary friends... :D
There is nothing artistic about you.
Sample of my life drawings from my website
(https://i.postimg.cc/bv7f88b8/Screen-Shot-2021-11-05-at-12-44-50-PM.png)
'Joe' Bill Chapman/Charcoal on paper
-
Sample of my life drawings from my website
(https://i.postimg.cc/bv7f88b8/Screen-Shot-2021-11-05-at-12-44-50-PM.png)
'Joe' Bill Chapman/Charcoal on paper
Landing page for my site
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJVrXPtq/bill-landing-page.png)
-
Sample of my life drawings from my website
(https://i.postimg.cc/bv7f88b8/Screen-Shot-2021-11-05-at-12-44-50-PM.png)
'Joe' Bill Chapman/Charcoal on paper
Anybody can put up a picture on a website. Means nothing at all.
It's not even a good drawing. I've seen better ones from street artists.
-
Landing page for my site
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJVrXPtq/bill-landing-page.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bwwdYLQ6/ont-tennis-mag.png)
concept&art by billchapman/hunter of trolls
Client: Ontario Tennis Magazine 1997_Adobe Illustrator
-
Anybody can put up a picture on a website. Means nothing at all.
It's not even a good drawing. I've seen better ones from street artists.
It was Joe's fault for looking exactly like that.
Anybody can put up a picture on a website
_yeah, sounds like something you would do, Bubba
_and yeah, I'm going to take someone else's art/design/illustration, put it up on my own website, and try to get work
_ ::) ::) ::)
I suggest you spend a good deal of time in the nearest oxygen tent... because whatever you've got stuck between your ears just ain't cutting it, Chucky...
-
It was Joe's fault for looking exactly like that.
Anybody can put up a picture on a website
_yeah, sounds like something you would do, Bubba
_and yeah, I'm going to take someone else's art/design/illustration, put it up on my own website, and try to get work
_ ::) ::) ::)
So now we can add projecting to the list....
I suggest you spend a good deal of time in the nearest oxygen tent... because whatever you've got stuck between your ears just ain't cutting it, Chucky...
A bruised ego and more insults seems to be all you have.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/bwwdYLQ6/ont-tennis-mag.png)
concept&art by billchapman/hunter of trolls
Client: Ontario Tennis Magazine 1997_Adobe Illustrator
(https://i.postimg.cc/BQW0JP7P/MATCH-TOUGH.png)
'Match Tough' first in a series
concept/art/design by billchapman/hunter of trolls
Art: Pencil on board
Client: Richard Thomson International Tennis School
-
"Conspiracy theorist Jefferson Morley should learn to choose his friends more carefully"
Jeff Morley isn't a "Conspiracy Theorist". He has never proposed his own alternative theory of how JFK was killed. Morley, like Josiah Thompson, Cyril Wecht, John Newman, and other JFK researchers are just skeptics of the Warren Report narrative.
Some in the JFK research community ARE conspiracy theorists but you're widely missing the mark if you put all JFK assassination researchers in the same bucket.
Unfortunately, he is now a conspiracy theorist in my book. Which is a shame considering his former position as a journalist. Consider theses quotes from his most recent book:
"The likelihood that there was a conspiracy, that the killing was not the work of a lone assassin, remains the conclusion best informed by the preponderance of the publicly available evidence."
"Perhaps now, observant people can understand how JFK’s enemies pulled off the 'greatest magic trick under the sun,' how they made Oswald a patsy for their crime. They did it with covert psychological warfare schemes, like the AMSPELL program, whose workings are still protected by state secrecy."
"[Joannides] certainly obstructed HSCA investigators who wanted to know more about the agency’s knowledge of the accused assassin (or patsy) as he made his way to Dallas."
I guess we could argue semantics, but this is "conspiracy speak" to me.
-
Unfortunately, he is now a conspiracy theorist in my book. Which is a shame considering his former position as a journalist. Consider theses quotes from his most recent book:
"The likelihood that there was a conspiracy, that the killing was not the work of a lone assassin, remains the conclusion best informed by the preponderance of the publicly available evidence."
"Perhaps now, observant people can understand how JFK’s enemies pulled off the 'greatest magic trick under the sun,' how they made Oswald a patsy for their crime. They did it with covert psychological warfare schemes, like the AMSPELL program, whose workings are still protected by state secrecy."
"[Joannides] certainly obstructed HSCA investigators who wanted to know more about the agency’s knowledge of the accused assassin (or patsy) as he made his way to Dallas."
I guess we could argue semantics, but this is "conspiracy speak" to me.
If he wrote that "Oswald was a patsy for their crime", that's not a theorist: that's a full throated advocate or believer. I assume "their" is the CIA and Angleton using AMSPELL?
He's now gone from suspecting Joannides had some sort of relationship/contact with Oswald or used him in some way to now claiming that Joannides was part of a CIA program to use "covert psychological warfare schemes" (whatever the hell that is) to make Oswald a patsy. How is using a pyschological scheme on Oswald make him a patsy? Who killed JFK? How did Oswald's rifle end up in the TSBD?
Morley presents, as far as I can see, no evidence that any of this took place. He admits that the details of AMSPELL are still "state secrets" but also claims to know what those "state secrets" hold. Viz., that Oswald was a "patsy" that was setup by the program. I guess he thinks Oswald left the building shortly after the shooting because he really wanted to see a movie?
Listen to his rhetoric: "state secrecy" and "covert psychological warfare schemes". That's tabloid type language. The National Enquirer needs to hire him.
Morley used to say that Angleton should have been charged with "criminal negligence" for not informing the Secret Service about the threat Oswald posed to JFK. Meaning that Oswald killed JFK. Now he's gone full Alex Jones. What an embarrassment.
-
Unfortunately, he is now a conspiracy theorist in my book. Which is a shame considering his former position as a journalist. Consider theses quotes from his most recent book:
"The likelihood that there was a conspiracy, that the killing was not the work of a lone assassin, remains the conclusion best informed by the preponderance of the publicly available evidence."
"Perhaps now, observant people can understand how JFK’s enemies pulled off the 'greatest magic trick under the sun,' how they made Oswald a patsy for their crime. They did it with covert psychological warfare schemes, like the AMSPELL program, whose workings are still protected by state secrecy."
"[Joannides] certainly obstructed HSCA investigators who wanted to know more about the agency’s knowledge of the accused assassin (or patsy) as he made his way to Dallas."
I guess we could argue semantics, but this is "conspiracy speak" to me.
To be a "Conspiracy Theorist" one must have a theory of conspiracy.
Morley to my knowledge has never proposed his own theory of what happened on 11/22/63. If I'm wrong, cite where he has proposed his own theory.
What Morley does is bring attention to factual stuff that suggests that we don't know the entire truth about what led to JFK's assassination.
To me, it seems unreasonable to call anyone who thinks we don't know the entire truth about how JFK was killed, a "conspiracy theorist". There are completely legitimate reasons for speculating about alternative explanations. Far too many coincidences and weird stuff involved with the case to not speculate.
People speculate all the time with other historical events. Why should the JFK assassination be the exception?
-
If he wrote that "Oswald was a patsy for their crime", that's not a theorist: that's a full throated advocate or believer. I assume "their" is the CIA and Angleton using AMSPELL?
He's now gone from suspecting Joannides had some sort of relationship/contact with Oswald or used him in some way to now claiming that Joannides was part of a CIA program to use "covert psychological warfare schemes" (whatever the hell that is) to make Oswald a patsy. How is using a pyschological scheme on Oswald make him a patsy? Who killed JFK? How did Oswald's rifle end up in the TSBD?
Morley presents, as far as I can see, no evidence that any of this took place. He admits that the details of AMSPELL are still "state secrets" but also claims to know what those "state secrets" hold. Viz., that Oswald was a "patsy" that was setup by the program. I guess he thinks Oswald left the building shortly after the shooting because he really wanted to see a movie?
Listen to his rhetoric: "state secrecy" and "covert psychological warfare schemes". That's tabloid type language. The National Enquirer needs to hire him.
Morley used to say that Angleton should have been charged with "criminal negligence" for not informing the Secret Service about the threat Oswald posed to JFK. Meaning that Oswald killed JFK. Now he's gone full Alex Jones. What an embarrassment.
As far as I know, Morley has never proposed his own theory or claimed to know who killed JFK.
Saying that I believe Oswald didn't act alone doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist.
Claiming that I know who really killed JFK would make me a conspiracy theorist.
I personally don't think it's implausible that Oswald could've acted alone. I'm just not convinced that he acted alone after three decades of my researching the case.
As noted earlier, even former Sec. of State John Kerry has publicly speculated that Oswald might not have acted alone. Kerry knows far more about national security stuff than you or I.
I've found that in recent years, an increasing number of people with intelligence experience have been more open about JFK assassination speculation (they usually point the finger at Castro not the CIA). And that seems healthy to me. It's not "crazy" or "unhinged" to think we don't know the full truth when there are so many coincidences, problems with the evidence, and confirmed coverups.
What I don't understand about the LN side of the debate is why you refuse to acknowledge that there are legit reasons to speculate about the Kennedy assassination? What are you afraid of?
-
To be a "Conspiracy Theorist" one must have a theory of conspiracy.
Morley to my knowledge has never proposed his own theory of what happened on 11/22/63. If I'm wrong, cite where he has proposed his own theory.
No, and neither has anyone else except John Armstrong. That is-they have stated how the plot was done and who did it. But when you try and do that, you wind up with Harvey & Lee or something like it and a list of conspirators longer than your arm. That is why it is much eaiser to write articles saying "we don't know the full truth" even though there is overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt. Once Morley states that Oswald was a "patsy" he is saying someone setup Oswald and that makes it a conspiracy in my book whether he lays out the details of the plot or not. If you disagree, that is ok.
-
No, and neither has anyone else except John Armstrong. That is-they have stated how the plot was done and who did it. But when you try and do that, you wind up with Harvey & Lee or something like it and a list of conspirators longer than your arm. That is why it is much eaiser to write articles saying "we don't know the full truth" even though there is overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt. Once Morley states that Oswald was a "patsy" he is saying someone setup Oswald and that makes it a conspiracy in my book whether he lays out the details of the plot or not. If you disagree, that is ok.
There literally are hundreds of researchers who have proposed theories about "who" killed Kennedy. If you want to go after the low hanging fruit of researchers who say "there were dozens of snipers in Dealey Plaza" or that "Oswald had a doppelgänger since childhood", be my guest.
Whatever you think of Morley's opinions, he's a solid journalist who sticks to the verifiable facts in the case.
But even factual things can be open to more than one interpretation. That's where the speculation comes in.
-
-
To be a "Conspiracy Theorist" one must have a theory of conspiracy.
Morley to my knowledge has never proposed his own theory of what happened on 11/22/63. If I'm wrong, cite where he has proposed his own theory.
What Morley does is bring attention to factual stuff that suggests that we don't know the entire truth about what led to JFK's assassination.
To me, it seems unreasonable to call anyone who thinks we don't know the entire truth about how JFK was killed, a "conspiracy theorist". There are completely legitimate reasons for speculating about alternative explanations. Far too many coincidences and weird stuff involved with the case to not speculate.
People speculate all the time with other historical events. Why should the JFK assassination be the exception?
Jon: Tracy quotes Morley as saying that "Oswald was a patsy for their crime." Their is the CIA, presumably Angleton and counter intelligence. The crime is the assassination of JFK.
That's a conspiracy believer. The fact that he doesn't present a detailed explanation as to how it was done is secondary. He's clearly gone from asking fair questions about Joannide and what CI knew or didn't know about Oswald. And whether he was the target of some operation to embarrass the FPCC and Castro. Fine, ask away. But he's gone much further than simply asking questions. He's making claims.
As to speculation: There's a difference between people speculating about who shot JFK or whether FDR knew about Pearl Harbor or other historic events - fine we ask the types of questions about controversial events all of the time - and a professional journalist known for his work on the assassination publicly making these claims. Morley is often cited or quoted by the media on this matter. He's not a nobody here.
He's given a platform to express his views. He'll have to be held accountable for them. Just as he does to lone assassin believers.
-
There literally are hundreds of researchers who have proposed theories about "who" killed Kennedy. If you want to go after the low hanging fruit of researchers who say "there were dozens of snipers in Dealey Plaza" or that "Oswald had a doppelgänger since childhood", be my guest.
I am not aware of anyone but Armstrong who has said (specifically) what individual committed the crime, where they were shooting from, what the physical evidence for that shooting position is and so on. Any such theory, to be viable, would have to explain how they framed Oswald. I am speaking about published authors not people who bloviate on forums. Now, my memory is not what it used to be, but I don't recall any book with those specifics that is believable.
Whatever you think of Morley's opinions, he's a solid journalist who sticks to the verifiable facts in the case.
No he's not anymore and that is the tragedy. You can follow my debates with Morley at these links:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/07/veciana-and-cia.html
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/another-slobbering-love-affair.html
Just a few examples. Morley said that Veciana was a CIA agent (that is a person who was employed by the agency). He was not. He was a registed asset at one point but never used. Morley accepted Veciana's claim that he was the brains behind the Pedro Pan exodus. There is no evidence for this assertion beyond Veciana's word. Morley said Veciana "definately" had a "relationship with David Phillips. Again, only verified by Veciana.
So, Morley is now acting as an activist for a position rather than a journalist.
-
I am not aware of anyone but Armstrong who has said (specifically) what individual committed the crime, where they were shooting from, what the physical evidence for that shooting position is and so on. Any such theory, to be viable, would have to explain how they framed Oswald. I am speaking about published authors not people who bloviate on forums. Now, my memory is not what it used to be, but I don't recall any book with those specifics that is believable.
No he's not anymore and that is the tragedy. You can follow my debates with Morley at these links:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/07/veciana-and-cia.html
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/another-slobbering-love-affair.html
Just a few examples. Morley said that Veciana was a CIA agent (that is a person who was employed by the agency). He was not. He was a registed asset at one point but never used. Morley accepted Veciana's claim that he was the brains behind the Pedro Pan exodus. There is no evidence for this assertion beyond Veciana's word. Morley said Veciana "definately" had a "relationship with David Phillips. Again, only verified by Veciana.
So, Morley is now acting as an activist for a position rather than a journalist.
Anyone who has followed Morley's writings on this event can see that he is no longer simply asking questions; he's making explicit claims now. He's a "the CIA killed JFK" believer and not a "Did the CIA kill JFK" questioner. Questions are fine; outright claims are different.
Although my guess is that he'll walk back some of those statements. He's done this quite often.
-
Jon: Tracy quotes Morley as saying that "Oswald was a patsy for their crime." Their is the CIA, presumably Angleton and counter intelligence. The crime is the assassination of JFK.
I'm not sure if that's the exact quote. Do you have a link to it?
As to speculation: There's a difference between people speculating about who shot JFK or whether FDR knew about Pearl Harbor or other historic events - fine we ask the types of questions about controversial events all of the time - and a professional journalist known for his work on the assassination publicly making these claims. Morley is often cited or quoted by the media on this matter. He's not a nobody here.
Exactly. Which is why some so desperately want to discredit him.
But Morley has that platform because he IS a credible JFK assassination researcher.
Another JFK assassination researcher often cited in mainstream media publications is Phil Shenon. He seems to imply that Castro knew of Oswald's plans. What are your thoughts on Shenon?
-
You can follow my debates with Morley at these links:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/06/response-to-morley.html
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/07/veciana-and-cia.html
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/another-slobbering-love-affair.html
Show us the exact quotes from Morley, not your interpretations of things he said.
We agree that Morley is an "activist" in the sense that he has spent at least the last decade or so attempting to get JFK assassination files declassified.
He's not unbiased on the matter but he's also not a "conspiracy theorist".
-
Remember that after the assassination that Angleton essentially turned the counter intelligence division upside down due to his insistence that Nosenko was a fake agent sent by the KGB to cover up their supposed connections to Oswald. And any possible role in the assassination. Nosenko was brutally treated on Angleton's orders in an attempt to get him to confess.
If Angleton was behind the assassination - and thus Oswald was innocent of the murder and any KGB connection meaningless to the event - why do all of that? It serves no purpose. Why turn CI into a operational mess over something he knew wasn't true? I.e., that the KGB had a role in the assassination. They didn't. Angleton essentially destroyed his career due to the mistreatment of Nosenko. Yes, the other stuff - the mail openings - contributed to it. It doesn't make sense to me.
-
Remember that after the assassination that Angleton essentially turned the counter intelligence division upside down due to his insistence that Nosenko was a fake agent sent by the KGB to cover up their supposed connections to Oswald. And any possible role in the assassination. Nosenko was brutally treated on Angleton's orders in an attempt to get him to confess.
If Angleton was behind the assassination - and thus Oswald was innocent of the murder and any KGB connection meaningless to the event - why do all of that? It serves no purpose. Why turn CI into a operational mess over something he knew wasn't true? I.e., that the KGB had a role in the assassination. They didn't. Angleton essentially destroyed his career due to the mistreatment of Nosenko. Yes, the other stuff - the mail openings - contributed to it. It doesn't make sense to me.
Who knows? James Angleton's paranoia (post the Philby incident) is well documented.
If he had any involvement with JFK's assassination (even indirectly), it was in his interest to point the finger at the Soviets.
Any luck finding that Morley quote that you referenced earlier?
Somewhat off-topic but still on the topic of conspiracies, the Trump-Russia collusion theory is a recent conspiracy that many people on the Left in the US have speculated about. I too initially thought the theory had legs but over time, the more I learned about the Trump-Russia investigations, the less I believed it to be probable that there was any sort of agreement or conspiracy between Trump and Putin.
The Kennedy assassination for me has been the opposite. The more I've learned, the more I've leaned towards the conclusion that there probably was a conspiracy.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/BQW0JP7P/MATCH-TOUGH.png)
'Match Tough' first in a series
concept/art/design by billchapman/hunter of trolls
Art: Pencil on board
Client: Richard Thomson International Tennis School
@TheForum
Since my recent posts here are off-topic, I've decided to use my 'Bill Chapman Unpacked' space.
------------------------------
BILL CHAPMAN UNPACKED
------------------------------
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2521.msg83963.html#msg83963
;D
-
Show us the exact quotes from Morley, not your interpretations of things he said.
The linked articles have the exact quotes.
-
I'm not sure if that's the exact quote. Do you have a link to it?
Directly from the Kindle version of his book (p. 58):
Perhaps now, observant people can understand how JFK’s enemies pulled off the “greatest magic trick under the sun,” how they made Oswald a patsy for their crime. They did it with covert psychological warfare schemes, like the AMSPELL program, whose workings are still protected by state secrecy.
-
Who knows? James Angleton's paranoia (post the Philby incident) is well documented.
If he had any involvement with JFK's assassination (even indirectly), it was in his interest to point the finger at the Soviets.
Any luck finding that Morley quote that you referenced earlier?
Somewhat off-topic but still on the topic of conspiracies, the Trump-Russia collusion theory is a recent conspiracy that many people on the Left in the US have speculated about. I too initially thought the theory had legs but over time, the more I learned about the Trump-Russia investigations, the less I believed it to be probable that there was any sort of agreement or conspiracy between Trump and Putin.
The Kennedy assassination for me has been the opposite. The more I've learned, the more I've leaned towards the conclusion that there probably was a conspiracy.
The Angleton reaction, to me, undercuts Morley's claim of his involvement in the assassination. It doesn't disprove it; but it doesn't make much sense that he would go through all of that if he knew Oswald wasn't the assassin but his own people were.
As to Trump and the collusion story: One interesting aspect to me was Trump's reluctance to condemn Putin or Russian intelligence for spreading the stories. The original claim was that Russian agents or ex-agents gave Steele that information. Trump was angry at the media but didn't condemn Putin or Russia. Very odd.
It now appears that all of Steele's allegations were based on rumors that, in part, were disseminated by Democratic operatives. That's pretty stunning to think that the country was put through all of this and it was, perhaps - perhaps- some sort of sting by Democratic party people. The media - those outlets that pushed it - have some explaining to do.
-
Directly from the Kindle version of his book (p. 58):
Perhaps now, observant people can understand how JFK’s enemies pulled off the “greatest magic trick under the sun,” how they made Oswald a patsy for their crime. They did it with covert psychological warfare schemes, like the AMSPELL program, whose workings are still protected by state secrecy.
Which book? I have Morley's book on James Angleton open to page 58 and it's a chapter about Frank Olson.
-
Which book? I have Morley's book on James Angleton open to page 58 and it's a chapter about Frank Olson.
Morley v. CIA: My Unfinished JFK Investigation.
-
Morley v. CIA: My Unfinished JFK Investigation.
I haven't read that book yet so I'll have to take your word for it.
The reason I pushed back is because Morley typically focuses on the Intelligence Community's knowledge of Oswald prior to the assassination. Rarely does he weigh in on "who did it" or Oswald's role in the assassination.
I'll go back to what I said earlier: speculating about historic events doesn't make one a "conspiracy theorist". Proposing a theory of "what happened" does.
Morley, whether you agree or disagree with his opinions, is a good journalist and JFK assassination researcher.
-
The Angleton reaction, to me, undercuts Morley's claim of his involvement in the assassination. It doesn't disprove it; but it doesn't make much sense that he would go through all of that if he knew Oswald wasn't the assassin but his own people were.
This gets back to my earlier point about "different interpretations of factual information".
My interpretation is that someone with a guilty-conscious might want to direct scrutiny and suspicions towards a different target. Some CIA officers are experts at deception and that kind of deception would fit Angleton's skillset.
But I'm also aware that our own personal biases affect our interpretation of facts like that. All I'm trying to get across is that there are other ways to interpret his behavior. There's no wrong answer on this point.
It should also be noted that even today, many former CIA officials like James Woolsey for example, have publicly stated their suspicion that Castro or the Soviets were involved. The Nosenko incident didn't end speculation within the CIA.
Former CIA agent, Robert Baer has gone as far as speculating that Cuban spies posing as anti-Castro Cuban exiles conspired with Oswald. Which is possible I guess but may also be intended to take the heat off of the Cuban exiles that were working for the CIA (whom RFK initially suspected played a role in his brother's murder).
Lastly, concluding that there was a conspiracy doesn't exonerate Oswald. Not sure why you seem to imply that "conspiracy = Oswald's innocence". I've followed Morley's blog for a few years and never got the impression that he believes Oswald was innocent.
As to Trump and the collusion story: One interesting aspect to me was Trump's reluctance to condemn Putin or Russian intelligence for spreading the stories. The original claim was that Russian agents or ex-agents gave Steele that information. Trump was angry at the media but didn't condemn Putin or Russia. Very odd.
Trump seems to have some sort of admiration or affinity for authoritarian leaders. It's not just Putin but also the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and the President of Turkey that Trump had good relations with. In fact, there's more evidence of Trump benefiting financially from his relationships with Middle Eastern leaders than with Putin. So while there could be something there, it may ultimately be about Trump being a fanboy of authoritarian "strongmen".
It now appears that all of Steele's allegations were based on rumors that, in part, were disseminated by Democratic operatives. That's pretty stunning to think that the country was put through all of this and it was, perhaps - perhaps- some sort of sting by Democratic party people. The media - those outlets that pushed it - have some explaining to do.
I agree. Like I said, I initially bought into the collusion narrative but as we got more evidence and context, it seems far less probable now.
-
Here's a snapshot of page 58 in Morley's book (it's only 90 pages including footnotes and the Appeals Court ruling denying him compensation for his expenses accrued for his FOIA requests) where he claims Oswald was a patsy.
But he doesn't say, as I mistakenly did, that AMSPELL was the "scheme" that did it. He says the "scheme" used to make Oswald a patsy for "their crime" was "like" AMSPELL. But he doesn't say what that was.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/ZrgHMoFczlIb2xYW2E-jg6TTtTNUIJsEz4AR57jxZ04GdJZqP7WO_qL2qbNmn1MFQxmQ7mb-mJcrcL79LH3Jm4yIjbBut7rFTnonR6iBbJmp_cDAKo60QhnEF4bnMrNbTXEydnV2q2bJpum6uezqrBgXue5AZxgwFkTYKWRmjJEMbn10fAb0D2328AmI-34P5R5AegFXrm_hOHGyzLosdYXjI4biTL5erI2vjSRHRmifpVfO4SHCjovVm2tJhRskxVOyZUYzeUKFYOikgKbEL46bdIW3kdiRWX6GXckz-hcxjjqd71TKojUphIlpATIbrIF7b9g3PqOnc19iHPrzhjRX-GTSlzm-rEo6FNC53Y2kHzav025hIx2TLEP73kBm04XZW4VLWpcbYg89egld0Wln-p7-RwL8WBHWoQyIM4pa4bcsa0VDYNZu8Rlb2WTZhhLLNxararvkLQtxFipls_InS6XuUNAGwoRFq6ukJxPtIJhIzrsuqvkh3BXCBP8zXdDqo802-OMVeatVchU3VWCqoUCWjPD5k_BbokJUTduqheUtZVVj2Pqlrga6SAG5khe_ySmYDiIoHx2aEcQ8OQMO1CHC1ZNdMPvH5qCiUFuefR-64uZjMD0OHJqaQ894ctXfv-bnLO8B7kv9qhNZAuaq1TVFDpvv2mMjAaR8hIfm1_Nma8hjNftE4DMKIqGO92UqEbyTov4sqRDXcBGJJhJx=w784-h187-no?authuser=0)
-
Good article by Robert Reynolds on the upcoming document releases. He writes:
"... it is also understandable that people might think there are still important documents left unreleased. A closer look at NARA’s latest data on the ARC, however, reveals just how unlikely this is."
Reynolds also discusses Morley.
https://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2021/12/reynolds.html
-
I caution against deferring to other articles notably David Von Pein articles who in turn defers to Dale Myers articles. And they all merely defer in general to the official story...
It was Oswalds rifle...Marina said she took the backyard pictures..yadda yadda---
This concerns the pistol order...
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html
I suppose it's possible that I'm wrong about how these types of "COD" transactions worked when companies shipped merchandise to P.O. Boxes, but if the PHYSICAL ITEM itself was actually shipped to P.O. Box 2915 (and Heinz Michaelis said it was in his WC testimony), then it means that the post office employees would be initially handling the money from Oswald (since, quite obviously, Oswald didn't set up camp and live right there inside his post office box as he waited for the delivery truck to show up with his pistol).
But, then too, only conspiracy theorists actually believe that all of this chaff about the REA paperwork is the slightest bit important. Reasonable people, however, can easily determine that Lee Harvey Oswald received revolver #V510210 from Seaport Traders in March 1963 and he killed Officer J.D. Tippit with that gun on 11/22/63 (regardless of any paperwork and red tape that might be missing from the official records of the Railway Express Agency).
Aside from all the usual un-necessary verbose droll.... DVP defers the history of the revolver sale to Dale Myers---
Quoting Mr. Myers:
"Upon arrival at the REA Express office in Dallas, notice was given to the consignee, Hidell. REA Express VP Robert Hendon testified that in a similar case, "a card was sent to the name and address" on the package.
"Presumably, a card was sent to Oswald's P.O. Box, notifying him that a package was to be picked up at the REA Express Office, located at 515 South Houston Street -- at the north end of the Houston Street viaduct.
"**Oswald's P.O. Box was at the Main Post Office in the Federal Building, 1114 Commerce** Street , on the south side, seven blocks east of Houston at Murphy. Both locations were along bus routes easily accessible from Oswald's Neely Street address.
"Once Oswald received the notification card at his P.O. Box, he simply took a bus back to the REA Express office -- presented the notification card, the balance due, and some form of identification -- and accepted delivery of the revolver.
"After REA Express had delivered the package to Oswald, the C.O.D. remittance document and the amount collected from Oswald, was forwarded to Seaport Traders. Once received, the C.O.D. remittance document was attached to the red copy of the invoice, indicating that the money had been collected and the package delivered. These documents were placed in the Seaport Trader files, where they were discovered by FBI agents on November 30, 1963.
There was still no proof that Oswald received the .38 and paid $19.95 regardless of the location.
There was just that paper that said Hidell ordered it.
Box 2915 was not located at 1114 Commerce St. It never was.
It was located at 400 N Ervay. It always was.
Both locations were along bus routes easily accessible from Oswald's Neely Street address.
If he ever had one.
-
I'll take the pigeon over you. At least a pigeon sees the chess pieces. You deny that any even exist. They're all lies, fake, staged.
I never said anything even remotely similar to "they're all lies, faked, staged".
But nice try, Steve.