On my new Jim Garrison blog, I have uploaded two unpublished articles written by Sylvia Meagher about the Garrison Investigation.This observation by Meagher needs to be underscored: "I find it hard to believe that three would-be assassins discussed the logistics of an assassination in the presence of a casual acquaintance and non-participant in their plot." Even worse, according to Garrison's allegations it wasn't just one "casual acquaintance", i.e., Perry Russo, it was several, e.g., Charles Speisel and according to Spiesel, "ten or eleven" men.
These articles are from her archives at Hood College which I visited in 2019.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog)
Fred
Jim Garrison's Strangest Lead - The Fag Ball of 1962Oliver Stone defended the smearing of Shaw (and others) by Garrison by arguing that (paraphrasing), "Sometimes in a war you have to sacrifice people". The problem with this excuse, or one of the problems, is that Garrison believed in this nonsense even if Stone recognized that the claim against Shaw had no merit but that he was a useful "sacrifice". And even today followers of Garrison still defend him and these abuses of the law.
After Clay Shaw's acquittal in 1969, Garrison then charged him with two counts of perjury - for claiming he did not know David Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald.
But, Garrison needed more evidence to prove the charge and he told his investigators to redouble their efforts. Memos started coming into the office - most with the title Shaw Leads II.
The strangest one was the "Fag Ball." Ninety-six people were arrested at a gay party in Jefferson Parish in February 1962. Garrison had the head of the vice squad type up a list of those arrested - perhaps Shaw and Ferrie were there.
They weren't. So, Garrison turned to propinquity - his favorite investigative technique. Perhaps one of Shaw's friends were at the party, or perhaps someone who live on the same block, etc.
Needless to say, it all went nowhere. Have a look at the primary Garrison documents.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog)
While Garrison's investigation was deeply flawed and resulted in...nothing, he certainly should be credited with getting some important folks on the stand, under oath, among them Ruth Paine and Robert Frazier. And the Z film was bootlegged and appeared all over the country, so there's that.Both Paine and Frazier testified, under oath, to the Warren Commission. And gave interviews to reporters about what they knew.
So, mostly chaff, but a bit of wheat.
The Funniest Garrison Investigation Memo Ever Written
On my Jim Garrison blog today, I post the funniest Garrison investigation memo ever written. At least someone on the team had a sense of humor. The memo is about David Ferrie and his Distinguished hair-do.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog)
Had thisIf you think the Garrison investigation was credible and was well done and, in turn, think Mr. Litwin is wrong about it then please present your counter narrative.NitwitLitwin plug bookmarked.....fast forward to 18:50, the Warren Commission:
"...they made a few mistakes but overall they were good men who did a very good job..." -- ROFL
Tells you the level of research this dude is capable of.
Had thisNitwitLitwin plug bookmarked.....fast forward to 18:50, the Warren Commission:
"...they made a few mistakes but overall they were good men who did a very good job..." -- ROFL
Tells you the level of research this dude is capable of.
I think that's what Duncan wants us to do, right? People present their pros and cons on subject or issue "X" and then we all have a go at it.
Jim Garrison's Rejection Letter from Prentice Hall Press, and His ReplyHere we see the ultimate delusion - of a long list of them - of Garrison: that JFK was going to single-handedly end the Cold War and the Vietnam conflict (and it's why an anti-American leftist like Olive Stone was attracted to the self-labeled "libertarian conservative" Garrison).
Garrison submitted his manuscript to Prentice Hall Press in 1986 and hit pay dirt. They paid him a $10,000 advance.
Prentice Hall hired Sylvia Meagher as a referee. She submitted a 26-page analysis, and I have excerpted some of her comments. She was not impressed with the chapters on New Orleans.
Prentice Hall rejected Garrison's book, and demanded he return their advance. I have posted their letter to him, and his reply.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog)
Cynic Tonkovich doesn't understand -- much less appreciate -- the concept of primary research, and the work it represents.Having read the "primary research" of Tom Purvis, and inasmuch as I do "appreciate" his amazing work, I would have to disagree.
Thank you, Fred.
Often, writers start websites as a marketing tool. :)
Having read the "primary research" of Tom Purvis, and inasmuch as I do "appreciate" his amazing work, I would have to disagree.Bugliosi, Mailer and Posner all interviewed numerous witnesses, some who were never interviewed before, and found primary sources of information on the assassination, directly and indirectly.
Oxford defines "cynic" as "a person who believes that people are motivated purely by self interest rather than acting for honorable or unselfish reasons."
Bugliosi, Mailer, Posner - plagiarist who presented "secondary " research as "primary" - and others certainly come to mind.
"Cynic"? Yes, I am guilty as charged. Happily so. :)
The Funniest Garrison Investigation Memo Ever WrittenThese Garrison blogs are becoming more like forum clogs. One thread instead of a dozen could have been quite enough on a Garrison inquiry critique. :-\
On my Jim Garrison blog today, I post the funniest Garrison investigation memo ever written. At least someone on the team had a sense of humor. The memo is about David Ferrie and his Distinguished hair-do.
Jim Garrison's Playboy Interview - What Couldn't Be PublishedI think it can't be emphasized enough that several leading conspiracy authors - to their credit - at the time said that Garrison was reckless, irresponsible and completely wrong in his investigation.
The October 1967 issue of Playboy contained its longest ever interview - 20,000 words with Jim Garrison. Over five million copies were printed and it gave Garrison huge exposure.
Today, I have posted, for the first time ever, Sylvia Meagher's 3-page letter to Playboy about the interview. She wasn't too happy.
And, also for the first time ever, a memo that interviewer Eric Norden sent to Playboy with information from Garrison that was too confidential to put in the magazine. Garrison wanted to show Playboy that he had the 'stuff' and so several confidential memos were written to convince them.
This week: The other secret Playboy memos.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog)
Bugliosi, Mailer and Posner all interviewed numerous witnesses, some who were never interviewed before, and found primary sources of information on the assassination, directly and indirectly.Strawman argument . Yes. Who said anything about vast conspiracy? Not me.
For example, Mailer interviewed the Belarus KGB agents who monitored Oswald. And also many of the associates that Oswald knew when he was in Minsk. And he (Mailer) read the KGB files on Oswald. This was all original material/information.
Posner interviewed, among others, Yuri Nosenko. Bugliosi interviewed McClelland and got him to admit that the head wound was further forward then in the sketch he (incorrectly) claimed that he did for Thompson.
To simply dismiss these works as "secondary" research is short sighted.
As to cynicism: I think if you told a cynic that dozens (hundreds?) of people remained silent for decades after committing or being in involved in a terrible act even though they could have made money and fame by exposing it later he'd laugh you off as being a naive fool.
Not defending Garrison but hearsay is common in grand jury testimony. The rules of evidence do not apply to grand juries because they are not adversarial proceedings.True, but if you read the GJ testimonies you'll see (in my opinion) that Garrison abused this rule. He didn't really question witnesses as much as try to guide or direct them. As in this bizarre exchange with Marina:
In fact, he wrote the HSCA that maybe it was Thornley in the infamous Oswald backyard photos.
Was Kerry Thornley the Second Oswald?
Jim Garrison believed that Kerry Thornley, a Marine buddy of Oswald's, was perhaps impersonating him.
In fact, he wrote the HSCA that maybe it was Thornley in the infamous Oswald backyard photos.
You can see his memo on my blog....
Sound bizarre - wait till you see what they thought in 1968. I have part of a transcript from a discussion Garrison had with his investigators!
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog)
Thornley was in Mexico City in late August and very early September. He left on September 2nd. Oswald was in Mexico City in
late September. They overlapped in New Orleans for about three weeks.
Delighted to see Gerald Posner has reviewed my book, "On The Trail of Delusion - Jim Garrison: The Great Accuser."Well, if you want to be praised by a known plagiarist and fabulist, ..so be it.
https://quillette.com/2020/11/22/on-the-trail-of-delusion-a-review/ (https://quillette.com/2020/11/22/on-the-trail-of-delusion-a-review/)
Jim Garrison used the grand jury to terrorize people. He had the subpoena powerShows what people know about a grand jury...Witnesses are not heard by a grand jury....defense attorneys are not present at a grand jury---Only a DA and 12 people are present in a grand jury. How ludicrous can you get?
to get people into the grand jury room where they would not have access to a lawyer. Then he would charge them with perjury, which is a felony.
Not true. Thornley decided to write a book that would explain "the particular phenomenon ofFred, I think Oswald was a more influential person on the Thornley book - certainly the main idea behind it - then you seem to. Yes, the Shelburn character was a mix of people that he met; but his interaction with Oswald was, Thornley said, a key factor in his decision to write the book
disillusionment with the United States after serving in the Marine Corps overseas in a peacetime
capacity." The main character, Johnny Shellburn, was to be based on several marines, including
Oswald. But before Thornley could finish his book, The Idle Warriors, Oswald defected to the
Soviet Union, and Thornley had to reconsider his ending.
Check out my book, "On The Trail of Delusion, Jim Garrison: The Great Accuser" for
the full story on Kerry Thornley.
Only a DA and 12 people are present in a grand jury.
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/difference-between-grand-jury-and-trial-jury.html
Shows what people know about a grand jury...Witnesses are not heard by a grand jury....defense attorneys are not present at a grand jury---Only a DA and 12 people are present in a grand jury. How ludicrous can you get?
https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/difference-between-grand-jury-and-trial-jury.html
Clay Shaw was found not guilty... therefore there was no conspiracy and Oswald remains the assassin..... The logic of the Kool-Aid drinking, lone nut dwelling, bottom feeders.
Steve: yes, you are right.Fred: We've gotten away (as often happens) from you main point that shows - again - how utterly reckless and demented (no other word for it) Garrison was in his investigation. Lifton befriended Thornley and was astonished how Garrison treated him.
But, clearly Thornley had some idea for the book, and felt that Oswald fit the kind of
person he wanted to write about.
He said that "I was not so interested in explaining Lee Harvey Oswald to myself or anybody else, as I was in explaining that particular phenomenon of
disillusionment with the United States after serving in the Marine Corps overseas in a peacetime capacity; thus the title: The Idle Warriors."
But, yes, then he says: "Since Oswald inspired the book, I did base a good deal of it as a matter of convenience on his personality and his ideas."
Oswald was either a great actor pretending to hold these views or he was sincerely disaffected with his country. I think the first explanation, that he was pretending, is simply implausible.
The fact that Lee didn't ever associate with communists is a glaring sign that it was a facade.He didn't associate with communists therefore all of the views he held about the US and Marxism were an act? Sorry but that makes no sense to me. Did he or did he not repeatedly express his hatred of the US?
Strangely in his short life, he consistently seemed to have associates who were anti-Communist or work for people who were anti-Communist.
I can't think of any examples of him associating with communists.
Whether he did those things as part of a broader mission, or just due his having a contrarian personality, is the question...
He didn't associate with communists therefore all of the views he held about the US and Marxism were an act? Sorry but that makes no sense to me. Did he or did he not repeatedly express his hatred of the US?
So you think he was controlled or directed by others and they told him not to associate with communists? Or failed to tell him TO associate with them? Don't you think that if he was told to be a communist that part of this cover would be to actually attend communist meetings? And what would he be "used" for? They want him to pretend to hold these radical beliefs and do what with this cover or legend? Infiltrate unemployment offices in Dallas?
In any case, when he was 16 he wrote to a leftwing group about joining them. When he was 17 he expressed his communist beliefs and the superiority of the USSR to friends. Was he being controlled when he was 16 and 17?
So you believe the reason LN's don't believe in conspiracy is because Clay Shaw was found innocent. 'Smart guy' strikes again! :D :D :DActually, I think you [act like] you don't want to believe that there was a conspiracy because it is so much fun to troll the lone nut skeptics. And this is the third time today [I see] that you have stalked my posts....which totally illustrates my point. Why not come up with something besides the cheezy laugh?
Readers might be interested to know this is the same Kerry Thornley who claimed he was a Nazi breeding experiment and who said that a bugging device was planted on him at birth so that Nazi cultists could monitor him as he grew up. Thornley believed Oswald was a Nazi breeding experiment too.
It is amazing how the pro-WC crowd seems oblivious to, and ignores, all the research that has confirmed the essential elements of Jim Garrison's case. Even the HSCA conceded that Garrison developed crucial evidence of Oswald's connections with David Ferrie, Guy Banister, and Clay Shaw. Furthermore, ARRB-released files include a wealth of information that supports Garrison's case.
For those who want the facts about the Garrison investigation, I recommend the following links:
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/case-distorted-posner-connick-and-the-new-york-times
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/max-holland-and-donald-carpenter-vs-jim-garrison-and-the-arrb
http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collections/assassinations/jfk/garrison.htm
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jim-garrison-vs-npr-the-beat-goes-on-part-3
https://kennedysandking.com/reviews/mellen-joan-jim-garrison-his-life-and-times-the-early-years
https://jfkfacts.org/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/#comment-869223
Tom S. April 12, 2016 at 1:25 pmQuotehttps://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Unredacted_-_Episode_1_-_Transcript.html
Unredacted Episode 1: Transcript of Interview with Joan Mellen
Joan Mellen is the author of A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. This interview was conducted on 22 Feb 2006. Tyler Weaver provided the introduction, and the interview was conducted by Rex Bradford.
…….
REX: I – I think –
JOAN: – when (Attorney Edward) Baldwin was present, he was a CIA asset, his brother worked for the International Trade Mart and Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, and these, these are CIA people….
As long as there is money to be made in 'Oliverizing' Garrison, most authors/researchers/speakers won't toss out their invested time. A bit like the 'Judyth Bakering' of Oswald et. al, whose publisher has made sure several of his other books have corroborated her LIES. Ka-ching!!! Hey, who here is going to JudyFest ??? IF YOU USE THIS CODE (123-SUKKA) WE WILL OFFER A 5% DISCOUNT ON YOUR TICKET !!!!
Kerry Thornley writes Sylvia Meagher
Sylvia Meagher was a supporter of Kerry Thornley and even donated money for his defense - Garrison had charged him with perjury for denying he met Oswald in New Orleans in September 1963.
Here is a letter from Thornley to Meagher, and her reply. It adds some color and details about their thinking of Garrison.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog)
NOTE: If you do not want to invest the time to read this reply, I created a new thread with a brief OP that
might be more attractive tp readers living very busy lives...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1734.msg44747.html#msg44747
Intention Aside, Did Stone's "JFK, the Movie" Destroy Potential to be informed?HUGH AYNESWORTH........Mr Everywhere
More here....... https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/journalists-jfk-part-3-the-real-dizinfo-agents-at-dealey-plazaQuotehttps://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/opinion/2010/07/12/on-right-to-wor
Re: ".'Right to work' born at News -- Writer coined term opposing forced union membership," Sunday news story.
The article says that "historians and lawyers agree that the right-work laws were the leading factor in the Sun Belt's success." What is the Sun Belt's success? It is making lots of money for employers and having right-to-work laws helped do that.
How can The Dallas Morning News say that the "right to work editorial in 1941 was not anti-union," when the "right to work" goes against the rights of unions by requiring them to represent all workers, including the ones who do not pay any union dues? The law has been divisive and anti-union from its inception, and it continues to be so today.
Elaine Lantz, Dallas
... have damaged middle class
Regarding your thinly disguised praise for the late William Ruggles, editorial writer for The Dallas Morning News, many of us have always considered him an enemy of the people. The "Right to Work" concept, the most insidious part of the Taft-Hartley Act, has had a negative effect on this nation's middle class, right up to this day. Younger readers also need to remember that when Ruggles was on the editorial staff of The Dallas Morning News, the newspaper was considered the most reactionary major daily of the time.
Aubra Billy Thomas, Dallas
In the bigger picture, was not Jesse Core III, son-in-law of DMN's editorial editor, William Ruggles, much more a "Mr. Everywhere" than
Aynesworth could have ever hoped to be, beginning with Core's wife....Ruggles's daughter, being at the top of the protests led by Mac Wallace?
Perhaps, if Jesse had not influenced Harold Weisberg to develop a "man crush" on Jesse Core, what I offer in this post would not
seem more obscure than the DMN billboard that is Hugh Aynesworth?:Quotehttp://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/P%20Disk/Panzeca%20Sal/Item%2005.pdfCore and his fiance Miss Ruggles were feted at a pre-marriage party hosted by the Turtle Creek landlord of Edwin Walker,
Or.... http://jfkforum.com/images/WeisbergJesseCoreFriend.jpg
in the house Walker rented from that same owner, a dozen years later. :
(http://jfkforum.com/images/Walker4011StuartArthurJesseCore.jpg)
Core was clandestine CIA and called NOLA broadcaster to
inquire if they were giving realtime coverage to Oswald's pamphlet hand out apperance near the Trade Mart. :
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62419&relPageId=52&search=rumor_and%20picketed
Kerry Thornley said he was taken to Core's office by his mentor, Clint Bolton, a close friend of Core.:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,119.msg1584.html#msg1584.QuoteA Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, Jfk's Assassination, and the ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1597973548
Joan Mellen - 2011 - History
Baldwin's successor, Jesse Core, was also with the CIA. It was a matter of saving the Agency ?shoe leather,? Core would say. ...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonCoreShoeLeather.jpg)
.....
.Why are these two CIA assets and back to back Trade Mart PR directors, David & Jesse, hired by Clay Shaw, seen here threeAny possibility Hugh Aynesworth is a meaningless distraction, compared to the actual Zelig (Jesse Core) in the mystery of who Lee Harvey Oswald really was, and really did?
months apart in 1967, egging on Shaw and then Garrison in opposing directions?
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=163321&search=jesse_and+calcutta#relPageId=3&tab=page
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CoreBaldwinCalcutta.jpg)?One example...:Quotehttps://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Unredacted_-_Episode_1_-_Transcript.html
Unredacted Episode 1: Transcript of Interview with Joan Mellen
Joan Mellen is the author of A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK?s Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. This interview was conducted on 22 Feb 2006. Tyler Weaver provided the introduction, and the interview was conducted by Rex Bradford.
??.
REX: I ? I think ?
JOAN: ? when Baldwin was present, he was a CIA asset, his brother worked for the International Trade Mart and Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, and these, these are CIA people?.
Mellen claimed she interviewed 1200 people, many from New Orleans, in the process of assembling her book on
Jim Garrison and his investigation, and yet, she was emphatic in her rather narrow conclusions I quoted above.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-knckgt3ASNI/Vrd2i7xQ1aI/AAAAAAAACvc/m_y25b9LkuA/s512-Ic42/BaldwinFirstCousinCarpenter.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-vuym6rw9doQ/Vrdqs-3WcEI/AAAAAAAACu0/OK-mVPFKpW0/s512-Ic42/BaldwinCousinDonaldCarpenterFootnote.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6e7iexAG0lM/Vrds4GJIGUI/AAAAAAAACvM/3WomDDWJrMw/s512-Ic42/BaldwinLemannStepsisterCarpenter.jpg)
From Joan Mellen?s book :
https://books.google.com/books?id=9mQtAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT138&lpg=PT138&dq=%22joan+mellen%22+stephen+lemann&source=bl&ots=JQ0cQ7W_xe&sig=zjEbm-HJgiFBiqsZJ_VSNijJh0U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjAvsOe1YnMAhVLHD4KHdSUDKoQ6AEIQjAF#v=onepage&q=%22joan%20mellen%22%20stephen%20lemann&f=false
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-GZrK_WPfSzA/Vw06hhXEywI/AAAAAAAADkU/0gWaG25SGZYMTm1iWWqe9j98H7CPpMLCQCCo/s800-Ic42/MellenStephenLemann.jpg)
?..
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/C%20Disk/Core%20Jesse/Item%2008.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonJessCoreVsShawAndBaldwin.jpg)
Link: (https://books.google.com/books?id=hP1DCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA275&lpg=PA275&dq=dieugenio+william+gurvich+ross+yockey&source=bl&ots=c0gk_vvWM2&sig=2ii-FV4kZX6968djJxEpCwoht9M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiupMensNPfAhUJQK0KHWUxDPQQ6AEwBXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=dieugenio%20william%20gurvich%20ross%20yockey&f=false) Background, from Jim DiEugenio:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonYockeyDieugenio.jpg)
Page 2: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/May%20Hoke%20Notes/Item%2005.pdf
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonYockeyLemann062067_1of2.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonYockeyLemann062067_2of2.jpg)
One year after this 1946 society page clipping, David Baldwin's mother-in-law Mildred Lyons married Monte Leman,
becoming the stepmother of Stephen and Thomas Lemann...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BaldwinLyonsSternWDSU.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BaldwinMonteLemannObit.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BaldwinMotherInLawObit.jpg)
Kerry Thornley writes Sylvia Meagher
Sylvia Meagher was a supporter of Kerry Thornley and even donated money for his defense - Garrison had charged him with perjury for denying he met Oswald in New Orleans in September 1963.
Here is a letter from Thornley to Meagher, and her reply. It adds some color and details about their thinking of Garrison.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/blog)
Thanks for posting the link, Fred. I've read Sylvia's book Accessories After the Fact many times but I never realized that her core belief was Lee Oswald's innocence. In her letter to Thornley she clearly says that she believed that Lee Oswald was totally innocent. I also believe that Lee was a gullible naive sucker who thought he was working undercover for J. Edgar Hoover.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/5238-jim-garrison-and-oliver-stone/page/13/?tab=comments#comment-44704
Thomas H. Purvis, Posted 10 November 2005
Well, one can rest assured that I am not an "assassination buff", and being considerably more familiar with New Orleans than most others who are posting here, I can assure you that Garrison was a shrewd as well as politically knowledgeable individual.
Therefore, for him to sacrifice his own personal integrity with the Clay Shaw "Circus & Sideshow", was not an act of ignorance on his part.
Therefore, if it were not an act of ignorance, then it was obviously a deliberate "act".
In addition to this, one must also consider that Garrison was formerly one of "Hoover's" boys, and for him to give a performance which was as inept as was the Clay Shaw trial, also meant that it would bring some discredit to the "Hoover" family.
Therefore, whatever political entity Garrison was dancing to the tune of, he obviously considered it to be far more critical to his long term livelihood than was the risk of offending JEH, or of even bring completely false charges against Clay Shaw.
Certainly brings to mind such items as the "Spruce Goose" and the "Glomar Explorer".
https://www.aei.org/articles/new-orleans-mon-amour/
Tom Bethell
March 23, 2007
....Later, I would go uptown to see Brown, who is a part-owner of the Maple Leaf Bar, a prominent venue for live music. But as a preliminary step I paid a call on an old acquaintance, Thomas B. Lemann , a lawyer well known to the city’s establishment. He lives not far from Audubon Park in an area that was not flooded. Although he recently turned 80, he still practices law and nowadays has an office on the 50th floor of One Shell Square on Poydras Street.
Tommy Lemann, as he is called by nearly everyone, is a colorful figure with the air of a mandarin. He is married to the New Orleans novelist Sheila Bosworth, and he’s a great collector of facts on obscure topics—Scottish glens, these days.....
Princeton Alumni Weekly - Volume 55 (https://www.google.com/search?biw=1178&bih=650&tbm=bks&ei=rGjNX9blL8XNtQbv1o7oDA&q=spencer+"*He+roomed+with+Phil+Strong+his+first+two+years+%2C+was+on+the+crew+squad+and+a+member+of+Charter+"&oq=spencer+"*He+roomed+with+Phil+Strong+his+first+two+years+%2C+was+on+the+crew+squad+and+a+member+of+Charter+"&gs_l=psy-ab.3...11477.15182.0.17133.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.0KbgrUU8F7U)
WALKER B. SPENCER JR . '22 It was absolutely ... B. He roomed with Phil Strong his first two years , was on the crew squad and a member of Charter . Associated with the law firm ...
https://www.tor.com/2013/08/09/toby-barlow-cia-agent-babayaga/
I Never Knew My Grandfather, Only What He Pretended to Be ...
Aug 9, 2013 — His name is Philip Strong and he has boarded here in the Hamburg ... Although I possess a volume of his letters from this trip, letters I have ...
....What is Philip Strong doing here? Maybe it is a bit of self-motivated opportunism. Perhaps he senses history coming and is cleverly placing himself squarely in its path.
Once they arrive in Berlin, Leko will strike up an acquaintance with a fellow name Otto Fuerbringer. This Otto fellow knows Berlin well so they all start travelling around town together. Otto is a Kansas City reporter, tall and handsome, my grandfather reports, a Harvard man. One day he will become the managing editor of Time Magazine. These are the sorts of people idly wandering around Hitler’s Germany in 1937, visiting all the various art museums, gardens and zoos (“the keeper who did the animal feeding was a born comedian.”)...
Fred, this is the opinion that inspired my search to confirm or debunk Garrison. The late Tom Purvis also described the importance in New Orleans society of the two leading secret societies, Rex and Comus.
"Rex" by Thomas H. Purvis :
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/4471-rex/
Fred, Weissberg was charmed by Jesse Core, who seemed to be everywhere, from Core's wife being close to Edwin Walker's future landlord, and to Mac Wallace through the student protest group he led, to being Clay Shaw's confidant and the PR promoter of Garrison's campaign for NOLA D.A., as well as making sure Oswald was receiving media and FBI attention for distributing "Fair Play" pamphlets. Core and David Baldwin, Garrison's wife's godfather and first cousin, were both CIA serving together in India and former WWII fighter pilots, as well as postwar "cover" as journalists, before working back to back for Clay Shaw, Jesse Core taking the Trade Mart PR job after Baldwin accepted a position as AMA spokesman.
Weissberg:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonShawJesseConnedWeisberg.jpg)
Weissberg claimed the NOLA print shop owner and his assistant agreed after seeing a photo of Thornley, that it was Thornley who had picked up an order of "Fair Play" pamphlets, and not Oswald.
Thornley :
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CoreThornleyBoltonSpring1963.jpg)
Thornley :
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CoreThornley.jpg)
Clint Bolton, briefly at Princeton, had worked for AP in India. Dulles interrupted his Princeton stodies to spend a year in India. Dulles entered Princeton in the same year as Frank Churchward, the man responsible for sending Willard Robertson from CT to LA. Robertson was a 39 year old father of two with no clear career path, mens clothing retail sales in 1940, restaurant and bar manager near Yale campus, in early 1940s, when Churchward hired Robertson first as a factory worker and then promoted him as superintendent of manufacturing, under the eye of Naval procurement and ONI. Frank Churchward offered the Navy proprietary welding tech. Postwar, Churchward shifted production to Steel Kraft boats, a mix of foreign defense models and civilian boating lines, sending Robertson to NOLA to establish a southern sales branch. Robertson soon divorced and remarried to his 20+ years younger secretary, Marie Gossum, daughter of Ernest, manager of NOLA CC since 1925. Ernest Gossum served on Country Club committees with, and in golf tournaments with William P Burke. Both Burke and Lloyd Ray's obits include their membership at New Orleans Country Club, and Ray chose that club for a 1967 meeting with CIA's counsel, in reaction to Garrison's "inquiry".
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BurkeNolaCityDir1949crp.jpg)
Willard Robertson leased a Trade Mart office in the mid 1950s to promote a line of imported compact cars.
Nicholas B Lemann bashed Garrison in thecrimson at Harvard, as early as in 1973, and wrote the late 1990 GQ article that Stone and Zachary Sklar spent part of their book rebutting, and Perry Russo sued GQ publisher Conde Nast, in response to.
Lemann's first job, post Harvard, was at the desk next to Tom Bethel's at Washington Monthly.
Lemann's father, Thomas, brother of accused Garrison "CIA paymaster" Stephen B Lemann, step-brothers of David Baldwin's wife, Mildred Lyons Lemann.
No disclaimer about working for Garrison and with Garrison basher and Thomas Lemann's son, Nicholas, or that Garrison had, in a letter to the FCC chairman, accused WDSU outside counsel of distributing funds for the CIA to pay lawyers to shield witnesses from Garrison's "inquiry". Both WDSU outside counsel, Stephen B Lemann, and his brother, Thomas were :
(http://jfkforum.com/images/LemannWDSUFCC022067.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BaldwinLyonsSternWDSU.jpg)
The best man in the 1927 of William P Burke was the close friend of USMC general Philip G Strong.
Both were well acquainted at Hill School in Pottstown with
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BurkeSpencerHillSchool1918.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonPhilStrongCDjackson.jpg)
Smartest two "in the room."
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonPhilStrongCDJackson1918.jpg)
William P Burke's daughter, Constance Ivy, was "Queen of Comus" it is included on her findagrave page.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/WBSpencerBurkeBuffet.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BurkeBrainardSpencerBestMan.jpg)
Not only did Philip G Strong attend Hill School with CD Jackson and Jackson's best friend, Parker-Lloyd Smith,
during a seemingly ill timed. 1936 "walking tour" of Europe and Russia, then USMC captain Strong toured Berlin
with the 1963 managing editor of Time magazine.:
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonBurkeFuerbringer1122A.jpg)
General Philip G Strong, CIA Science Officer in 1954, has been nicknamed, "father of the U2"!
https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/iscap/pdf/2014-004-doc01.pdf
Afterward Kelly Johnson noted that the civilian officials were very ... cupied when Philip Strong approached him in mid-May 1954 with the concept of tl1e proposed ... offer on behalf of General Chim1g's father, Generalissimo Chiang. Kai-shek.
Meagher thought the Dallas Police was largely behind the assassination and cover-up. Folks in the Northeast (Meagher was a New Yorker) had a low regard for Texas officials. Meagher was a Liberal who would readily assume Oswald was targeted because he had been in Russia, and that part of him being presented as the assassin was to discredit the left.
The Yankee and Cowboy War: Conspiracies from Dallas to Watergate by Carl Oglesby was a pretty good book. He basically split the powerful into two camps: Yankee (Northeast) and Cowboys (Texas and surroundings). Culturally, it's like today's Blue and Red States.
This observation by Meagher needs to be underscored: "I find it hard to believe that three would-be assassins discussed the logistics of an assassination in the presence of a casual acquaintance and non-participant in their plot." Even worse, according to Garrison's allegations it wasn't just one "casual acquaintance", i.e., Perry Russo, it was several, e.g., Charles Speisel and according to Spiesel, "ten or eleven" men.
To repeat: according to Garrison, Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw plotted the assassination of JFK at a party while others listened in. Then, somehow (Garrison claimed later), they got the FBI, Dallas Police Department, CIA, Secret Service and assorted others to join in with this plot.
I can totally see that happening under the circumstances. Sometimes criminals get cocky and arrogant and run their mouths when you would not expect them to utter a word.
That is a rather severe distortion of what Garrison claimed.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/josiah-thompson-on-jim-garrison (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/josiah-thompson-on-jim-garrison)
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/josiah-thompson-on-jim-garrison (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/josiah-thompson-on-jim-garrison)
You cannot convict someone of guilt by association. Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were convicted of the Okla City Fed Bldg bombings. The FBI and who knows who were after anyone that even looked like them...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing_conspiracy_theories
Garrison was also wrong in his thinking that a cabal of perverts plotted to assassinate JFK.
He also believed that LHO was involved... and I still can't see how.
You cannot convict someone of guilt by association.I should have acknowledged that it has been done often and that it is an unfortunate form of justice.
LHO was involved? Absolutely.... He was the patsy....That's not what Garrison alleged in the Clay Shaw trial which is what the topic is about, i.e., Garrison's behavior in the Shaw matter and his repeated abuses of the law in the investigation he conducted. He smeared and ruined numerous people's lives. Based on little more than his own, sometimes sordid, fantasies; although he probably believed most of them.
That's not what Garrison alleged in the Clay Shaw trial which is what the topic is about, i.e., Garrison's behavior in the Shaw matter and his repeated abuses of the law in the investigation he conducted. He smeared and ruined numerous people's lives. Based on little more than his own, sometimes sordid, fantasies; although he probably believed most of them.
Garrison said that Oswald conspired with Shaw and Ferrie and others (unnamed) to shoot the president. And that Oswald was the one who brought the murder weapon - or one of them - to the TSBD. Garrison said explicitly that Oswald was a willing and active conspirator in the murder of JFK and not a patsy.
This is from his opening statement to the jury in the trial:
"The defendant, CLAY L, SHAW, is charged in a bill of indictment with having willfully and unlawfully conspired with DAVID W, FERRIE, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and others to murder JOHN F. KENNEDY."
Again, Oswald was one of the conspirators in the murder of JFK. Not a patsy.
This conspiracy involved: "Discussion by OSWALD, FERRIE and the defendant, SHAW of means and methods of execution of the conspiracy with regard to assassination of JOHN F. KENNEDY -- particularly, the selection and use of rifles to be fired from multiple directions simultaneously to produce a triangulation of crossfire, establishing and selecting the means and routes of escape from the assassination scene, determination of procedures and the places to be used for some of the principals to the conspiracy so as to establish alibis on the date of the assassination."
And the conspiracy also included: "LEE HARVEY OSWALD taking a rifle to the Texas Book Depository in Dallas, Texas on or before November 22, 1963."
So Oswald discussed and planned out the murder of JFK. And brought a rifle to be used as part of that act. If Garrison was right then your theory as to what happened is 100% wrong.
Garrison's full opening statement is here: https://jfk-online.com/state.html
That's not what Garrison alleged in the Clay Shaw trial which is what the topic is about, i.e., Garrison's behavior in the Shaw matter and his repeated abuses of the law in the investigation he conducted. He smeared and ruined numerous people's lives. Based on little more than his own, sometimes sordid, fantasies; although he probably believed most of them.
Garrison said that Oswald conspired with Shaw and Ferrie and others (unnamed) to shoot the president. And that Oswald was the one who brought the murder weapon - or one of them - to the TSBD. Garrison said explicitly that Oswald was a willing and active conspirator in the murder of JFK and not a patsy.
This is from his opening statement to the jury in the trial:
"The defendant, CLAY L, SHAW, is charged in a bill of indictment with having willfully and unlawfully conspired with DAVID W, FERRIE, LEE HARVEY OSWALD and others to murder JOHN F. KENNEDY."
Again, Oswald was one of the conspirators in the murder of JFK. Not a patsy.
This conspiracy involved: "Discussion by OSWALD, FERRIE and the defendant, SHAW of means and methods of execution of the conspiracy with regard to assassination of JOHN F. KENNEDY -- particularly, the selection and use of rifles to be fired from multiple directions simultaneously to produce a triangulation of crossfire, establishing and selecting the means and routes of escape from the assassination scene, determination of procedures and the places to be used for some of the principals to the conspiracy so as to establish alibis on the date of the assassination."
And the conspiracy also included: "LEE HARVEY OSWALD taking a rifle to the Texas Book Depository in Dallas, Texas on or before November 22, 1963."
So Oswald discussed and planned out the murder of JFK. And brought a rifle to be used as part of that act. If Garrison was right then your theory as to what happened is 100% wrong.
Garrison's full opening statement is here: https://jfk-online.com/state.html
"What worries me deeply is that we in America are in great danger of slowly evolving into a proton-fascist state. It will be a different kind of fascist state from the one of the Germans evolved; theirs grew out of depression and promised bread and work, while ours, curiously enough, seems to be emerging from prosperity. But in the final analysis, it's based on power and on the inability to put human goals and human conscience above the dictates of the state. Its origins can be traced in the tremendous war machine we've built since 1945, the "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhower vainly warned us about, which now dominates every aspect of our life. The power of the states and Congress has gradually been abandoned to the Executive Department, because of war conditions; and we've seen the creation of an arrogant, swollen bureaucratic complex totally unfettered by the checks and balances of the Constitution.
In a very real and terrifying sense, our Government is the CIA and the Pentagon, with Congress reduced to a debating society. Of course, you can't spot this trend to fascism by casually looking around. You can't look for such familiar signs as the swastika, because they won't be there. We won't build Dachaus and Auschwitzes; the clever manipulation of the mass media is creating a concentration camp of the mind that promises to be far more effective in keeping the populace in line. We're not going to wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in gray uniforms goose-stepping off to work. But this isn't the test. The test is: What happens to the individual who dissents? In Nazi Germany, he was physically destroyed; here, the process is more subtle, but the end results can be the same.
I've learned enough about the machinations of the CIA in the past year to know that this is no longer the dreamworld America I once believed in. The imperatives of the population explosion, which almost inevitably will lessen our belief in the sanctity of the individual human life, combined with the awesome power of the CIA and the defense establishment, seem destined to seal the fate of the America I knew as a child and bring us into a new Orwellian world where the citizen exists for the state and where raw power justifies any and every immoral act. I've always had a kind of knee-jerk trust in my Government's basic integrity, whatever political blunders it may make. But I've come to realize that in Washington, deceiving and manipulating the public are viewed by some as the natural prerogatives of office. Huey Long once said, "Fascism will come to America in the name of anti-fascism." I'm afraid, based on my own experience that fascism will come to America in the name of National Security."
/Jim Garrison.
Jim Garrison's book “A Heritage Of Stone” is available on the Internet as a PDF file and free of charge: https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/HeritageOfStone/index.html (https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/HeritageOfStone/index.html)
Thanks for posting that, Christer .... I believe Garrison had it right..... The America that I grew up in is gone. We've allowed too many non American's to take control.
Who are these non-Americans who are in control? And in control of what? America?
Who are these non-Americans who are in control? And in control of what? America?This is the conspiracy "history" that we have to deal with. Things like JFK was going to end the Cold War or dismantle the "national security state" or pull out of Vietnam.
This is the conspiracy "history" that we have to deal with. Things like JFK was going to end the Cold War or dismantle the "national security state" or pull out of Vietnam.
And these secret "non-Americans" silenced him to prevent that. See, there's really a cabal that is controlling things.
We can talk about the Z film or the autopsy or a dozen and one other things about the assassination but that won't work. That is because we are trying to reason with people who think this all powerful cabal really runs things. And they can literally do anything.
You can't reason with this worldview.
”John F. Kennedy was murdered because he was genuinely seeking peace in a corrupt world. It is doubtful whether anyone in our time quite so young has ever done quite so much for peace on this earth.”
/Jim Garrison
District Attorney
New Orleans
Researcher Paul Bleau has mentioned some of the consequences caused by the assassination of President Kennedy, quote: “The JFK assassination was arguably the most important one in the last century. We are still feeling the aftershocks, quite intensely actually. The pillars of U.S. democracy cracked at the seams in 1963. An elected and popular president was taken out, for the benefit of so few. A masquerade of law and order was put in place by the benefactors. The fourth estate shamed itself by choosing the side of the winners. Historians brainwashed decades of young students by parroting the Warren Commission fairytale. In power behind the scenes and emboldened, the perpetrators were pulling the strings on a number of political assassinations that followed, unholy drug and arms deals, political dirty tricks, coups and wars, Wall Street money games, and other major scandals that came in waves and went unpunished. You know something is wrong when the people responsible for millions of deaths in Vietnam alone, trillions of dollars in damages and inequalities in the world’s most powerful country are living the life of Riley, while at the same time four white cops took George Floyd’s life because of a fake 20 dollar bill.” - End quote.
From ”Government of the people, by the people, for the people." To "Government of big business, by big business, for big business.."
”John F. Kennedy was murdered because he was genuinely seeking peace in a corrupt world. It is doubtful whether anyone in our time quite so young has ever done quite so much for peace on this earth.”If you believe that the Soviets and Mao and Castro and North Vietnam all wanted to "make peace" with the US but it was the evil militarists in the US that prevented this then I think you are completely wrong. It's been more than 25 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. We know what they wanted to do. And it wasn't to make peace with the West.
/Jim Garrison
District Attorney
New Orleans
Researcher Paul Bleau has mentioned some of the consequences caused by the assassination of President Kennedy, quote: “The JFK assassination was arguably the most important one in the last century. We are still feeling the aftershocks, quite intensely actually. The pillars of U.S. democracy cracked at the seams in 1963. An elected and popular president was taken out, for the benefit of so few. A masquerade of law and order was put in place by the benefactors. The fourth estate shamed itself by choosing the side of the winners. Historians brainwashed decades of young students by parroting the Warren Commission fairytale. In power behind the scenes and emboldened, the perpetrators were pulling the strings on a number of political assassinations that followed, unholy drug and arms deals, political dirty tricks, coups and wars, Wall Street money games, and other major scandals that came in waves and went unpunished. You know something is wrong when the people responsible for millions of deaths in Vietnam alone, trillions of dollars in damages and inequalities in the world’s most powerful country are living the life of Riley, while at the same time four white cops took George Floyd’s life because of a fake 20 dollar bill.” - End quote.
From ”Government of the people, by the people, for the people." To "Government of big business, by big business, for big business.."
This is the Garrisonite view. All of the Cold War was caused by the US. History shows that Mr. Garrison was completely wrong. The US was the watchman for freedom..
Henry Wallace, in 1952, said this (from his essay "Where I Was Wrong"):
"Before 1949 I thought Russia really wanted and needed peace. After 1949 I became more and more disgusted with the Soviet methods and finally became convinced that the Politburo wanted the Cold War continued indefinitely, even at the peril of accidentally provoking a hot war."
Further: "Russia may not want a hot war in the next ten years, but she certainly wants such a continuation of the Cold War as will enable her, through her satellites and internally-planted subversives, to take over the greatest amount of territory possible. Russia is still on the march, and the question now is whether she will be able to take over all of Asia, including India and the Near East."
That's the real Henry Wallace not the naive person who before "thought" Russia wanted peace. They didn't.
JFK may have wanted peace; the problem was he didn't have the only vote on the matter.
By the way, one of the advisers to Wallace when he ran for president in 1948 was one John Abt. Yes, the same John Abt who was a lifelong member of the Communist Party (although he denied it for decades) and a member of the Soviet spy cell the "Ware group". And the man that Oswald wanted as his attorney.
"Freedom" provided by the U.S...Question: What is the source for that copy-and-paste effort on your part?
The United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other countries' territory 216 times since independence from Britain. Since 1945 the U.S has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world. Since World War II, the United States actually dropped BOMBS ON 23 COUNTRIES. These include: China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53, Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Congo 1964, Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala 1967-69, Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1984, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s, Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-1999, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998, and Yugoslavia 1999. Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in over 20 different coups throughout the world, and the CIA was responsible for half a dozen assassinations of political heads of state.
The following is a comprehensive summary of the imperialist strategy of the United States over the span of the past century: Argentina-1890-Troops sent to Buenos Aires to protect business interests. Chile-1891- Marines sent to Chile and clashed with nationalist rebels. Haiti-1891-American troops suppress a revolt by Black workers on United States-claimed Navassa Island. Hawaii-1893-Navy sent to Hawaii to overthrow the independent kingdom-Hawaii annexed by the United States. Nicaragua-1894-Troops occupied Bluefields, a city on the Caribbean Sea, for a month. China-1894-95-Navy, Army, and Marines landed during the Sino-JapaneseWar. Korea-1894-96 Troops kept in Seoul during the war. Panama-1895-Army, Navy, and Marines landed in the port city of Corinto. China-1894-1900-Troops occupied China during the Boxer Rebellion. Philippines-1898-1910-Navy and Army troops landed after the Philippines fell during the Spanish-American War; 600,000 Filipinos were killed. Cuba-1898-1902-Troops seized Cuba in the Spanish-American War; the United States still maintains troops at Guantanamo Bay today. Puerto Rico-1898-present-Troops seized Puerto Rico in the Spanish-American War and still occupies Puerto Rico today.
Nicaragua-1898-Marines landed at the port of San Juan del Sur. Samoa-1899-Troops landed as a result over the battle for succession to the throne. Panama 1901-14 Navy supported the revolution when Panama claimed independence from Colombia. American troops have occupied the Canal Zone since 1901 when construction for the canal began. Honduras-1903 Marines landed to intervene during a revolution. Dominican Rep-1903-04 Troops landed to protect American interestsduring a revolution. Korea 1904-05 Marines landed during the Russo-Japanese War. Cuba-1906-09-Troops landed during an election. Nicaragua-1907- Troops landed and a protectorate was set up. Honduras-1907-Marines landed during Honduras war with Nicaragua. Panama-1908-Marines sent in during Panama's election.
Nicaragua-1910-Marines landed for a second time in Bluefields and Corinto. Honduras-1911-Troops sent in to protect American interests during Honduras' civil war. China-1911-41-Navy and troops sent to China during continuous flare-ups. Cuba-1912-Troops sent in to protect American interests in Havana. Panama-1912-Marines landed during Panama's election. Honduras-1912-Troops sent in to protect American interests. Nicaragua-1912-33-Troops occupied Nicaragua and fought guerrillas during its 20-year civil war. Mexico-1913-Navy evacuated Americans during revolution. Dominican Rep-1914 Navy fought with rebels over Santo Domingo. Mexico-1914-18-Navy and troops sent in to intervene against nationalists. Haiti-1914-34-Troops occupied Haiti after arevolution and occupied Haiti for 19 years. Dominican Rep-1916-24-Marines occupied the Dominican Republic for eight years. Cuba-1917-33-Troops landed and occupied Cuba for 16 years; Cuba became an economic protectorate.
World War I -1917-18 - Navy and Army sent to Europe to fight the Axis powers. Russia 1918-22 Navy and troops sent to eastern Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution; Army made five landings. Honduras-1919 Marines sent during Honduras' national elections. Guatemala 1920 Troops occupied Guatemala for two weeks during a union strike.Turkey 1922 Troops fought nationalists in Smyrna. China 1922-27 Navy and Army troops deployed during a nationalist revolt. Honduras 1924-25 Troops landed twice during a national election. Panama 1925 - Troops sent in to put down a general strike. China 1927-34 Marines sent in and stationed for seven years throughout China. El Salvador-1932 Naval warships deployed during the FMLN revolt under Marti. World War II 1941-45 Military fought the Axis powers: Japan, Germany, and Italy. Yugoslavia 1946-Navy deployed off the coast of Yugoslavia in response to the downing of an American plane. Uruguay-1947-Bombers deployed as a show of military force. Greece 1947-49 United States operations insured a victory for the far right in national "elections." Germany -1948 Military deployed in response to the Berlin blockade; the Berlin airlift lasts 444 days. Philippines-1948-54 The CIA directed a civil war against the Filipino Huk revolt. Puerto Rico-1950-Military helped crush an independence rebellion in Ponce. Korean War 1951-53 Military sent in during the war.
Iran-1953-The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah to power. Vietnam-1954-The United States offered weapons to the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh. Guatemala-1954-The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas in power. Egypt-1956-Marines deployed to evacuate foreigners after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Lebanon-1958-Navy supported an Army occupation of Lebanon during its civil war. Panama-1958-Troops landed after Panamanians demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone. Vietnam-1950s-75-Vietnam War. Cuba-1961-The CIA-directed Bay of Pigs invasions failed to overthrow the Castro government. Cuba-1962-The Navy quarantines Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Laos-1962 Military occupied Laos during its civil war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas. Panama-1964-Troops sent in and Panamanians shot while protesting the United States presence in the Canal Zone. Indonesia-1965-The CIA orchestrated a military coup. Dominican Rep -1965-66- Troops deployed during a national election. Guatemala-1966-67-Green Berets sent in. Cambodia-1969-75-Military sent in after the VietnamWar expanded into Cambodia. Oman-1970-Marines landed to direct a possible invasion into Iran. Laos-1971-75-Americans carpet-bomb the countryside during Laos' civil war.
Chile-1973-The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing President Allende who had been popularly elected. The CIA helped to establish a military regime under General Pinochet. Cambodia-1975-Twenty-eight Americans killed in an effort to retrieve the crew of the Mayaquez, which had been seized. Angola-1976-92- The CIA backed South African rebels fighting against Marxist Angola. Iran -1980- Americans aborted a rescue attempt to liberate 52 hostages seized in the Teheran embassy. Libya-1981-American fighters shoot down two Libyan fighters. El Salvador-198-92-The CIA, troops, and advisers aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN. Nicaragua-1981-90-The CIA and NSC directed the Contra War against the Sandinistas. Lebanon-1982-84-Marines occupied Beirut during Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the Mediterranean. Honduras-1983-89-Troops sent in to build bases near the Honduran border. Grenada-1983-84-American invasion overthrew the Maurice Bishop government.
Iran-1984-American fighters shot down two Iranian planes over the Persian Gulf. Libya-1986-American fighters hit targets in and around the capital city of Tripoli. Bolivia-1986-The Army assisted government troops on raids of cocaine areas. Iran-1987-88-The United States intervened on the side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Libya-1989-Navy shot down two more Libyan jets. Virgin Islands-1989-Troops landed during unrest among Virgin Island peoples. Philippines -1989-Air Force provided air cover for government during coup. Panama-1989-90-27,000 Americans landed in overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama civilians were killed. Liberia-1990-Troops entered Liberia to evacuate foreigners during civil war. Saudi Arabia-1990-91American troops sent to Saudi Arabia, which was a staging area in the war against Iraq. Kuwait-1991-Troops sent into Kuwait to turn back Saddam Hussein. Somalia-1992-94-Troops occupied Somalia during civil war. Bosnia-1993-95-Air Force jets bombed "no-fly zone" during civil war in Yugoslavia. Haiti-1994-96-American troops and Navy provided a blockade against Haiti's military government. The CIA restored Aristide to power. Zaire-1996-97-Marines sent into Rwanda Hutus' refugee camps in the area where the Congo revolution began. Albania-1997-Troops deployed during evacuation of foreigners. Sudan-1998-American missiles destroyed a pharmaceutical complex where alleged nerve gas components were manufactured. Afghanistan-1998-Missiles launched towards alleged Afghan terrorist training camps.
The U.S. Government has been involved in assassination plots of prominent foreign leaders since the end of Second World War.
Question: What is the source for that copy-and-paste effort on your part?
I'll say again, this is the Garrisonite view of the causes of the Cold War. Would you care to list the times the Soviets and other communist nations sent into troops? Or is just an indictment solely of the US?
As Henry Wallace (remember him?) said: "Russia may not want a hot war at tang time in the net ten years, but she certainly wants such a continuation of the Cold War as will enable her, through her satellites and internally-planted subversives, to take over the greatest amount of territory possible. Russia is still on the march, and the question now is when"
And Wallace again: "More and more I am convinced that Russian Communism in its total disregard of truth, in its fanaticism, its intolerance and its resolute denial of God and religion is something utterly evil."
Utterly evil. That's your guy Wallace not me.
Again: if you want to believe the Cold War was caused solely or mostly by the West, by the US specifically, feel free to make that argument. This isn't the Soviet Union or a communist country where such views weren't allowed.
James DiEugenio has now published nine articles about me! Who doesn't like being talked about? I thought it was time to return the favor.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/fred-litwin-s-follies (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/fred-litwin-s-follies)
“I was ready to walk the book out to the trash bin behind my apartment. Instead, I decided to take a few days off. I had to in order to recover my damaged sensibilities.”
....
Mr. Litwin did not share with his readers the following, also from author Don Carpenter,Quotehttp://blog.donaldhcarpenter.com/2011_03_01_archive.html
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
David Baldwin/Clay Shaw
I spent some time last week nailing down the relationship between David Baldwin, the ex-CIA man, and Clay Shaw. There are a lot of interesting coincidences in that one.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-knckgt3ASNI/Vrd2i7xQ1aI/AAAAAAAACvo/5jaPhYc302k/s512-Ic42/BaldwinFirstCousinCarpenter.jpg) ....
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-5/#comment-875347
Tom S.
May 10, 2016 at 6:08 pm
Link to last week’s “Cotw” – https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-4/
http://www.honduras.com/banana-trade-in-honduras/12/
……..
The 1920’s were a real challenge for division managers. After the passing away of Vicente D’Antoni, the division was managed by both Carmelo D’Antoni and by John Miceli, who did so, along with their other responsibilities on an off and on basis. This went on until 1922, when Biagio D’Antoni was assigned the position.
John Miceli – http://specialcollections.tulane.edu/archon/?p=collections/findingaid&id=84&disabletheme=1
Neighbor’s of Carlos Marcello :
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=132863&relPageId=8&search=biaggio
John Miceli’s sister is married to Carmelo D’Antoni,(1)(1a) brother of Biaggio and Standard Fruit chairman, Dr. Joseph S. D’Antoni.
In 1939, John Miceli married Dorothy Agnes Brandao.(2) His brother, Augusto was counsel for Standard Fruit.
Times-Picayune, The (New Orleans, LA) — Saturday, July 5, 2003
Dorothy Agnes Brandao, a retired Central Intelligence Agency field agent, died Sunday at Chateau de Notre Dame. She was 92.,,,
https://casetext.com/case/standard-fruit-and-steamship-co-v-hampton
Standard Fruit and Steamship Co. v. Hampton
Opinion No. 15958.
June 5, 1956.
Robert E. Leake, Jr., Ralph L. Kaskell, Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan Stiles, New Orleans, La., Eberhard P. Deutsch, Augusto P. Miceli, René H. Himel, Jr., New Orleans, La., of counsel, for appellant.
http://www.assassinationweb.com/roseb1.htm
INCA DINKA DO*
by Jerry D. Rose
This article originally published in The Fourth Decade Vol. 4, #3, Mar. 1997.
....
Beyond the T&C connections to INCA represented by Robertson, Shilstone and Raul, there is at least one other likely connection. In reporting the formation of T&C, James and Wardlaw mention a few additional members, namely Eberhard Deutsch,…. (33) The name of Deutsch jumps out of that list, since he is an attorney whose name appears on the letterhead of the Directors of INCA. (34) Deutsch has been described by Scott (who was probably unaware of his T&C connection) as the General Counsel of Standard Fruit and as “Jim Garrison’s former law partner and political mentor.” (35)
Joe,Thanks, Tom. Your turn, Fred?
DiEugenio is a retired school teacher. You do not quote him saying, "from work".
Do not mistake this post as a defense of Jim DiEugenio. It should be obvious we are in deep disagreement about Garrison. DiEugenio and now Mr. Litwin, are victims of Garrison's deception, but not in the way Mr. Litwin believes.
And Fred, a search of your blog posts indicates no mention of the funding of the Garrison Investigation, beyond one mention of the funding organization, "Truth or Consequences". You did mention David Baldwin in one of your posts, referencing a document similar to this, but not including Jesse Core, a close friend of Baldwin's who succeeded Baldwin as the Trade Mart's PR director and later was PR director of Garrison's NODA political campaign. Jesse Core, "won over" Harold, to say the least!
From the Weisberg archive, the beginning of a long friendship :
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonShawJesseConnedWeisberg.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/CoreBaldwinCalcutta.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-knckgt3ASNI/Vrd2i7xQ1aI/AAAAAAAACvo/5jaPhYc302k/s512-Ic42/BaldwinFirstCousinCarpenter.jpg) ....
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonJessCoreVsShawAndBaldwin.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonJesseClient041466.jpg)
And Fred, wasn't Garrison's mentor, Eberhard Deutsch, and wasn't Dorothy Brandao one of three longtime CIA staff in the NOLA domestic contacts office?
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonDeutschDorothyBrandaoWed.jpg)
Dorothy Brandao's brother-in-law was inside counsel for Standard Fruit, and outside counsel was...
I’ve had enough encounters with DiEugenio throughout the years to understand he’s a deeply dark and paranoid individual. Through that paranoia one learns he’s highly biased and the very fundamentals of the known evidence in the case escape him. At the jfkfacts.com site he would continually accuse me of being other posters. He’s rude, offensive and not that bright IMO.
Safe to say, Paul, that L.A. Jim is the Pied Piper of the CT rats, all following him out of Hamelin, Lower Saxony included. This is so delicious. Can't wait for Oliver's latest attempt at revisionist history, can you?
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jim-garrison-names-the-grassy-knoll-gunman (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jim-garrison-names-the-grassy-knoll-gunman)In Garrison's last book on the assassination (published in 1988), "On the Trail of the Assassins", Larry Crafard's name doesn't appear a single time.
Nice job Fred. Peter Whitmey was a nice guy and a good researcher who I corresponded with back in the day. Anyone know if he is still alive?Sorry for posting such a lengthy reply, but there was something about Peter's earnestness and determination in pursuing the facts related to Priscilla Johnson's relationships with "Marina & Lee" that motivated me to put the effort I did into extending Peter's inquiry.
http://jfkforum.com/2017/10/01/are-we-there-yet-part-ii/
……..
Priscilla Johnson fully inserted herself into Marina’s life by late July, 1964, as Katya and Declan Ford did the hand off to Priscilla. Priscilla’s CIA handler was Garrison Garry Coit. Coit and Thomas Devine and 15 other Sigma Chi frat brothers cohabited in their frat house on MIT campus from fall, 1944. Coit went to Naval radio school in late Sept., Devine followed two weeks later.
Devine had nine contacts with DeMohrenschildt from late April, 1963 through late May. Devine and his close friend Joseph F Dryer, Jr. met separately with DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Charles on 25 April, 1963.
In late Sept., 1964, Priscilla put herself and Marina under the domicile and hospitality of her first cousin David C. Davenport, later described by Sam Ballen as a former CIA man. Davenport’s obit refers to his intelligence work.
In December, 1964, news and FBI reports describe Marina and Priscilla residing in a Sedona, AZ apartment, transported and escorted by Jerome Hastings, close friend of Davenport, driving Davenport’s Corvair with Alaska plates. In July, 1965, Davenport and Hastings are sued in New Mexico by Hasting’s step-daughter, JoAnn McAdams,
first cousin of presidential assistant Clark Clifford. The suit describes Hastings as then second husband of Clifford’s aunt, Marguerite Bowman McAdams Hasty. In 1966, Jerome Hasty legally changed his name in New Mexico to Hastings.
At this link, I have documented that in 1978 HSCA counsel asked Priscilla Johnson Macmillan why her book, “Marina and Lee” was delayed at least a dozen years. See:
https://archive.is/esTuB
....
https://archive.is/o/esTuB/www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95330&relPageId=42
(https://archive.is/esTuB/341f69f3897bf5d6d30cea5923ff3b0c4430a59b.jpg)
....
Peter "weighed in" about a tragic family incident two years ago. He's 76 sometime in this year.:
http://www.jfk-info.com/whitmey6.htm
I hope he is well, too.
Thanks for the information Tom.
Two Brides Entertained
The Sun - Feb 11, 1951
Miss Anne Calhoun Iglehart and her brother, Mr. Iredell W. Iglehart, will give a party ... It will be
In honor of Miss Jessie Leigh Hunt and her fiance, Mr. Albert....
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=2509.0
...
The Odessa American from Odessa, Texas · Page 14
www.newspapers.com/newspage/53264721/
... In Pecos County, A1bert C. Bruce Jr. and Thomas J. Devine, Midland operators, will drill the No. 1 G. R.
....
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1992-03-22-1992082060-story.html
March 22, 1992
Anne I. Sommers
Worked at the CIA
A memorial service for Anne Iglehart Sommers, a Baltimore native and former CIA employee, will be at 11 a.m. Saturday at Christ Church of Georgetown in Washington.
Mrs. Sommers died Friday at her home in Chevy Chase of lung cancer. She was 63.
In the early 1950s, she was a CIA operations officer for East Germany for two years. In May 1953, she married Frank Feldher Sommers, a CIA officer. They lived in Frankfurt, Germany; Vienna, Austria; Bern, Switzerland; and Vientiane, Laos.
Mrs. Sommers served on embassy committees and school boards in each of these cities.
From 1981 to 1991, she was an administrative assistant at the International Management and Development Institute, a non-profit group in Washington that worked with Fortune 500 companies and major corporations abroad.
Mrs. Sommers attended the Calvert and Bryn Mawr schools in Baltimore and graduated from Bryn Mawr College in Bryn Mawr, Pa.
She is survived by her husband; two daughters, Wing Sommers Blake of Washington and ....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Temple_Canfield
Michael Temple Canfield (August 20, 1926 – December 20, 1969) was an American soldier who worked in London as a representative of Harper & Row.
...
He later worked in London as an editorial representative of Harper and Row where his father was publisher.[9] In London, he lived at Canfield House in Eaton Square and was elected a member of White's, the elite gentleman's club in St James's. In New York, he was a member of the Knickerbocker Club.[7]
Personal life
On April 18, 1953, he was married to Caroline Lee Bouvier (1933–2019)[10] at the Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Washington, D.C.[7] She was a daughter of stockbroker John Vernou Bouvier III and his wife, socialite Janet Norton Lee (then Mrs. Hugh D. Auchincloss).[11] ...
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17838-more-than-just-a-rant/page/3/
On 4/7/2013 at 10:55 PM, Tom Scully said:
................
Recently I came upon Hugo G. Koehler, Jr.. His father was quite a character, and was the step-father of Claiborne Pell. This wedding party provided my access.:
SALLY WOODBURY BRIDE IN SUBURBS; Sister Honor Maid at ...
New York Times - Dec 9, 1951
The ushers were James G. Woodbury, brother of the bride; Lieut. ... R. L; Hugo G.' Koehler of New York, James K.- Donaldson of Washington, Shepard Sykes ...
Mr. Handy attended the Berkshire School in Sheffield, Mass., and was graduated
I am interested because James K. Donaldson was also listed as an usher in this 1955 wedding.:
Diplomats' Kin Usher at Barbara Pullman's Wedding Today
Chicago Tribune - Oct 1, 1955
... and Lt. James-K. Don. aldson of the marines, who is the stepson of James H. ... broth- ers of the bride; Thomas Devine of Midland, Tex., Andre Rhe- ault and ...
...........
Did the C.I.A. "Sheep Dip" and Orchestrate the Tale of the Patsy ...
educationforum.ipbhost.com › ... › JFK Assassination DebateMay 17, 2012 – James K. Donaldson's mother, Elinor Thompson Donaldson Douglas, (stepmother of ... Pakistan, July 31, (UPI! .... building ventures conducted by Rodman Rockefeller and his IBEC Housing Corporation and Willard Garvey ..
An Uncommon Man: The Life & Times of Senator Claiborne Pell - Page 214
6]
books.google.com/books?isbn=1611681871
G. Wayne Miller
- 2011 -
Preview
-
More editions
Capelotti
wrote of Koehler's own search “after this supposed extraordinary revelation” for proof of his origins, an exercise in
...
The senator approached
Jackie Kennedy
Onassis
,
who had established herself as a leading editor at Doubleday.
Onassis provided encouragement to Pell, but no offer of
a contract for an autobiography or biography by another writer. Pell turned to his cousin John Pell Train, author and co-founder of The Paris Review.....
https://clintonwhitehouse6.archives.gov/2000/06/2000-06-01-train-named-to-the-federal-retirement-thrift-investment-board.html
For Immediate Release June 1, 2000
PRESIDENT CLINTON NAMES JOHN TRAIN AS MEMBER OF THE
FEDERAL RETIREMENT THRIFT INVESTMENT BOARD
President Clinton today announced his intent to nominate John Train
as Member of the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board.
Mr. John Train, of New York, New York, is the founder of Train, Smith Counsel, LLC, and ICAP, one of the largest Greek financial information companies. He is Chairman of the Montrose Group, a diversified strategies portfolio investing firm, and a director of the Genesis Emerging Markets Fund (London) and the Genesis Chile Fund. Additionally, Mr. Train is a member of the Board of Directors of the Bulgarian-American Enterprise Fund, a U.S. Government entity, and has been a director of two other U.S. agencies or entities. Mr. Train co-founded The Paris Review and has published seventeen books. He has received three Italian service awards and was appointed to the Order of St. John of Jerusalem (Queen's Birthday Honours) in 1997.
Mr. Train received a B.A and an M.A. from Harvard University.
Nebolsine was also the name of the bride in my last post....
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-1WB9gJaxB4c/UoXnKZuhfrI/AAAAAAAABkE/WbpUO7QJb2s/s720/RockefellerHookerNebolsine.png)
Another example, the last U.S. Ambassador to Cuba, Earl Smith :Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_E._T._Smith#Ambassador_to_Cuba
....
Smith was named the U.S. Ambassador to Switzerland by President Kennedy, but declined because Switzerland was charged with United States relations in Cuba.[10] In the 1980s, he was named to the Presidential Commission on Broadcasting to Cuba by President Ronald Reagan alongside George W. Landau.[10]
Personal life
Smith was married four times and divorced twice. His marriage was on January 7, 1926 to Consuelo Vanderbilt (1903–2011),[16] a daughter of the former Virginia Graham Fair and William Kissam Vanderbilt II. Consuelo, the sister of Muriel Vanderbilt, was also a granddaughter of William Kissam Vanderbilt, Alva Belmont, James Graham Fair, and a niece of Harold Stirling Vanderbilt and, her namesake, Consuelo Vanderbilt (the former Duchess of Marlborough from her marriage to Charles Spencer-Churchill, 9th Duke of Marlborough).[16] Before their 1935 divorce, they were the parents of two daughters:[17]...
W. Tracy, you're a facts oriented researcher and writer. Isn't there any possibility at all that the common purpose of the WC and the Garrison Investigation was to protect a certain class of people, including Jack and Jackie, from embarrassment?
I have respect for you as a researcher Tom. But I often disagree with you. The purpose of the Garrison investigation (IMO) was to gain publicity for Mr. Garrison so that he could pursue higher office. He prosecuted an innocent man for his own gain. The WC was not perfect but they did identify the killer of JFK (IMO).
I naturally doubt people who've rushed to accept conclusions reached by our public servants.
Your willingness to focus all your attention to the WC truth you espouse without interjecting ANY doubtful caveat is odd.
I don't know what it is you gain from this position. But it's suspicious.
Yes, I have been suspected of all sorts of things since the mid-nineties. But I do what I do (without pay) for no one but myself. I am not trying to attract the attention of the CIA either. I don't think they are too worried about the JFK case at this point.
I think Robert Groden was also accused of being a CIA asset, even though he thinks the CIA killed Kennedy.
I think Robert Groden was also accused of being a CIA asset, even though he thinks the CIA killed Kennedy.
I have respect for you as a researcher Tom. But I often disagree with you. The purpose of the Garrison investigation (IMO) was to gain publicity for Mr. Garrison so that he could pursue higher office. He prosecuted an innocent man for his own gain. The WC was not perfect but they did identify the killer of JFK (IMO).
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/thread-15156-post-119187.html#pid119187
Tom Scully - 11-03-2017,Quotehttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....38&p=44704
Thomas H. Purvis, Posted 10 November 2005
QuoteLynne Foster, on Nov 9 2005, said:
As Jay Epstein aptly illustrated, Garrison's investigation shed absolutely nothing new on the assassination itself and according to the New Orleans States-Item, once a key supporter of Jim Garrison, "This travesty of justice is a reproach to the conscience of all good men...Garrison stands revealed for what he is: a man without principle who would pervert the legal process to his own ends."
Needless to say, assassination buffs began to accuse Garrison of staging the Shaw affair as a red herring to divert attention away from more salient leads in New Orleans.
Which leads to the obvious question. Is that why Garrison's supporters are so aggressive? Is it their purpose to continue to obscure the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy?
Well, one can rest assured that I am not an "assassination buff", and being considerably more familiar with New Orleans than most others who are posting here, I can assure you that Garrison was a shrewd as well as politically knowledgeable individual.
Therefore, for him to sacrifice his own personal integrity with the Clay Shaw "Circus & Sideshow", was not an act of ignorance on his part.
Therefore, if it were not an act of ignorance, then it was obviously a deliberate "act".
In addition to this, one must also consider that Garrison was formerly one of "Hoover's" boys, and for him to give a performance which was as inept as was the Clay Shaw trial, also meant that it would bring some discredit to the "Hoover" family.
Therefore, whatever political entity Garrison was dancing to the tune of, he obviously considered it to be far more critical to his long term livelihood than was the risk of offending JEH, or of even bring completely false charges against Clay Shaw.
Certainly brings to mind such items as the "Spruce Goose" and the "Glomar Explorer".
(Tom Purvis again, three days later in the same thread.:)Quotehttp://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....38&p=44888
....................
Thomas H. Purvis - Posted 12 November 2005
Garrison played the circus act long enough that everyone was quite tired of the show. Then, with his dramatic presentation of evidence, he succeeded in convincing many that everyone who even discusses this subject is quite possibly as "off" as was he.
Pretty hard act to follow!
When some factual interest again began to grow, then we were treated to "Garrison Resurected" aka/JFK per Oliver Stone.
And again, another good piece of "sleight-of-hand" which continues to prove that a good "con" can be repeatedly utililized so long as the general populace is given adequate time to "forget" the last time the con was utilized.
Since it is extremely doubtful and unlikely that either JEH or LBJ had anything to do with the assassination of JFK, Garrison "Side Show" & Company was not in the business of anything other than "diversion" away from the actual facts of the assassination, which of course JEH and the WC fully lied about.
Garrison's purpose was quite similiar to the female bird who goes into the "broken wing" act when any predator gets near the nest.
With the "broken wing", the mother bird will lead the predator off and astray, so far away from the nest that the predator is unlikely to find it's way back to the nest.
However, in the Garrison case, many of those who followed him are obviously still completely "lost" in the woods.
Certainly good for an occassional laugh, if nothing else.
I hope we can agree that the best explanation is one that encompasses and then confronts, considers and attempts to address and reasonably allow for all that is pertinent to a matter under debate, especially a major historical controversy in reaction to or as an outgrowth of a momentous historical controversy.
In his research, writing, presenting, and posting about the Garrison investigation, Jim DiEugenio does not do that and neither do other published authors, Davy, Mellen, or Garrison or his autobiography editor, Zachary Sklar, co-writer with Oliver Stone of the screen play, "JFK, the Movie". Garrison critic Nicholas B. Lemann doesn't do that, either.
Fred Litwin in what he has already published, seems to limit himself to countering DiEugenio and Garrison himself. Fred's efforts would be reasonable except for being selective, especially considering posts by Tom Purvis date back at least 17 years! But Litwin's contemporary blog posts are unreasonable as he acquires more knowledge yet fails to address any of it.
Tom Purvis knew post bellum southern society history and pecking order, especially about New Orleans. Purvis emphasized that descendants of rebel leaders like Robert E. Lee conducted their alliances and wielded their power and influence similarly to the largest portion of a iceberg, out of view, easily underestimated.
Purvis did not accept that a Garrison or a Willard Robertson could waltz in to what amounts to a closed society of long tradition, relationships, and ritual without permission from the local "PTB", including running for elected office or creating either I.N.C.A. or "Truth or Consequences" or commencing an investigation like Garrison's or even seek a party's nomination to run for the office of NODA. For example the CIA domestic contacts office was initiated and staffed in exactly the opposite way as the Garrison investigation. New Hampshire's and Iowa's Robertson and Garrison vs. Stephen B Lemann of Monroe Lemann, William P. Burke, Jr., Hunter Leake, and Dorothy Brandao of the local CIA office.
Link to Purvis's post of 17 years ago supporting that the local CIA office was an extension of NOLA's most prominent secret societies, themselves associated with descendants of rebel leaders like Robert E. Lee :
https://alt.assassination.jfk.narkive.com/tHPQCcmb/lho-the-cia-other-secret-organizations
Purvis posrs as EmptyPockets on Narkive but identified himself at the end of his post, linked above.
Well, one can rest assured that I am not an "assassination buff", and being considerably more familiar with New Orleans than most others who are posting here, I can assure you that Garrison was a shrewd as well as politically knowledgeable individual.
Therefore, for him to sacrifice his own personal integrity with the Clay Shaw "Circus & Sideshow", was not an act of ignorance on his part.
Therefore, if it were not an act of ignorance, then it was obviously a deliberate "act".
In addition to this, one must also consider that Garrison was formerly one of "Hoover's" boys, and for him to give a performance which was as inept as was the Clay Shaw trial, also meant that it would bring some discredit to the "Hoover" family.
Therefore, whatever political entity Garrison was dancing to the tune of, he obviously considered it to be far more critical to his long term livelihood than was the risk of offending JEH, or of even bring completely false charges against Clay Shaw.
Certainly brings to mind such items as the "Spruce Goose" and the "Glomar Explorer".
(Tom Purvis again, three days later in the same thread.:)
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/an-important-new-find-regarding-rose-cherami (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/an-important-new-find-regarding-rose-cherami)
Not 100% sure how her "history of making false stories" makes her clairvoyant.
Making up stories about things that have happened is one thing. Making up stories about things that are yet to happen which then turn out to be true...
There is no evidence she had any foreknowledge.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1989/08/15/bed-breakfast-a-la-bush/28b369d3-ff93-4bd4-9759-a220c45978f5/
BED BREAKFAST A LA BUSH
Aug 15, 1989 — ... W. Moseley, and childhood friend FitzGerald Bemiss -- to name a few. ... The Bushes invited Pettis and her husband, Ben Roberson, to stay with ... Bush's family has been spending summers at Kennebunkport since the ...
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/09/bushes200609
43+41=84 |
Jun 4, 2008 — Is he George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush? ... From Washington to Houston to Kennebunkport and back, shaky second- and thirdhand ... When I ask FitzGerald Bemiss, one of 41's oldest friends from childhood summers in ...
Dan,
All we have are claims made by Fruge and Weiss long after her death. Neither of them filed any reports about her supposed claim at the time she supposedly made it.
So the various testimonies/statements made by Fruge, Weiss and Magruder are not to be considered evidence of any kind?
Only Fruge would be required to submit a report and, to be quite honest, it really doesn't look good he didn't file some kind of report considering he is meant to have chartered a plane to take them all to Houston in an attempt to confirm Cherami's claims of a big drug deal going down.
How Fruge hoped to get away without filing a report on such an large and expensive investigation is beyond me.
Now I feel bad for the "Dad of the Berserk Boy". I hope he got better but it didn't sound great. They really knew how to write headlines back in those days.
My only point is that there is no real reason to believe that Cherami ever foretold of an assassination in Dallas. It's entirely possible that she never uttered one syllable about Dallas before the assassination and this thing was made up by these guys after she passed away.
Also, ask yourself, why would ANY conspirators trust someone like her with any of this stuff beforehand?
"...this thing was made up by these guys..."
Is there any evidence or testimony that backs this up?
Or is it just something you're throwing out there?
"Also, ask yourself, why would ANY conspirators trust someone like her with any of this stuff beforehand?"
I don't imagine Cherami was integral to any kind of plan involving the assassination. I don't think she was entrusted with anything sensitive. I get the impression there were some guys involved in a very large, very lucrative drug deal and, rather than be in the room themselves when the deal went down, they used a very desperate (I can't think of a better word with out cursing) person and kidnapped her child, using threats of violence against the child to get Rose to cooperate. The story reveals Rose was in a hostage situation and was probably viewed as less than nothing to those using her. I'm assuming she was off her face a lot of the time and overheard talk about the assassination coming from those who viewed her as insignificant.
What appears to be confirmed is that the info she offered concerning the drug deal turned out to be on the money unless the whole deal thing was just another lie by Fruge (a lie in which he includes the Louisiana Police Department, specifically including Colonel Morgan and Nathan Durham, Chief Customs officer for the Galveston region)
"...this thing was made up by these guys..."
Is there any evidence or testimony that backs this up?
Or is it just something you're throwing out there?
If it's backup you require, consider that there is nothing backing up the idea that Cherami mentioned Dallas before the assassination. No reports were ever filed. In 1967, Weiss even told investigator Frank Meloche that he wasn't even certain whether or not Cherami spoke of Dallas before or after the assassination.
Cherami most likely made statements to Lt. Fruge (Louisiana State Police) AFTER Ruby shot Oswald saying that Ruby and Oswald knew each other. I believe she even went as far as saying they were "bed partners". In my opinion (and I dove hard into this about ten years ago), after Oswald was killed, Cherami claimed to Fruge that Ruby and Oswald knew each other, i.e. Oswald was inside Ruby's nightclub. In my opinion, this is all that was said by Cherami regarding anything assassination-related; nothing beforehand.
In 1967, preparing for the Shaw trial, Garrison investigators interviewed hospital personnel at the East Louisiana State Hospital and not one person remembers hearing any talk of Cherami ever warning of or speaking of an upcoming assassination in Dallas before it happened.
"Evidence"... since when did evidence matter? So many are FoS, "in it" to pursue publishing profit or merely attention.
The 1957 article describes Melba Christine as age 30 and the 1960 article as age 33. Her gravestone indicates 1923 as the year of her birth.
https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-843927
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51200936343_7429691944_c.jpg)
Fred, you know what you know, and when the evidence is with you, I'm with you.
Would I have to fill an entire bus with people who either met Oswald or DeMorhrenschildt or were one person removed, and later tangled or tangoed with Bush, to persuade you from moving to, "I don't know" from your present position? Especially if you buy the narrative of "Oswald, lone assassin, his best friend in Dallas was DeMohrenschildt."
The list of names graduated from Andover in the subsequent three years. They are pictured above the A.U.V. secret society house they all resided in. Hooker was DeMohrenschildt's oil exploration business partner, his mother married DeMohrenschildt's brother in 1936. Bush was an usher in Hooker's wedding. After Hooker died in 1967, Bush escorted his daughter down the aisle in her 1972 church wedding. Macomber was best man in Bush's sister's 1946 wedding, and in Tom Devine's 1973 wedding. E. Howard Hunt's clearance to review 1963 diplomatic cables related to the murders of the Diem brothers, was approved by Macomber, a former CIA agent and Sen. John Sherman Cooper (S&B at Yale) staffer, who was hustled off to Turkey by Dept. of State in reaction to news that Hunt forged cables to impugn JFK's rep.
Devine lived in the Sigma Chi frat house @ M.I.T. with 16 other frat brothers. One was Garry Coit, Priscilla's CIA handler.
Devine reported nine contacts with DeMohrenschildt between April 25, 1963 and the end of May. His initial meeting was two weeks after DeMohrenschildt described joking with Oswald, "Lee, how could you miss?" in reaction to news of the shooting at Edwin Walker. On that same day, Joseph F Dryer said he also met with DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Charles. Devine, Dryer, and Macomber were friends growing up in Rochester.
https://sigmachi.mit.edu/docs/beaver_sigs/1946_bsig_vol1946_no1.pdf
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51200920556_af5e531e76_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51201544999_9855ff6736_c.jpg)
From "Our man in Haiti" by Joan Mellen
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51201612659_75f96e0648_z.jpg)
After I discovered from Devine's 1944 high school yearbook that Dryer's brother Peter had been a member (20 boys) of Devine's K-8 class before departing for Choate, I wrote to Joan to inquire whether Joseph Dryer had mentioned Devine.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51200122892_7dc42f88ac_z.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51197490078_69a2223cac_b.jpg)
Billy Joe Lord to President Carter, March, 1977 :
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9963#relPageId=175
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51197299766_c6ea2db21f_b.jpg)
And...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51198527733_fa19f08162_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50336417373_82bcf8e5f5_b.jpg[img]
[img]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51201071858_876dc514e5_b.jpg)
Henry Hurt's wife is Bemiss's cousin.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51197174691_bf9dc62c13_c.jpg)
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/88891802/langbourne-meade-williams
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51196621352_0c07b6c848_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51201071858_876dc514e5_b.jpg)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145503#relPageId=135&search=beamis_and%20hotels
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51200236662_12aea87291_b.jpg)
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-rose-cherami-murdered (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-rose-cherami-murdered)
Conspiracy theorists used to say that she was the victim of a hit and run. Now,
they say she was shot. But, her medical records provide no evidence that she
was short.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/3d/3f/qtt8fkSD_o.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Z312 and Z313 | (https://images2.imgbox.com/b9/a9/zVBdHV6E_o.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Z312 and Z312 with horizontal blur to imitate that of Z313 | (https://images2.imgbox.com/b9/c2/L71QUC7p_o.gif) (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Blurred Z312 and Z313 |
Outstanding piece of work.
Nalli confronts Thompson's belief in David Wimp's "blur illusion", that the forward motion between Z312 and Z313 is over-estimated (ie: Thompson thinks the forward movement was half of the two-inches usually claimed).
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Z312 and Z313
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Z312 and Z312 with horizontal
blur to imitate that of Z313
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Blurred Z312 and Z313
It is unusual and educational to have the caliber of a book by Josiah Thompson reviewed by Nicholas Nalli.
(I think the GIF on the right could have had better registration; the back seat and the parade bar aren't matching to the pixel. Aligning those points will slightly draw blurred-Z312 to the left, which would decrease the amount of movement to Kennedy's head, to make it more like two inches.)
Just made this GIF with better-quality frames, applying an horizontal-linear smear filter to Z312, similar to what Nalli did.
(https://images2.imgbox.com/2a/28/kqoiY4t8_o.gif)
Nellie Connally is the only one who seems stationary (Greer's head may move a tiny bit). Mrs. Kennedy moves forward in space (towards the camera), Governor Connally moves upwards and to camera-right, and Kellerman's head moves forwards. These movements of Connally and Kellerman can be seen occurring between Z311 and Z312 and continue smoothly after Z313 (ie: not caused by some sudden braking of the car). Mrs. Kennedy seems to have an immediately reaction to the head shot, maybe ducking her head beginning Z315.
I would guess the forward movement of Kennedy's head in this animation is two inches. Nelli's animation had too much forward movement.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-a-homosexual-conspiracy-kill-jfk (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-a-homosexual-conspiracy-kill-jfk)
Did a Homosexual Conspiracy Kill JFK?
In April 1967, a German Magazine published an article purportedly written by Jim Garrison about the homosexual conspiracy that killed JFK. I now present the entire article and a translation. But did Jim Garrison write the article? This is the first of a multi-part series to examine this very interesting piece of writing.
Fred Litwin
www.onthetrailofdelusion.com
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-a-homosexual-conspiracy-kill-jfk (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-a-homosexual-conspiracy-kill-jfk)
Did a Homosexual Conspiracy Kill JFK?
In April 1967, a German Magazine published an article purportedly written by Jim Garrison about the homosexual conspiracy that killed JFK. I now present the entire article and a translation. But did Jim Garrison write the article? This is the first of a multi-part series to examine this very interesting piece of writing.
Fred Litwin
www.onthetrailofdelusion.com
What's notable is that the claim Nagell told to the Army in 1969 (as can be seen on page 2 of the 4 page document here: https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/is-this-document-the-smoking-gun-on-the-richard-case-nagell-story ) is that this claim is quiet simple. It does not have all the bells and whistles it does when it shows up in Russells book (ie a photo of Oswald and Nagell together being stashed away in a Switzerland bank vault, tape recordings of Oswald, and Nagells order to kill Oswald).
Is it possible that the simple version Nagell gives to the army in 1969 is the truth and then Nagell inflated this simple story when he told it to Russell in order to, as is stated at the end of that 4 page document, to embarrass the CIA?
Is this Document the Smoking Gun on the Richard Case Nagell Story?
Dick Russell, in the first edition of his book The Man Who Knew Too Much, included one page from a document that he considered the "smoking gun." I publish all four pages today, and it is not a smoking gun in the slightest. If this is the only documentation, Russell can cite, then he truly has no case.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/is-this-document-the-smoking-gun-on-the-richard-case-nagell-story (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/is-this-document-the-smoking-gun-on-the-richard-case-nagell-story)
Post your evidence.
So you won't post any evidence?
I know all the claims.
But how about some evidence for ANY of it? It's one thing for Nagell to say something...but that's all there is. There is
NO, I repeat, NO evidence to support anything he said.
fred
That's not true. Nagell asked for travelers checks.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-richard-case-nagell-try-to-buy-travelers-checks-at-the-state-national-bank-in-el-paso (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/did-richard-case-nagell-try-to-buy-travelers-checks-at-the-state-national-bank-in-el-paso)
There is not one iota of evidence that he knew Oswald before the assassination. Not one iota.
fred
What complete nonsense!
There is no evidence they found such a card on Nagell. NONE.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/dick-russell-s-second-smoking-gun-on-the-richard-case-nagell-story (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/dick-russell-s-second-smoking-gun-on-the-richard-case-nagell-story)
fred
What complete nonsense!
The police did not find such a card. Did you read my post?
A poor photocopy of card was found by Bernard Fensterwald in 1976! I posted
the police inventory report and the FBI report of what was found on Nagell. No such card.
There is NO evidence such a card was found in Nagell's possession in 1963. But if you have
such evidence, then please, for the loving god, post it.
fred
Why I am adamant that Nagell did not have Oswald's card in his possession.
Because he didn't.
I have posted the list of Nagell's possessions at the time of his arriest. There is no Oswald card listed.
If you read Dick Russell, he says that he discovered a poor photocopy of the card in the Nagell file in Bernard
Fensterwald's office in 1976.
A poor photocopy. Found in 1976.
There is no evidence at all that Nagell had this card in 1963.
fred
Hold it. Are you changing the subject?
Are you giving up on your claim that Nagell had the Oswald card in his possession in 1963?
Let's clear that one up, first.
Let me know.
fred
If you believe that Nagell possessed that card. Please post your evidence!
Yes, please post your evidence that Nagell had that card in his possession in September of 1963.
Please, I beg you. Please post your evidence.
fred
Right. Glad you admit that there is NO evidence that Nagell possessed the Oswald card.
Do you relinquish the claim? Or is this religion to you?
Since there is absolutely no evidence that Nagell possessed the card, shouldn't this claim be totally dropped?
fred
Did I say that?
Here is what I said:
Right. Glad you admit that there is NO evidence that Nagell possessed the Oswald card.
Do you relinquish the claim? Or is this religion to you?
Since there is absolutely no evidence that Nagell possessed the card, shouldn't this claim be totally dropped?
fred
No, the card was NOT found among Nagell's possessions. A poor photocopy of the card was found by Dick Russell in
Bernard Fensterwald's office in Washington DC in 1976.
How long do you want this discussion to go on?
There is NO evidence that Nagell ever possessed this card.
fred
Did you read my blog post about this?
Here is the link again.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/dick-russell-s-second-smoking-gun-on-the-richard-case-nagell-story (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/dick-russell-s-second-smoking-gun-on-the-richard-case-nagell-story)
Mary Ferrell was wrong. Judy Bonner's book was not the only book with the Oswald card in it. In any case,
whatever she said (and what she said is in my blog) it is immaterial.
The poor photocopy of the Oswald card WAS FOUND IN BERNARD FENSTERWALD'S OFFICE IN 1976.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand.
The card was not in Nagell's possession in September 1976.
fred
None of this relevant.
All we have is a poor photocopy of this card that was found in Bernard Fensterwald's office
by Dick Russell in 1976.
There is no evidence that the card was in the possession of Nagell in September 1963. We also
have the property list of stuff found on Nagell from the police and the FBI and that card was not
on it. Nor did Nagell ever reference that card.
Will you finally admit the point that the card was NOT in the possession of Nagell in 1963?
This is my last post on this topic.
fred
Who was Leon Oswald?
Was there a second Oswald? Richard Case Nagell said that he met both Oswalds - Lee Harvey and Leon. One conspiracy theorists quotes a number of witnesses who support the existence of Leon. But can you trust any one of them?
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/who-was-leon-oswald (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/who-was-leon-oswald)
There are problems with EVERY part of Nagell's story.
I will get to them all...in time.
Do you buy the ridiculous Leon Oswald story?
fred
is this religion to you?
Since there is absolutely no evidence that Nagell possessed the card, shouldn't this claim be totally dropped?
I believe in the virgin birth.....And I believe Jesus was the son of God.
I believe that Richard Nagell had that card in his possession on 10 / 20 /63......
Are you saying that I have no right to my conclusion ?
What complete nonsense!
There is no evidence they found such a card on Nagell. NONE.
Welcome to the wacky World of Walt Fabrications.
The attached thread below outlining the long list of Walt's fabrications was written by another hardcore fanatical Conspiracy theorist. Go figure.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist. But that wouldn't be the first time you made false claims on this forum.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
"I'm not a conspiracy theorist."
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/lowres.cartoonstock.com/animals-duck-duck_test-insinuate-insinuation-phrase-kfon463_low.jpg)
I suppose Eisenhower's farewell address that included the warning about the MIC did not have one shared of evidence, but it did have a resonance for many Americans of what they roughly believed was going on within the halls of power Sure it was important because he was the President but certain statements that are not necessarily supported by facts can have these type of resonant truths
I humbly apologize John, yes, intelligence is required to create a theory.
But Iacoletti has gone far beyond those two organisations and he includes the Dallas Police, innocent civilians, Photographic experts, handwriting experts and a bunch of others who all lied or deliberately misinterpreted and made false conclusions based on the evidence in the attempt to convict Oswald.
Excerpt from Vince Bugliosi's book (re: Richard Nagell):
---------------------------------------------
"On January 3, 1967, Nagell got off a letter to U.S. Senator Richard Russell
in which he talked about Oswald coming under his scrutiny in 1962
and 1963. He proceeds to tell Russell that Oswald had no significant
contact with pro-Castro elements, or Marxist or racist groups, et cetera,
nor was Oswald "an agent or informant, in the generally accepted sense
of the words, for any investigative, police, or intelligence agency, domestic
or foreign."
He continued that Oswald was part of a conspiracy to murder
Kennedy that had nothing to do with a foreign government. He
concludes, "For what little it is apparently worth now, my opinion is
that the death of President Kennedy was indirectly, if not directly,
resultant from a conspiracy and also due in great part to the
stupidity or negligence of the FBI; that Mr. Oswald definitely was the
only assassin; and that his own demise was not attributable to any
conspiracy of which I was cognizant." (DOJCD Record 186-10001-10118)
Using Nagell's own words, he seems to be indirectly removing
himself from consideration by conspiracy theorists as being a player
on their field. But Nagell remained, and remains, a fixture in the
conspiracy firmament.
If there was anyone who had a wilder imagination about the
assassination than Richard Nagell, it was New Orleans DA Jim Garrison,
whose looney, conspiratorial theories knew no boundaries. As indicated
earlier in this endnote, in his investigation of Clay Shaw for the
murder of President Kennedy, Garrison actually flew to New York City
in May 1968. He met with Nagell on a park bench in Central Park,
hoping Nagell would help break the case wide open for him. (What a
conversation it must have been between someone almost certifiably
psychotic [Nagell] and someone [Garrison] symptomatically psychotic.)
But, for Garrison, Nagell answered very few questions and was
deliberately evasive, except to say, without providing any supporting
evidence, that Guy Banister, Clay Shaw, and David Ferrie were behind
the assassination and had manipulated Oswald.
Nagell also refused to discuss the CIA (the conspiratorial
devil behind the assassination in Garrison's eyes) or any other
federal agency except that he claimed he was ignored by the FBI when
he tried to warn them of Kennedy's assassination.
Nagell, wanting to testify, flew to New Orleans on his own
before the Shaw trial in 1969, but Garrison never called him to the
stand, not only because he had nothing to say, but also because, per
Garrison, "by the time [Shaw's attorneys] finished with Nagell, the
jury would have been left with the impression of a
crackpot" (Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins, pp.213-216, 267).
When one is a crackpot even in the eyes of someone as screwy
and erratic as Jim Garrison, it's time for that person to go home.
A footnote to the Nagell story: The ARRB sent Nagell a letter
dated October 31, 1995, requesting that he contact the board to
discuss any documents or evidence he might have in his possession
relating to the assassination (e.g., Nagell told Russell he had a
Polaroid photograph of himself and Oswald in New Orleans, that he had
documentary proof of the letter he allegedly sent to the FBI in
September of 1963 warning of Kennedy's death, etc.). The ARRB learned
that Nagell died (from natural causes) in his Los Angeles apartment on
November 1, 1995. A member of the ARRB staff, with the assistance of
Nagell's son and niece, searched his apartment, and footlockers of his
kept in storage in Phoenix, and found none of the items Nagell claimed
he had. (Final Report of the ARRB, p.133)" -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; PAGES
700-701 OF "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F.
KENNEDY" (ENDNOTES ON CD)(c.2007)
https://archive.is/esTuB
....
https://archive.is/o/esTuB/www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95330&relPageId=42
(https://archive.is/esTuB/341f69f3897bf5d6d30cea5923ff3b0c4430a59b.jpg)
...
https://www.kennedysandking.com/articles/dovey-roundtree-spins-her-search-for-vivian
...Jim would like to credit the above discoveries and inconsistencies about Roundtree to JFK researcher Tom Scully and a poster at Let's Roll Forums who calls himself Culto.
Last modified on Monday, 06 July 2020 16:30
When Dick Russell published his book The Man Who Knew Too Much we learned that Richard Case Nagell had dispatched ( murdered) a man who was using the name Lee Oswald on September (20 ?) 1963. Nagell had been ordered to find "Oswald" and snuff him..... And he did. He removed papers and ID from the dead man and among the ID cards was a copy of a card that Lee Oswald had in his possession on 11 /22/63. The card was a "uniformed Services Identification card " bearing the number N 4, 271,617. The card that Lee had in his possession bore a photo of Lee Oswald...But the card that Nagell removed from the body of the impostor had a different photo.The card is linked to Oswald, per the assassination investigation and Tippit murder investigation. The only evidence linking same or similar card to Nagell is a photocopy of unknown provenance.
......I'd love to discuss the card with you, but this is not the thread for that.....
This is "the thread" in which BSers BS, (distract) the readers, as happens in almost every thread of this forum. You presented unsupported BS.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/a-wrap-up-of-the-richard-case-nagell-story (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/a-wrap-up-of-the-richard-case-nagell-story)
A Wrap-up of the Richard Case Nagell Story
I've spent the last two weeks debunking the Richard Case Nagell story. Today is the final wrap-up.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/a-wrap-up-of-the-richard-case-nagell-story (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/a-wrap-up-of-the-richard-case-nagell-story)
A Wrap-up of the Richard Case Nagell Story
I've spent the last two weeks debunking the Richard Case Nagell story. Today is the final wrap-up.
Two weeks? Three images...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51398154333_a51a131542_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51397895351_fe849baa4f_b.jpg)
This is available in a page early in Dick Russell's revised edition of his book. Below, a crop of a posted reply to Walt of some time ago, his name underlined in red at the bottom. With "old Walt," every day is Groundhog day.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51397135912_21db7cf4de_h.jpg)
The story says that Nagell had sent him ( Fensterwald ) the ID card......
Doesn't that indicate that Nagell had it? He couldn't have sent something he didn't have....
Yes he had it. He was the one that faked it. That severely undercuts Nagells credibility.
What is the basis for your statement that Nagell created the Card??
Sigh! Sometimes I feel like "the invisible man" of the JFK Assassination "Research" "community".
Example: I became aware only 12 hours ago of the recent passing of Priscilla. In the reactions to her death I've since read, none of my unique discoveries of her associations or background are mentioned,
The fact that despite the last person reported to have seen Priscilla's father, Stuart Johnson alive in 1969
happened to be Allen Dulles's cousin, James Augustus Thomas, Priscilla told the HSCA in 1978 that completion of her book was delayed partly because of her upset in reaction to her father's "concealed suicide"...
...not even the fact that Priscilla arranged for Marina to be shielded from media inquiry in anticipation of imminent release of the WC Report from Sept. to Dec., 1964, by.... wait for it...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51395940578_f3c1b7dd8a_b.jpg)
Priscilla's CIA agent cousin, David C. Davenport, and his friend and possible cousin, Jerome Allen Hasty, the two who were sued by Hasty's step-daughter, JoAnn McAdams for abducting her just months later, in July, 1965, and my discovery that JoAnn McAdams was first cousin of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Clifford
...and, in her lawsuit against Davenport, Hasty, et al, JoAnn described Hasty as the spouse of her mother,
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51396731410_2c82dfd77e_b.jpg)
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/35602601/
Click on OCR link on the page to display page text.
"...Huge suit filed A suit has been filed in the First Judicial District court by Miss Joanne McAdams of Santa Fe asking for damages in the amount of 390,000,000....David Davenport. Diana Kerner, Perez Roybal, New Mexico Slate Hospital, and the Santa Fc County. Miss Me Adams, who is not represented by an attorney in the suit relates in the complaint that she had come to Santa Fe to visit her mother, Mrs. Marguerite McAdams Hasty, and her mother's husband, Jerome Hasty, and David Davenport, a friend of Hasty, induced her to consult Dr. Roscnbaum. As a result, she claims, the sheriff of Sazita Fc County, Perez Roybal, arrested her without a warrant and she was transported lo the-State Hospital at Las- Vegas, where she \vas incaceratcd from July 28, 1965 to August 15,..."
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51395935273_ec94d5da6e_c.jpg)
One of two photos of Hasty that Priscilla herself released to news media in 2013.:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51395947863_3cf9d79b8c_c.jpg)
(In 1966, Hasty legally changed his name to Hastings.)
Marguerite Bowman McAdams, who happened to be Clark Clifford's aunt and the sister-in-law of the ten year long employer of James D. Phelan at the Alton Telegraph newspaper,
http://jfkforum.com/images/ClarkCliffordObitAltonTelegraphUncle.jpg
especially interesting because Pat "Patsy" Lambert of David Lifton association, is later described as James Phelan's cousin and his spokesperson.
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/19/18338723.php
Deadly Corruption in Probate Court - 2006/12/19
Dec 19, 2006 — "My mother, Dr. Amalie Phelan, first visited Attorney Horspool in the ... Family friend and journalist Patricia Lambert had flown in from ..."
David Lifton insisted both Marina and Priscilla were credible in all of his exchanges with them.
BWDIK ? Some will reasonably dismiss my complaints here as the whining of an attention seeker but consider that I haven't posted in months, I'm rarely inaccurate in my claims and when I find that I am, I admit it and correct ASAP. Just ask Mark O'Blazney, LOL.
Consider that Dick Russell is the author of the intro to Mary's Mosaic, Peter Janney's failed book, and of the intro in the late author Albarelli's book, "Coup in Dallas" scheduled for release on Amazon's site on November 16, and that author Russell claimed to have obtained coherent responses to questions he posed to Robert E. Webster in a long term care facility in New Bedford, MA, just after another researcher described Webster as in an unresponsive, "vegetative state". Link (https://books.google.com/books?id=333nDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT32&lpg=PT32&dq=hewitt+robert+webster+"dick+russell"&source=bl&ots=chiX7kkw4n&sig=ACfU3U2NwZFqCoXop8CLwq59gwCcQ4wpWw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjY7_a_usXyAhU4EzQIHSkbC1EQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=hewitt%20robert%20webster%20"dick%20russell"&f=false)
Invisible, because I've been buried in BS by BS-ers
Walt is either impaired, mendacious, or one is overlapping the other. Consider my comment to Walt (I underlined his name in red) at the bottom of the image of a page found early in Dick Russell's revised edition of "TMWKTM".
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51395662151_4a9dcb591c_h.jpg)
This is "the thread" in which BSers BS, (distract) the readers, as happens in almost every thread of this forum. You presented unsupported BS.
In the recent past, Fred Litwin has consistently ignored my several attempts to engage him in debate, but he obviously has time to waste engaging Walt.
You said he had the card. Therefore if he had the card then he either made it himself or was aware someone else made it and he was happy to have it in his possession. If Nagell had the card, then he is in effect endorsing it. And as the card is fake, then that makes Nagell a fraud.
It would take someone weird to fake that card and Nagell was doing lots of weird things.
if he had the card then he either made it himself or was aware someone else made it and he was happy to have it in his possession.
Nagell apparently had the card in September 1963 ..... I can't imagine why he would want to create a fake ID card with Lee Oswald's photo and personal information on it at least two months before the assassination of JFK . A murder that Lee Oswald was going to be framed for.
Perhaps you can offer a reason that Nagell would want to create a fake card in send a letter to J.E. Hoover and get himself involved in an event that was in the planning stages.
I think he faked the card in either the late 60s or early 70s. It's a bad forgery so it's like something someone with mental problems would create. Most likely person therefore would be nagell himself.
There is NO evidence that Nagell had the card in 1963. All we know is that Dick Russell found a poor photocopy of
the card in Bernard Fensterwald's office in Washington DC in 1976.
fred
Hi Fred,
Through your research, did you find anything about the claim Dick Russell made in the 1992 version of his book about Voshinin? I only have the later version of this book which does not mention Voshinin at all in the index.
Apparently Russell interviewed both Igor and Natasha Voshinin. According to Russell, Natasha said that George de Mohrenschildt visited them on the Easter sunday after the Walker shooting and told them of his suspicion of Oswald being the Walker shooter. After after de Mohrenschildt left, Natasha phoned the Dallas FBI and told them of Oswald being a potential suspect. This would put this information in the possession of Hosty. Neither of the Voshinins mention this in their WC testimony however.
I find it difficult to believe Russell would make this up out of thin air or that Natasha Voshinin would make it up. Is Russell still standing by this claim and has he given an explanation for omitting it from he later release of his book?
More importantly, did Natasha Voshinin give Russell any explanation for not mentioning this detail in her WC testimony?
Gerry
As I recall .... In the book Marina and Lee Shortly before hightailing it out of Dallas in April of 63, G. DeM visited a Russian woman whom he knew was an FBI informer and subtly attempted to get the FBI interested in Lee's "attempt" on Walker's life. According to the woman, George De M said something like ..." Ya know that scoundrel Lee Oswald is the guy who took that pot shot at General Walker". G. DeM knew the woman was an FBI informer and he knew that if the FBI listened to her they would come looking for him.... But he was on his way out of Dallas and on his way to CIA country in Virginia after he told her that.....
I've just checked the relevant section of Marina and Lee - chapter 25. There is no mention of anything like you describe.
I've just checked the relevant section of Marina and Lee - chapter 25. There is no mention of anything like you describe.
You are not invisible, Tom. Far from it. Many descendants of whom you post about are reading with great aplomb.
https://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2020/12/
By Linda Minor
...
Alfred G., Jr. (eleven years younger than his half-brother) had, in the meantime, been growing up in the home of his own mother, Margaret Emerson Vanderbilt, who had married Alfred Sr. in 1911--the same year, incidentally that her own father, Isaac E. Emerson, the Bromo Seltzer king, remarried, after being dumped by Margaret's mother Emily a/k/a Emelie.
As an interesting sideline, it can be noted that at least four years before Emily formally married C. Hazeltine Basshor of Baltimore in 1912, her name was listed in the Baltimore directory as Emily Basshor at his address, though she was still married to Emerson. The Captain sued her for divorce, naming Basshor as co-respondent, most likely at the urging of Anne McCormack, who was full of schemes.
Isaac & Anne Emerson
In 1910 Emerson used his fizzy antacid fortune to acquire a huge estate in the Green Spring Valley of Maryland hunt country, and before long married Anne, along with her two teenage children--thus setting the stage for an elaborate wedding that was to come in 1913...
Mark, it's just too complicated... (The bromo-seltzer convergence)
Some of US Treasury Secretary William McAdoo's children :
https://gw.geneanet.org/tdowling?lang=en&n=mcadoo&oc=0&p=william+gibbs
Francis Huger McAdoo 1889- Married dau. of Emerson, their son, Francis Huger McAdoo Jr. was Princeton classmate of Lem Billings and Nicholas Katzenbach & became president of Emerson Drug. Katzenbach's schoolmates at Exeter were Cogswell and his friend, Richard Ober of Operation Chaos notoriety... Patsy Southgate and Richard were in brother Nathaniel Ober's wedding party, Cogswell's parents attended as guests.
Nona Hazlehurst McAdoo 1893-1971 Married in 1917 to Ferdinand de Mohrenschildt †1919
Robert Hazlehurst McAdoo 1900- First spouse became wife of Warren Commissioner Sen. John Sherman Cooper
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51403966688_3a481fdbfe_b.jpg)(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51402963322_bb39f0ebee_c.jpg)
Patsy Southgate was well connected with the Paris Review staff in Paris when Tom Devine's partner, John Train was Paris Review business manager, Tom Devine met with DeMohrenschildt two weeks after DeMohrenschildt asked Oswald, "Lee, how did you miss?"
Joseph Dryer, who Cogswell introduced to the HSCA, also met with DeMohrenschildt on the same day, April 25, 1963, as Devine did. Joseph Dryer to Joan Mellen that Tom Devine was his closest friend in Rochester, NY.
Devine's Sigma Chi housemate at M.I.T., a home of 16 fraternity brothers in residence, was Priscilla Johnson's CIA handler, Garry Coit.
"John Sherman Cooper: The Global Kentuckian books.google.com › books (http://John Sherman Cooper: The Global Kentuckianbooks.google.com › books
Robert Schulman · 2021
FOUND INSIDE
I hear John Cooper has been seeing a lot of Lorraine Shevlin.” Lorraine Rowan McAdoo Shevlin a well-educated, unusually charming “grass widow,” often ...)
Robert Schulman · 2021
FOUND INSIDE
I hear John Cooper has been seeing a lot of Lorraine Shevlin.” Lorraine Rowan McAdoo Shevlin a well-educated, unusually charming “grass widow,” often ..."
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/17688-lem-billings-george-de-mohrenschildt-lee-harvey-oswald/?tab=comments#comment-225401
Saturday, May 7, 2011
"Jim DiEugenio's presentation from NID 2010
"...George de Mohrenschildt knew Bush from his old geology days. The fact that de Mohrenschildt was interviewed by the CIA before he went to Haiti and did not tell him [bush] about his acquaintance with Oswald, or about the upcoming coup attempt in Haiti, this somehow became suspicious,... In my opinion de Mohrenschildt didn’t even know what he was doing with Oswald. And he didn’t know until after the fact...."
What would have to be discovered to persuade someone of Jim DiEugenio's stature and accomplishment related to JFK assassination research, analysis, and historical review, to persuade him to stop communicating the opinions I have quoted above?
I would have thought there was already enough information out there, to dispel the notions that, at the time, in late 1962 into early 1963, De Mohrenschildt was an unwitting escort of Lee Harvey Oswald and his wife, Marina. I would have thought there was too great an amount of troubling information linking GHW Bush and his intimates, Ed Hooker and Tom Devine to De Mohrenschildt to discourage anyone as knowledgeable as Jim DiEugenio from distributing such strong opinions.
Jim offers his opinion that Bush was involved in an October "surprise" in 1980, indicating, at least to me, that it is not necessary for there to be strong evidence to influence Jim to take a position on whether or not Bush conspired to commit a major crime against the state.
If Russ Baker had never authored "Family of Secrets" the connections between De Mohrenschildt and the Oswalds, and De Mohrenschildt and Ed Hooker, Bush, and Devine would still exist. It would still be necessary to determine if these connections were merely coincidental of a criminally conspiratorial nature.
Jim seems to be saying he is not interfering with the work of determining the above, because he says he believes there are numerous other reasons to convict Bush of crimes and to jail him. I cannot agree with this opinion, because I think Jim is saying Russ Baker fell woefully short of making his case, which was too farfetched a case to pursue, and besides, we as researchers, have better things to do with our time and effort, that there is more potentially fertile ground to plow than to work to make the determinations I described above, in our quests to turn up information that will help to rule out what is coincidence and devote our attention to what is evidence or a solid lead.
My take on this is that the connections I described above, the same names displayed in the thread title, have not been determined to be coincidental, even after all of these years. More effort must be put in to attempt to separate coincidences from leads, not less.
On other threads, I've posted recent related curiousities I've stumbled upon.
De Mohrenschildt rented a room in Washington, DC in May, 1942, from a US Navy officer named Paul Joachim who was the stepson of the designer of the Underwood Code Machine, aka, the kata-kana typewriter. Joachim retired from the navy in 1954 at the rank of rear admiral, pursued his life long passion for art, and was killed in Chicago in 1962 in a still unsolved murder by multiple gunshots.
Another naval officer was living at Joachim's house in May, 1942. His name was Harry Hull, he was a WWII submarine commander, retired from the navy with the rank of rear admiral, and was married from 1939 until his death, to a first cousin of James Kelsey Cogswell, III. Hull's mother was widowed in 1920 and married again in 1925 to a man whose brother became a four star US Navy admiral.
In 1953, James Kelsey Cogswell, III married the first cousin of Bush's best friend, Will Farish III. At his wedding ceremony with Joan Farish, Cogswell's best man was WWII US Navy, PT boat Squadron 7 radar officer and silver star medalist, George Olin Walbridge, 2d.
Walbridge served in Squadron 7 in New Guineau during WWII with PT-129 navy officer and fellow silver star medalist, Francis H. McAdoo, Jr., Lt. (jg) USNR.
McAdoo was the nephew of Ferdinand De Mohrenschildt's widow, Nona McAdoo, the sister of Francis H. McAdoo, Jr's father.
New York Times - Mar 26, 1939
...Mr. McAdoo had Arthur Pew Gorman of Stevenson, Md., for his best man, and the ushers were K. Lemoyn Billings and Robert Bell Deford Jr. of Baltimore,...
"..Mr. McAdoo is a grandson of former United States Senator William Gibbs McAdoo of California and, on the maternal side, of Mrs. Isaac E. Emerson of Baltimore. He went to St. Paul's School at Concord, N. H., and w as a member of the calss of '38 at Princeton University...."
In addition to being Lem Billings's close friend from Princeton University, this newly emerged, American relative of George De Mohrenschildt, became president of Emerson Drug Co. and appointed Billings as V.P. Francis H. McAdoo, Jr's WWII fellow navy PT boat officer, George O. Walbridge, 2d, was hired as an Emerson Drug Co. marketing executive and worked for the company until his retirement. The first link in this post contains a photo of Billings and Walbridge in Cuba in 1955.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51403926883_7e0c101ee4_c.jpg)
(Reminder, everything posted below the EducationForum link above is from May, 2011...)
The post immediately before the linked post displays details of James aka Jake, aka Jack Cogswell's relationship with AMRAZZ-1, aka Joaquin Godoy.
Elmer H. Bobst's Warner-Lambert acquired Emerson Drug Co. in 1953, and Billings left the company in 1958. McAdoo stayed on.
Isn't it at all curious that Lem Billings relationships with two PT boat winners of silver star medals for heroic combat performances in the Pacific theater during WWII was never reported by the press, before or after JFK's assassination, or by the WC or HSCA, or by Lem Billings, himself?
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/KLBPP.aspx "
Better start another thread....
Sigh! Sometimes I feel like "the invisible man" of the JFK Assassination "Research" "community".
Example: I became aware only 12 hours ago of the recent passing of Priscilla. In the reactions to her death I've since read, none of my unique discoveries of her associations or background are mentioned,
The fact that despite the last person reported to have seen Priscilla's father, Stuart Johnson alive in 1969
happened to be Allen Dulles's cousin, James Augustus Thomas, Priscilla told the HSCA in 1978 that completion of her book was delayed partly because of her upset in reaction to her father's "concealed suicide"...
...not even the fact that Priscilla arranged for Marina to be shielded from media inquiry in anticipation of imminent release of the WC Report from Sept. to Dec., 1964, by.... wait for it...
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51395940578_f3c1b7dd8a_b.jpg)
Priscilla's CIA agent cousin, David C. Davenport, and his friend and possible cousin, Jerome Allen Hasty, the two who were sued by Hasty's step-daughter, JoAnn McAdams for abducting her just months later, in July, 1965, and my discovery that JoAnn McAdams was first cousin of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Clifford
...and, in her lawsuit against Davenport, Hasty, et al, JoAnn described Hasty as the spouse of her mother,
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51396731410_2c82dfd77e_b.jpg)
https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/35602601/
Click on OCR link on the page to display page text.
"...Huge suit filed A suit has been filed in the First Judicial District court by Miss Joanne McAdams of Santa Fe asking for damages in the amount of 390,000,000....David Davenport. Diana Kerner, Perez Roybal, New Mexico Slate Hospital, and the Santa Fc County. Miss Me Adams, who is not represented by an attorney in the suit relates in the complaint that she had come to Santa Fe to visit her mother, Mrs. Marguerite McAdams Hasty, and her mother's husband, Jerome Hasty, and David Davenport, a friend of Hasty, induced her to consult Dr. Roscnbaum. As a result, she claims, the sheriff of Sazita Fc County, Perez Roybal, arrested her without a warrant and she was transported lo the-State Hospital at Las- Vegas, where she \vas incaceratcd from July 28, 1965 to August 15,..."
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51395935273_ec94d5da6e_c.jpg)
One of two photos of Hasty that Priscilla herself released to news media in 2013.:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51395947863_3cf9d79b8c_c.jpg)
(In 1966, Hasty legally changed his name to Hastings.)
Marguerite Bowman McAdams, who happened to be Clark Clifford's aunt and the sister-in-law of the ten year long employer of James D. Phelan at the Alton Telegraph newspaper,
http://jfkforum.com/images/ClarkCliffordObitAltonTelegraphUncle.jpg
especially interesting because Pat "Patsy" Lambert of David Lifton association, is later described as James Phelan's cousin and his spokesperson.
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/19/18338723.php
Deadly Corruption in Probate Court - 2006/12/19
Dec 19, 2006 — "My mother, Dr. Amalie Phelan, first visited Attorney Horspool in the ... Family friend and journalist Patricia Lambert had flown in from ..."
David Lifton insisted both Marina and Priscilla were credible in all of his exchanges with them.
BWDIK ? Some will reasonably dismiss my complaints here as the whining of an attention seeker but consider that I haven't posted in months, I'm rarely inaccurate in my claims and when I find that I am, I admit it and correct ASAP. Just ask Mark O'Blazney, LOL.
Consider that Dick Russell is the author of the intro to Mary's Mosaic, Peter Janney's failed book, and of the intro in the late author Albarelli's book, "Coup in Dallas" scheduled for release on Amazon's site on November 16, and that author Russell claimed to have obtained coherent responses to questions he posed to Robert E. Webster in a long term care facility in New Bedford, MA, just after another researcher described Webster as in an unresponsive, "vegetative state". Link (https://books.google.com/books?id=333nDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT32&lpg=PT32&dq=hewitt+robert+webster+"dick+russell"&source=bl&ots=chiX7kkw4n&sig=ACfU3U2NwZFqCoXop8CLwq59gwCcQ4wpWw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjY7_a_usXyAhU4EzQIHSkbC1EQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=hewitt%20robert%20webster%20"dick%20russell"&f=false)
Invisible, because I've been buried in BS by BS-ers
Walt is either impaired, mendacious, or one is overlapping the other. Consider my comment to Walt (I underlined his name in red) at the bottom of the image of a page found early in Dick Russell's revised edition of "TMWKTM".
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51395662151_4a9dcb591c_h.jpg)
This is "the thread" in which BSers BS, (distract) the readers, as happens in almost every thread of this forum. You presented unsupported BS.
In the recent past, Fred Litwin has consistently ignored my several attempts to engage him in debate, but he obviously has time to waste engaging Walt.
Edgar Eugene Bradley - Another Garrison Victim
Clay Shaw wasn't the only person that Jim Garrison charged with conspiracy to kill JFK. He also charged Edgar Eugene Bradley with conspiring to kill JFK. Once again, he indicted someone without a shred of evidence. In this case, he was fortunate that Governor Ronald Reagan refused to extradite Bradley to Louisiana. This is yet another example of Garrison's recklessness.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/edgar-eugene-bradley-another-garrison-victim (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/edgar-eugene-bradley-another-garrison-victim)
Why does Salandria's name keep popping up? Poor Vince went to his grave knowing he would be a 'postumous senior member in perpetuity' of Ralph Stinky's beloved Oswald Innocence Campaign....... LOL. Gosh, I wonder how Ralph's name keeps changing by itself???
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/edgar-eugene-bradley-another-garrison-victim
....
Original caption: (January 4, 1968)
"The photo shows Edgar Eugene Bradley, who was accused by District Attorney Jim Garrison of New Orleans of being part of the conspiracy to assassinate the late President Kennedy, as he holds a press conference to report the findings of a private lie detector test he had taken to prove his innocence in the case. Posing here only to show the equipment is Bradley. Behind him at left is his attorney, George Jensen, and at right, polygraph expert Major Chris Dugas." ...
- It emerged in 1993 that the three tramps were exactly that - the Dallas City Council released its JFK assassination files. Arrest records were found for the three tramps - their names were Harold Doyle, John Gedney, and Gus Abrams. Two of the tramps were still alive and they confirmed that they were the ones pictured.
If I had $1 for every government form not fully filled out.
We're dealing with humans, here.
There is no mystery here. You are trying to create a mystery.
There is none.
fred
Here is a rare interview of Officer Vaughn talking about the three tramps. He says they were picked up about an hour after the assassination. 1 hour and 4 minutes in on this video:
The Tramps weren't arrested but were detained all weekend in case of questioning.
I'm not sure that would be legal.It probably isn't, but not necessarily for the reason you think. As far as law enforcement is concerned, railroads are under Federal, not state, jurisdiction. That's why the railroads have their own Federally-chartered police forces. In the normal order of things, I doubt that the DPD had any business nabbing anyone in the Katy yard. Of course, 11/22/63 wasn't exactly a normal day.
Alecia Long's New Book: Cruising for Conspirators
I finally received my copy yesterday. I strongly urge everybody to buy a copy of this very important book. A terrific addition to the literature on the so-called Garrison investigation.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/alecia-long-s-new-book-cruising-for-conspirators (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/alecia-long-s-new-book-cruising-for-conspirators)
Alecia Long's New Book: Cruising for Conspirators
I finally received my copy yesterday. I strongly urge everybody to buy a copy of this very important book. A terrific addition to the literature on the so-called Garrison investigation.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/alecia-long-s-new-book-cruising-for-conspirators (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/alecia-long-s-new-book-cruising-for-conspirators)
I am not hawking the book.
I believe that ANY new book on the JFK assassination is worthy of discussion. In this case, I was fortunate enough to
be able to read a manuscript before publication. This is an excellent book, and I heartily recommend everybody buy a copy.
The scholarship in this book is first-rate.
fred
Alecia Long's New Book: Cruising for ConspiratorsFred: Didn't Garrison totally abandon the homosexual angle - the "thrill kill" claim about Shaw, Ferrie and Oswald - pretty early in his investigation? At least the public one. If I have the timeline right, the story first broke in the New Orleans newspapers that Garrison was investigating the assassination on February 17, 1967.
I finally received my copy yesterday. I strongly urge everybody to buy a copy of this very important book. A terrific addition to the literature on the so-called Garrison investigation.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/alecia-long-s-new-book-cruising-for-conspirators (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/alecia-long-s-new-book-cruising-for-conspirators)
Garrison did move beyond the homosexual thrill killing angle. But, i do believe, in the back of his mind, heObviously he did move on from the "homosexual thrill kill" claim - I don't think he repeated it after the arrest of Shaw; or certainly after mid-to-late March. He may have been paranoid - he was - but he was a smart and well read one (paranoids often are). Nowhere in the Shaw trial was homosexuality ever mentioned. In fact, if I recall no motive at all was mentioned (it wasn't legally necessary to do so).
always thought it was relevant. For instance, you see memo after memo discussing homosexuality. When he submitted
questions to the HSCA to ask Thomas Beckham, he suggested asking them about whether Beckham had
slept with Fred Crisman.
You can see some of this here:
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/final-thoughts-on-the-quick-article (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/final-thoughts-on-the-quick-article)
“I wrote this book to expose the full truth about Jim Garrison and the danger of conspiracy thinking. Several authors have tried to rehabilitate Garrison, and I wanted to use primary documents to show just how deluded he was.”
I've been reading your website Fred. I had a look to see what else you are utterly convinced are facts about the assassination of JFK. I'm most fascinated by the three tramp photos, so I've almost gobbled up every little detail I can find. I'm trying to figure out who those people in the photos are. Also, what they were doing actually on the day. You know, trying to picture what those tramps would be really like in real life (I know all we have are 7 photos). ....
Did Fred Litwin interview Harold Doyle, or talk to his kids? or any family members to find out if he was actually the man in the photo's with the cops??
.....
How comes Fred Litwin goes around making announcements on his website/blog that he's solved the three tramps identity and yet he doesn't have the proof to back it up?
Well Fred?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,948.msg24420.html#msg24420
....
If even the BS is rife with coincidence, what are the odds of learning anything actually new and reliably verifiable?Quotehttp://jfkfacts.org/allen-dulles-first-ceo-of-the-secret-government/#comment-842336....
sgt_doom
December 24, 2015 at 7:12 pm
Seriously no offense intended, Roy, but you are falling for the endless misdirection put out there ? first those so-called tramps Harrelson, Holt, etc., next they really are tramps, and on and on.
I attempt to explain this in my fumbling way at the site below (please search on ?assassins ball? and you?ll find it ? rather lengthy, so did not want to take up too much space at Mr. Morley?s outstanding site! (with links to declassified docs, etc.)
https://web.archive.org/web/20151225102900/http://www.zerohedge.com:80/news/2015-12-21/whistleblower-exposes-exactly-how-government-spies-your-cell-phone?page=2
(Four international assassins: on the grassy knoll, turned-up collar was Moise Maschkivitzan and Lazlo the Hungarian, third tramp really was a tramp [not Hunt], and on the overpass, Jean Souetre, and in the Dal-Tex Building, most likely Lucien Conein, the CIA assassin: two Frenchmen, on Belgian Jew, and a Hungarian.)
Nothing like all the disinformation they spread!
Tom, me and you are thinking alike. I shoved Doyle's mush through a facial analyzer and it also came out with some results. Sadly, I can't find his results anywhere on the program I used. But I have the guy that looks similarly to Doyle but isn't allegedly/actually him. ...
....
........
Big claim for Fred Litwin to make - that he solved all these puzzles.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-lee-harvey-oswald-a-man-of-the-right (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-lee-harvey-oswald-a-man-of-the-right)I guess we can debate whether he truly understood and embraced Marxism or whether it was simply something he found that answered his questions as to why the world he grew up in was so miserable and so unjust. Which, in his defense, it largely was. Perhaps a bit of both (and I do think some of the key concepts of Marxism were understood by him in some detail; if you correct his spelling and grammatical errors in his writings, as Noman Mailer did in his book on Oswald, you can see that they're somewhat sophisticated).
Cuba’s willingness to exploit the United States’s contradictory foreign policy position and domestic racial turmoil helped spur the White House to resort to terrorism and other illegal, covert reprisals against the island nation. It also reinforced the repressive instincts already being brought to bear against American blacks. Ten days after Martin Luther King, Jr. denounced the botched Bay of Pigs invasion as “a disservice … to the whole of humanity” and called on the United States to “join the revolution” against “colonialism, reactionary dictatorship, and systems of exploitation” the world over, the Senate convened a committee investigating Cuban influence on American blacks…
https://newrepublic.com/article/131793/castro-came-harlem
But the evidence that he disliked, indeed hated, the American political and economic systems is, for me, conclusive. He found it unjust and irredeemable. Indeed, he told Michael Paine shortly before the assassination that the American system had to be completely overthrown, that incremental changes would not work. It could not reformed; it had to be replaced. And in a Marxist/leftist type direction.
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/13441-harold-doyle-passed-away/
Wim Dankbaar - Posted 12 September, 2008
He passed away yesterday September 10, 2008 in a nursing home in Williamson WV.
Wim
Harold Dean Doyle, 77 of Williamson, WV, a special part of History, departed from this earth and went to meet the Lord on September 10, 2008 at the Trinity Helathcare. He was well known for being one of the three tramps on the grassy knoll in Dallas, Texas when Pres. John F. Kennedy was assassinated, and he came face to face with Lee Harvey Oswald.
He was born on December 8, 1930 at Red Jacket, WV the son of the late Walter and Kelsy McCoy Doyle. He was also preceded in death by 2 sisters and 3 brothers.
He was a professional Hobo and a Veteran of the US Army.
Survivors include one daughter, Francine Salinas of Arizona, two sons, Manuel Doyle of Fort
Riley, Kansas and Bruce Doyle of Spo...., WA., one sister, Pat Hearblin of Pritchard, WV, special
caretaker, Kelsie Runyon of Pinsonfork, Ky. and four grandchildren.
Funeral services will be held Sunday, September 14, 2008 at 2 PM at R. E. Rogers Funeral
Home, Belfry, Ky. with Lonnie Francis officiating. Burial will follow in the Don Runyon Cemetery,
Pinsonfork, Ky. Visitation will be held after
6 PM Saturday at R. E. Rogers Funeral Home.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you why he had shot at General Walker?
Mrs. OSWALD. I told him that he had no right to kill people in peacetime, he had no right to take their life because not everybody has the same ideas as he has. People cannot be all alike. He said that this was a very bad man, that he was a fascist, that he was the leader of a fascist organization, and when I said that even though all of that night be true, just the same he had no right to take his life, he said if someone had killed Hitler in time it would have saved many lives. I told him that this is no method to prove your ideas, by means of a rifle.
JohnM
....
April 25, 1963 meeting : Tom Devine AKA WuBriny/1 DeMohrenschildt and Clemard Charles
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=8627#relPageId=2&search=knickerbocker
And
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=8627#relPageId=6&search=knickerbocker
....
...His daughter Marilou Ruggles Core was linked in a CIA report to a former O.S.S. officer who became an India scholar at Harvard
and was the son of the Dallas Morning News music columnist. Marilou Ruggles married Jesse R Core III, a recent DMN reporter,
in 1950.
Marilou, in that same CIA report, is linked to two CIA officers who served in India, as well as her husband Jesse who admitted to
being a CIA asset. That CIA report describes Jesse as serving in Calcutta with one of those two linked CIA officers, David G Baldwin.
Kerry Thornley claimed his mentor, Clint Bolton, a former AP journalist reporting from India, was a close friend of Jesse Core.
J Walton Moore served in India in 1950, Ann Goodpasture in 1954.
Clay Shaw hired Baldwin as Trade Mart PR director upon his return from Calcutta in 1952 and in 1955 hired Jesse Core as Baldwin's
replacement. David G Baldwin informed Clay Shaw a week after Shaw was arrested that he (Baldwin), was godfather and first cousin of Liz Ziegler, wife of Jim Garrison.
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54933#relPageId=2
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51461080146_715c7c6fd6_h.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51461828649_97e961b131_h.jpg)
Jesse Core reported to the FBI observing Oswald handing out fliers near the Trade Mart. Oswald is accused of firing a shot through
a window at 4011 Turtle Creek Blvd.
The thread at this link, https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/in...#msg516681 is not very long. Please read it.:
[Image: attachment.php?attachmentid=9240&stc=1]
J.F. Stuart Arthur rented in 1962 the home he owned (since 1940) at 4011 Turtle Creek Blvd. to Edwin Walker.
W. Orrin Miller purchased the 4011 Turtle Creek property from JF Stuart Arthur in summer, 1963, one year after Arthur rented that property to Edwin Walker.
W. Orrin Miller is linked to George Bush....
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51461279733_c7671058fd_b.jpg)
Quote:
https://www.ancestry.com/boards/topics.o...50/mb.ashx
.......
Mr. Miller helped former President George Bush draw up incorporation papers for Zapata Petroleum when he first moved to Dallas TX , his son said.
"I can't prove any of that; it's a story he used to tell me," Robert Miller said.
Paine, a liberal and longtime member of the American Civil Liberties Union, would later describe Oswald as a “pipsqueak,” but one whose politics he tried to understand.
“He told me he became a Marxist in this country by reading books and without having ever having met a communist,” Paine said in an interview following the assassination.
in their conversations Oswald never revealed hostility toward Kennedy.
“I expressed my appreciation of President Kennedy and he didn’t ever argue with me on that point,” Paine said in an interview.
In a 2013 essay he titled, “My Experience with Lee Harvey Oswald,” Paine recalled that Oswald once declared emphatically that “change only comes through violence.”
“I’d also heard him say that President Kennedy was the best president he had in his lifetime. Looking back on what happened, these two statements seem impossibly contradictory … how could a man want to kill a president whom he thought was the best president he’d had in his lifetime?”
https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/news/michael-paine-debated-politics-with-jfk-assassin-lee-harvey-oswald-dies-a/
Kennedy’s efforts to alleviate and to end segregation were also admired by Lee, who was sincerely and profoundly committed to a complete integration of Blacks and saw it in the future of the United States. “I am willing to fight for racial equality and would die fighting if necessary,” He told me once. Because of his poor, miserable childhood, he probably compared himself to the Blacks and the Indians and commiserated with them. In this he was so different and so noble compared with the Southern trash and rednecks, whose segregationism stems from their fear of the Blacks, of their strength and of the possibility of their prominence in every field of human endeavor. Education for the Blacks was an anathema for them, while Lee was fullheartedly for it. He loved black children and admired their cute and outgoing ways. He also was fond of the black music and folklore with which he as familiar from his childhood days in New Orleans.
Lee despised the reactionary groups, the white supremacists, the so called “hate groups,” and did not hide his feelings.
http://22november1963.org.uk/george-de-mohrenschildt-i-am-a-patsy-chapter08
Lee often mentioned that the two–party system did not work well, that other points of view were not represented. He did not see the difference between a conservative democrat and a fairly liberal republican — and in that I agreed with him.
“Both republicans and democrats really did not oppose each other,” he mentioned one day, “they do not represent different points of view, but they are both solidly against [the] poor and oppressed.”
But regarding JFK, Lee did not have such a gloomy attitude and he hoped that after the Bay of Pigs fiasco Kennedy would accept coexistence with the communist world.
http://22november1963.org.uk/george-de-mohrenschildt-i-am-a-patsy-chapter10
I guess we can debate whether he truly understood and embraced Marxism or whether it was simply something he found that answered his questions as to why the world he grew up in was so miserable and so unjust. Which, in his defense, it largely was. Perhaps a bit of both (and I do think some of the key concepts of Marxism were understood by him in some detail; if you correct his spelling and grammatical errors in his writings, as Noman Mailer did in his book on Oswald, you can see that they're somewhat sophisticated).
But the evidence that he disliked, indeed hated, the American political and economic systems is, for me, conclusive. He found it unjust and irredeemable. Indeed, he told Michael Paine shortly before the assassination that the American system had to be completely overthrown, that incremental changes would not work. It could not reformed; it had to be replaced. And in a Marxist/leftist type direction.
The only response to all of this is, as Weisberg and Garrison argued, that it was an act or a cover; that because his favorite TV show as a teenager was about a man pretending to be a Marxist (Herbert Philbrick) that he too was acting out this fake life. Either for his own bizarre reasons or because he was directed to do so by others. I find it quite unlikely that someone would direct him at the age of 16 to create this cover or "legend." For what purpose? But then again I'm not a JFK conspiracist.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/james-dieugenio-gets-it-all-wrong-on-permindex-cmc (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/james-dieugenio-gets-it-all-wrong-on-permindex-cmc)
James DiEugenio Gets it all Wrong on Permindex/CMC
In a recent review of Operation Dragon, James DiEugenio included several paragraphs on Permindex/CMC. Unfortunately, he gets it all wrong.
Tell us what he got wrong, Fred.Yeah I couldn't tell either.
Yes, I've also looked for the information and I can't find it.... I was certain that it was in Marina & Lee that I read about George saying that to the Russian woman.... I'm absolutely certain I read about De M telling the woman that Lee was the scoundrel who had taken a pot shot at Walker..... Perhaps it wasn't in Marina & lee.... I'll keep trying to provide you with a reference ...
There is NO evidence that Nagell had the card in 1963. All we know is that Dick Russell found a poor photocopy of
the card in Bernard Fensterwald's office in Washington DC in 1976.
fred
Review comments---
I believe that ANY new book on the JFK assassination is worthy of discussion.
Cruising for Conspirators settles the debate for good, conclusively showing that the Shaw prosecution was not based in fact but was a product of the criminal justice system’s long-standing preoccupation with homosexuality.
Exposing the corrupt world of New Orleans policing and the complex gay subculture that thrived in the city's shadow, Long's book features an intriguing cast of characters, including ambitious prosecutor Jim Garrison and closeted businessman Clay Shaw. More importantly, it uncovers how cultural notions of gay men as criminal sexual psychopaths came to permeate JFK conspiracy theories and American culture more generally."- David K. Johnson, author of The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government
This shocking narrative uncovers how decades of police surveillance in New Orleans created a vast paper trail that set the stage for a corrupt district attorney to frame the only man to face prosecution for John F. Kennedy's assassination, creating a lasting homophobic conspiracy theory in the process. With keen historical sensitivity, Alecia Long reveals the longer patterns and plots that frame this must-read story."- Jim Downs, author of Stand by Me: The Forgotten History of Gay Liberation
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-gary-underhill-the-man-who-knew-too-much (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-gary-underhill-the-man-who-knew-too-much)
Gary Underhill worked in military intelligence during World War II. He was also a domestic contact of the CIA. He committed suicide in 1964, right after the assassination of JFK. Conspiracy theorists believe his death is suspicious because he knew too much. The reality is far different - he was a distraught man whose marriage had collapsed. Here is the full Gary Underhill story.
The reality is that Gary Underhill had no inside information about the CIA. As John McAdams pointed out, "He was, quite simply, a mentally unstable fellow who thought there was a JFK conspiracy, just as many other (stable and unstable) Americans did."IOW nothing to see here--- move on....you unstable people :-\
Mark Lane Interviews Roger Craig
Here is a Garrison Investigation memo that, to my knowledge, has never been published. Roger Craig was a fabulist, pure and simple, and he had mental health problems. This memo provides more evidence that he was making things up.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/mark-lane-interviews-roger-craig (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/mark-lane-interviews-roger-craig)
Fred Litwin
www.onthetrailofdelusion.com
Roger said that there was no way that the 5'9" Lee Oswald could have placed the rifle on the floor beneath the pallet of books while he was standing on the north side of the row of books at the top of the stairs.
And Tom Alyea said that it was obvious that the hiding place of the rifle had been prepared BEFORE the shooting.
Couldn't Oswald have bent down on his knees on the east side of the stacks of boxes and slid the rifle into its hiding place?
Where did Tom Alyea say this?
Couldn't Oswald have bent down on his knees on the east side of the stacks of boxes and slid the rifle into its hiding place?
Where did Tom Alyea say this?
Hoorah....I've found it.....Tom Alyea observed that the hiding place for the carcano was obviously pre constructed Alyea recognized that the site had to have been constructed BEFORE the shooting..... Question for Tom Alyea..... Q - Did Oswald get enough time to hide his weapon so perfectly, Tom Alyea answered:.... Yes, Oswald had time to hide the rifle The hiding place was obviously pre constructed. Tom Alyea overlooked a few important aspects..... slip the rifle under the overhanging boxes" But Tom that rifle weighed 9 pounds and it had a scope so it couldn'thave simply bee slid into place beneath that pallet of books. at least you're right on one important point Mr Alyea.... The hiding place was in fact constructed before the shooting. Oh BTW Tom.....Can you explain the boxes that formed the " roof" above the rifle ? you may recall that Boone removed that "roof " and shined his flashlight down onto the floor where he spotted a tiny portion of the butt of the rifle beneath the wooden pallet.
That the rifle hiding place was preconstructed is agreed by virtually everyone so I'm not sure about your Eureka moment.
Just out of good practice could you provide a link to the quotes you posted or some unscrupulous members might think you're demented and making up your own evidence (not me, of course)
;)
That the rifle hiding place was preconstructed is agreed by virtually everyone so I'm not sure about your Eureka moment.
Oh really, ?? Virtually everyone agrees that the hiding place for the rifle was preconstructed? Then why did John Howlett use a light piece of 1X 4 and inserted it into a crack between the boxes of books which portrayed a spur of the moment action.??
Roger Craig also recognized that the hiding place had been preconstructed and he also knew that Lee Oswald couldn't have placed the rifle on the floor beneath the pallet of books AFTER the shooting. Craig said something about he was much bigger than Lee Oswald and he wouldn't have been able to perform the feat attributed to Lee Oswald.
Didn't one of the witnesses say papers had been put over the rifle in a crude attempt to keep it covered up? I think one of the pictures shows these pieces of paper.
Gary Underhill sounds like an unfortunate individual.
Roger Craig was a fabulist, pure and simple, and he had mental health problems.
So many people try to slander Roger Craig.The same ones who also slander Mark Lane?
The same ones who also slander Mark Lane?
Roger Craig consistently described those events that he had recalled without deviation.
Rightly so. The man has blood on his hands in Jonestown.Mark Lane or Jim Jones? Pick somebody ::)
Are you serious? LOL https://www.jfk-assassination.net/craig.htmYeah...I've seen that page---Craig is contradicted by Fritz and his guys?....What's new?
The essay, "The Rambler Man" is David Perry's investigation into the Craig story.
Craig testified in Dallas on April 1, 1964. The passageDetailed reports of things Craig didn't do.
dealing with Fritz's interrogation of Oswald can be found in Warren
Commission Volume VI, page 270, [6H270].
Mr. Belin. All right. Then what did Captain Fritz say and
what did you say and what did the suspect say?
Mr. Craig. Captain Fritz then asked him about the-uh-he
said, "What about this station wagon?"
Wait a minute! Craig never charged the Warren Commission
altered this portion of his testimony. He also claimed Fritz never
mentioned the station wagon. The cracks in the "story" began to
appear.
I soon found Fritz didn't even remember Roger Craig being in
on the Oswald interrogation! Warren Commission Counsel Joseph Ball
asked Fritz if he remembered Craig being in his office "in the
presence of Oswald." In Warren Volume IV, page 245, [4H245].
Author and researcher Penn Jones Jr. briefly reviewed theYeah...the event was ignored by the Warren Commission.
episode in his 1969 paperback Forgive My Grief III. On page twenty
nine, Jones asserted, "Craig insisted from the day of the
assassination that he saw Oswald race down the grassy Fea and get
into a station wagon like the one owned by Mrs. Ruth Paine of
Irving." Curiously this important allegation, that the Paine
vehicle might have been used in the assassination, lay dormant
until Jones published the story.
Are you serious? LOLGo LOL all you want. I do take it seriously.
Part One
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-scholarship-of-james-dieugenio-a-case-study (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-scholarship-of-james-dieugenio-a-case-study)
Part Two
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-scholarship-of-james-dieugenio-part-two (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-scholarship-of-james-dieugenio-part-two)
For those of you who are interested, my friend Paul Hoch has found a very important paper by Vincent Guinn on his testing of a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
More LN special pleading.
11/22/63 - Howard Brennan states in an affidavit that "I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again"
11/22/63 - Howard Brennan allegedly is brought to a police lineup by Forrest Sorrels and is unable to make a positive identification
12/17/63 - Howard Brennan now decides he was actually sure it was Oswald but thought his identification was "unnecessary"
3/24/64 - Howard Brennan concocts a story about how he failed to identify Oswald at the lineup because he was afraid for his and his family's safety
11/22/63 - Carl Day turns over a rifle to the FBI with no mention of having done a lift from the barrel, nor photographing a print there, nor covering it with tape
11/29/63 - An index card with a partial palmprint turns up in Washington with a concocted story about how Carl Day had lifted this print before giving the rifle to the FBI
11/22/63 - Charles Givens states in an affidavit that he worked on the 6th floor until about 11:30, then went downstairs to the bathroom, then took his lunch at 12:00 and let the building.
11/22/63 - Charles Givens tells the FBI that he saw Oswald in the domino room reading a paper at about 11:50.
12/2/63 - Charles Givens tells the secret service that he had seen Oswald with a clipboard on the sixth floor at about 11:45 a.m.
2/13/64 - Lt. Jack Revill of the Dallas police tells FBI agent Robert Gemberling that "Givens had been previously handled by the Special Services Bureau on a marijuana charge and he believes that Givens would change his story for money".
3/18/64 - Charles Givens makes a statement to FBI agent Thomas Trettis that he was with Edward Shields at Record and Elm at the time the president was shot and returned back in the building around 5:00 to pick up his hat and coat.
4/8/64 - Charles Given concocts a story about having returned to the 6th floor at about 11:55 on 11/22/63 to get his jacket and cigarettes and seeing Oswald walking away from the SE corner.
You recognize that the "palm print" ( smudge) on an index card is a "concocted story"....But you refuse to admit that the index card was actually included in the evidence that the DPD turned over to the FBI at midnight on 11/22/63.
I "refuse to admit" that because there is no evidence for it other than a fanciful Walt fabrication.
Why don't you drop the "fanciful Walt fabrication" and actually examine the evidence with an open mind?
I have. All you have is an undated evidence list and a wild imagination.
Lots of people ("Oswald did it" evangelists included) consider their own unsubstantiated speculations to be "common sense reasoning". Don't be like them.
Can't you see that the original evidence list was compiled to accompany the photos of the evidence that was being released to the FBI at midnight as ordered by LBJ. ( recall that LBJ told Curry that the FBI was taking charge of the investigation at midnight)
No, because there was no mention of the magic partial palmprint by Day or anybody else that night.
there was no mention of the magic partial palmprint by Day or anybody else that night.
What does that prove??.... On the evening of 11/22/63, Day never even attempted to pass off the smudge that he had lifted from the forestock of the rifle as a palm print. He had spotted the smudge on the foregrip of the carcano while checking the rifle for prints just minutes after he lifted the rifle from the floor.
He saw the smudge and simply lifted it for later examination at the Lab. Tom Alyea said he watched Day lift a print from the foregrip and place the lift on an index card and scribble the pertinent information about that print on the index card.
The index card that was sent to the FBI at midnight is the same card that Tom Alyea saw day place the lift on.
That's a story you just made up.
Alyea never said that.
There is ZERO evidence that any index card was turned over at midnight on the 22nd/23rd. The card showed up in Washington on the 29th.
Zero evidence??...Are you blind? Look at item number 14 on the original evidence inventory list. ( The list that shows that there were only TWO spent 6.5m shells being released to the FBI)
The list says nothing about these things being released to the FBI or when.
Mark Lane or Jim Jones? Pick somebody ::)
Mark Lane. Dangerous man.
She wouldn't be the first witness to say that she was misquoted in official statements.
A better question would be, "why do WC evangelists automatically believe whatever cops say"?
You should ask one. (If any actually exist) Personally, I don't know of any. If you mean LNs, why do you assume they do automatically believe whatever cops say? Anything to back up that huge assumption?
PS Seen the expression "evangelists" in a few of your posts now..new buzzword?
Please tell us more, Ted.
Not particularly new. The "Oswald did it" position is a religion. With a creed and inerrant holy books.
Yes, read Litwin's article. His entire argument is that nobody should believe Mercer because the cops (or the FBI who are cops) said something different. And they didn't even say anything that different. There was a truck there at that time and somebody probably took something out of the back of it. So why is there such a drive amongst the WC faithful to discredit and try to destroy any witness who could be at odds with the official narrative?
"religion" "creed" "holy books" "evangelist"
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/why-do-conspiracy-theorists-still-believe-julia-ann-mercer (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/why-do-conspiracy-theorists-still-believe-julia-ann-mercer)
Theres no doubt that Lanes "work" contributed to the tragedy. He has blood on his hands.I guess after Ted Shields has been dead for 5 years someone can say just about anything they want to about him.
The list says nothing about these things being released to the FBI or when.
I tend to accept the official story when it smells to high heaven.Dittos and re-posted by Jerry Freeman
The official story holds that the DPD released a number of items to the FBI on 11-22-63 without making a list or receiving a signed receipt. The FBI subsequently discussed these items in Airtels and made a report on these items but no signed list was ever discussed or produced. There is a note on one of the DPD crime lab reports that some of the items were released to Vince Drain that evening, but this is not a complete list of what was supposedly released.
But one of the problems exposed by this mess is the palm print reportedly cut from Box D, the seat box. This was reportedly removed from the box on the afternoon of the 22nd, and verified as Oswald's print that evening. And yet this print was not sent to the FBI for verification that evening. Nor was it photographed in situ in the building. Nor was it photographed at the DPD that evening. Nor is there an 11-22-63 DPD report in which this verification is noted. There is simply a claim that they removed it from a box found in the sniper's nest, and that it matched Oswald's palm print. I must admit I'm a skeptic.
Dittos and re-posted by Jerry Freeman
A gay person is the last person the CIA would chose as one of its agents. It’s too easy to turn them by threatening to expose them.
A gay person is the most logical person for Jim Garrison to choose to prosecute with a bogus case. Such a person cannot present any character witnesses because they may be asked, by the DA, under oath, if they know anything about the defendant being a homosexual. A disaster for the defense given the attitude of the public in the 1960’s towards gays. The people that the defense can call upon to testify is greatly restricted.
Seems that is no longer the case, Joe.
"Tenet holds the dubious distinction of being the first CIA director to preside at a “Gay Pride Day” at the agency. There’s no indication that Tenet himself is gay, but the event which took place at the agency on June 6th, 2000 was extraordinary and demonstrates the misplaced priorities at the CIA. Tenet welcomed openly homosexual Rep. Barney Frank to the affair, telling the congressman that the agency is “recruiting very actively” in the homosexual community."
And your proof is what? And what exactly is an "intelligence apparatus"?
A gay person is the last person the CIA would chose as one of its agents. It’s too easy to turn them by threatening to expose them.All true but that's assuming that the CIA knew Shaw was gay. I'm not sure that, in particular during the late 1940s and 1950s, that it was known to any degree. If you read Donald Carpenter's book on Shaw, "Man of a Million Fragments", you'll see that some close friends of Shaw's, especially women, knew he was gay but some others, also close, were surprised to learn about it. And again, it seems that during that 1950s period that Shaw was more discreet about his personal life. It was only during the 1960s that he was more open about it. At least that's the view I got from the book.
A gay person is the most logical person for Jim Garrison to choose to prosecute with a bogus case. Such a person cannot present any character witnesses because they may be asked, by the DA, under oath, if they know anything about the defendant being a homosexual. A disaster for the defense given the attitude of the public in the 1960’s towards gays. The people that the defense can call upon to testify is greatly restricted.
Again, all you have is that Clay Shaw was a domestic contact of the CIA from 1948-1956. That's it. Ike 150,000 other businessmen, he
discussed what he knew about international trade. QK/ENCHANT was not an operational project - it was an unwitting clearance for
other people to use Shaw for information. It was J. Montroe Sullivan who was cleared for that. Again, nothing operational.
fred
We do know that his involvement ended in 1956.
The CIA expressed an interest in Garrison because he was accusing them of a variety of crimes. I'd be interested too. But
they didn't do anything about it. In fact, they were asked by help by Shaw's defense team, and they said no.
fred
No they don't. But if you have some evidence that they do, then post it.
fred
But so what? We have enough documentation on Clay Shaw and the CIA to know exactly what he did and what
he did not do.
At some point, those documents will be released...and then you will complain that there is nothing in writing.
fred
Shaw wasn't a paid informant. He was just a domestic contact like 150,000 other businessmen. There is nothing nefarious about this. You
have no evidence that he any other connection to intelligence...and no evidence that he had any connection after 1956.
fred
That is no doubt an error. There is no such thing as a "contract source" You won't find that in other documents. The document that you cite is
an overview of a set of documents given to the HSCA. There is no underlying document that supports that. The person probably meant a highly valued
contact.
fred
And you know this how?
I don't understand how you can be so certain about this stuff unless you've seen all the classified files.
Two things can be true at the same time. It can be true that Jim Garrison unfairly targeted Clay Shaw while also true that Shaw was a CIA asset.
Jon,
Not to butt in, but I see both sides here. I appreciate that you recognize that Shaw was not in on a conspiracy to kill JFK. But Fred is also right. So far at least, no one has been able to find the document that the CIA historian referred to. I suspose it could be yet to be released but it appears that he was referring to a collection that is now available. And I have to assume that conspiracy-mined researches would have unearthed it by now if it existed. At this point, it appears to be an error by the historian, but I could be wrong.
You can make all the assumptions you want. But without any evidence, they are just baseless allegations.
fred
The HSCA wasn't wrong about Shaw. Blakey said quite clearly that Garrison was a fraud.
fred
That is no doubt an error. There is no such thing as a "contract source" You won't find that in other documents. The document that you cite is an overview of a set of documents given to the HSCA. There is no underlying document that supports that. The person probably meant a highly valued
contact.
fred
So you're now saying the HSCA was right to call Shaw a "highly paid" CIA source?
The HSCA never said that. The "highly paid" business comes from J. Kenneth McDonald, a CIA historian, in response to an HSCA request. What has never been seen is the documentation that caused McDonald to make this statement. It is my understanding that the collection (or box or whatever) that McDonald susposedly got this information from is available. But, so far, no one has produced such a document.
Now maybe someday it will come out that Shaw assisted the CIA beyond his Domestic Contacts interviews. I doubt it, but anything is possible. Until then, all we have is McDonald's statement. Of course, that is good enough for most CTs including the "journalist" Morley.
He didn't write the report. An assistant wrote it. You can tell it's a mistake because the CIA doesn't use that terminology -
Contract source. The HSCA saw all those documents and no one one the HSCA said Shaw was anything other than a contact. And no one
has found a corroborating underlying document.
People make mistakes.
fred
Assuming neither of you has seen the primary source documents, I don't understand how you can be so confident that McDonald was wrong.
What are you basing that conclusion on?
I mentioned what I was basing it on. It is my understanding that the documents McDonald used have been released and so far no one has found anything. Perhaps someday the full truth will be known and I may be proven wrong. Perhaps, as Steve suggests, Shaw had a closer role with the CIA wheather he was paid or not. But the bottom line, as you point out, is that there is no evidence that Shaw had anything to do with the assassination.If the Carpenter characterization is accurate then Shaw was directed or instructed by the CIA to seek out certain areas BEFORE he went abroad. That is, he didn't come back and answer questions; he was instructed to seek out certain areas/subjects ahead of time. And Carpenter documents that Shaw traveled abroad extensively while promoting the Trade Mart (it was, after all, called the "International Trade Mart"). Both to Europe and especially Latin America.
If the Carpenter characterization is accurate then Shaw was directed or instructed by the CIA to seek out certain areas BEFORE he went abroad. That is, he didn't come back and answer questions; he was instructed to seek out certain areas/subjects ahead of time. And Carpenter documents that Shaw traveled abroad extensively while promoting the Trade Mart (it was, after all, called the "International Trade Mart"). Both to Europe and especially Latin America.
Yes, but does that make him a "highly paid contract source?" Could be, but I am not convinced. Carpenter also says Shaw was not an employee and recieved no compensation. Now, I have always thought Shaw would be a good candidate to be a CIA asset of some sort. He was ex-military and traveled for his job as you point out. The unfortunate thing is if Shaw's relationship was anything beyond DCS the conspiracy people will have a hayday even though he was innocent of any involvement in JFK's death.
I am just saying that at the trial. Shaw was only asked if he worked for teh CIA. His reply, no, was correct. He was not asked
if he had any connections with the CIA.
fred
Of course, Shaw was correct. He had not worked for the CIA.Nice of you to take his word for it.
His reply, no, was correct. He was not asked if he had any connections with the CIA.I was always under the impression that CIA people are basically in the spy business....ie professional spies.
Nice of you to take his word for it.Could we have a name attached to your claim that because Shaw was found not guilty of conspiracy to murder JFK that people, who? where?, say that proves there was no conspiracy undertaken in the assassination to kill him?
I was always under the impression that CIA people are basically in the spy business....ie professional spies.
:-\ Are you a spy? Who is going to admit--yeah sure I'm a spy...no biggie. Would that not be really kind of stupid?
The ceremonious conclusion from the Shaw trial ---Shaw is acquitted---therefore there must have not been a conspiracy in the assassination after all ::)
I can't help but notice that this same dumbass mentality still prevails.
Could we have a name attached to your claim that because Shaw was found not guilty of conspiracy to murder JFK that people, who? where?, say that proves there was no conspiracy undertaken in the assassination to kill him?
No one that I've ever read on "my side" of this question of who killed Kennedy has stated that because Shaw didn't conspire with Oswald and Ferrie and others, as Garrison claimed, that that proves no other conspiracy occurred. Certainly no one in this thread. That's not just a strawman argument it's an invisible strawman at that.
Maybe I need to get out more.
To add: the most influential, for good or bad, pro-conspiracy work on the assassination was Oliver Stone's movie "JFK." Which promoted the Garrison claim that Shaw conspired with others to kill JFK. The reason many lone assassin believers focus on the matter is largely because of this (and the fact that Garrison was a disgrace who smeared and ruined numerous innocent lives). This was not some obscure claim here; this was a major movie that was seen by millions around the world.
Could we have a name attached to your claim that because Shaw was found not guilty of conspiracy to murder JFK that people, who? where?, say that proves there was no conspiracy undertaken in the assassination to kill him?.... it's an invisible strawman at that.Nowhere did I mention that "it proves". Re-writing things that I didn't. Typical of the parrots.
The HSCA did not report that at all.
fred
Excellent summary of the evidence Fred. Until documents surface that prove McDonald's claim, we have to assume it was a misinterpretation of the records.
Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA?If he had been a "highly
The Oliver Stone documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, makes the claim that Clay Shaw was a "highly valued contract agent" of the CIA." An honest evaluation of the evidence says differently.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-clay-shaw-a-contract-agent-for-the-cia (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-clay-shaw-a-contract-agent-for-the-cia)
Again: The evidence is that Shaw had absolutely nothing to do with the assassination. Nothing.
This is so ridiculous. Stone and DiEugenio believe Oswald was a patsy, an innocent man framed for the assassination. But if Garrison was right and Shaw (and the CIA) was involved then that implicates their Dreyfus, one Lee Oswald. Because the claim is Shaw conspired with Oswald and Ferrie to murder JFK.
Pick one story, please. Was Oswald innocent and framed? Or was he one of the conspirators?
If he had been a "highlypaidvalued contract agent" wouldn't there be a great deal of evidence, certainly more than has been reported, of that contract work? The CIA was highlypayingvaluing him for what work? And why did it stop in 1956?
And if he was a highlypaidvalued "agent" would he have been briefed by a DCS agent, Shaw's contact Hunter Leake? Wouldn't it have been more formal?
My errors: I wrote "paid" instead of "valued."
If you haven’t already, I suggest you watch the documentary, JFK Revisited for context.How do you connect Shaw with the assassination other than through the Garrison claim that he conspired with Oswald to shoot JFK? Is there another way? Stone and especially DiEugenio are fervent Garrisonites. They have to throw him overboard in order to have an innocent Oswald.
Shaw, Ferrie, and Bannister are only mentioned briefly and it references that CIA-HSCA memo about Shaw being a “high paid contract source”.
The documentary mostly discusses stuff that has been learned from declassified documents since the 1990s. It doesn’t spend much time rehashing the same stuff from Stone’s 1991 “JFK” film (at least not the 2 hour version which is available to watch now. A longer version will be released next year). I was a bit surprised by how little time they spent on the Garrison/New Orleans stuff given Stone and DiEugenio’s backgrounds.
I’ve read that the film was originally intended to be based on DiEugenio’s Destiny Betrayed book but I’m glad that they went in a different direction with the final product.
FWIW, I personally am not convinced that Shaw was involved with the Kennedy assassination.
How do you connect Shaw with the assassination other than through the Garrison claim that he conspired with Oswald to shoot JFK? Is there another way? Stone and especially DiEugenio are fervent Garrisonites. They have to throw him overboard in order to have an innocent Oswald.
Your problem - and Stone's and DiEugenio's and now Morley's (if I can lump you all together) - is that none of this CIA intrigue explains or is connected to what happened on November 22, 1963. It doesn't explain Oswald's actions and behavior which implicate him in the assassination. I simply don't believe he had curtain rods in that bag. I simply don't believe he was framed for shooting Tippit. I simply don't believe he left the building and work shortly after the shooting because he thought he would have the rest of the day off. And on and on.
The most incredible thing about Stone's nonsense is how many people he claims were involved. Everything is faked or the product of lies. When you add up the number of individuals that he claims directly or indirectly participated in the conspiracy it must be hundreds or even thousands. Many are just random people. But they all lied for some unknown reason. Having to cast doubt on the evidence as the product of lies or fakery is an implicit acknowledgement on Stone's part that the evidence links Oswald to the crime.
They reject any and every claim by the WC regardless of its significance to the event. It can say nothing about Oswald's guilt, be completely irrelevant to that question, but it has to be denied. Why? Because it's part of the "official story".
Having to cast doubt on the evidence as the product of lies or fakery is an implicit acknowledgement on Stone's part that the evidence links Oswald to the crime.
The same could be said for the naysayers who frequent this forum. Yet they would never admit that the Warren Commission got anything right.
Marina certainly said she took the photos.
fred
She said she took “one photo” (it looks like several different poses were photographed) and today she denies ever taking the photos.
If you’re going to lean so much on Marina’s testimony, don’t cherry-pick or at least acknowledge that she’s given inconsistent testimony…
If she took one photo, that means at least one BY photo is authentic and depict Oswald holding the rifle. What would then be the point of any conspirator faking the other photos? It doesn't make any sense.
Did you read her HSCA testimony. She said she took two photographs but she wasn't sure how many. They showed
her the third photograph, and she just shrugged. Yeah, ok..I must have taken three.
fred
A few notes on the Backyard photos:
- There are visible differences between the rifle in the BYP and the Sixth Floor rifle.
- The Sixth floor rifle appears to be a different Carcano model than the one Oswald allegedly ordered.
- Marina says she didn't take the photos fwiw. I've long held that Marina isn't a credible witness due to her willingness to lie and misremember stuff but LN'ers almost always cherry-pick the testimony from Marina that supports their narrative while downplaying her credibility problems.
- I have no idea what to think of the rifle and backyard photo controversies. It isn't the most important issue in my opinion. It's just one of many weird things in the Kennedy assassination investigations.
The photos are very incriminating for Oswald regardless of who took them.I'll defer to the photographic experts who used technical methods to examine the photos over our - yours or mine or anyone's - eyeball interpretation. Wouldn't you?
It seems to me that the questions about the discrepancies with the Carcano rifle are the bigger concern.
You’re correct. She said she took two but also inaccurately described how to use the Imperial Reflex camera (it operates differently than most cameras).But no one is relying solely on her account. There's physical evidence as well. The camera "signature", the negative, the handwriting on the back, the DeMohrenschildts presented one of the photos, et cetera. Look at the totality of evidence.
My broader point stands. Marina changed her stories too many times to be considered a good witness.
She even said at one point that she didn’t know Lee owned a rifle until they moved to New Orleans, which contradicted her later testimony about the backyard photos and the Gen. Walker incident.
She was a bad liar or had a poor memory but either way, she wasn’t a great witness.
But no one is relying solely on her account. There's physical evidence as well. The camera "signature", the negative, the handwriting on the back, the DeMohrenschildts presented one of the photos, et cetera. Look at the totality of evidence.
This is a classic example of, I think, bad and wrongheaded conspiracy thinking: it "looks" funny therefore it's suspicious and is evidence of something conspiratorial or sinister.
I'll defer to the photographic experts who used technical methods to examine the photos over our - yours or mine or anyone's - eyeball interpretation. Wouldn't you?
Jon, you don't really think your judgment is superior to what the photographic experts did? Yes, maybe they are wrong - appeal to authority and all. But just saying your view is superior to theirs isn't persuasive.
And to clarify: their conclusion was, if I recall (too lazy to check right now) that it was "probably" the same rifle not that it definitely was.
But no one is relying solely on her account. There's physical evidence as well. The camera "signature", the negative, the handwriting on the back, the DeMohrenschildts presented one of the photos, et cetera. Look at the totality of evidence.
This is a classic example of, I think, bad and wrongheaded conspiracy thinking: it "looks" funny therefore it's suspicious and is evidence of something conspiratorial or sinister.
It's pretty clear from Marina's HSCA testimony that she had no idea how many Backyard photos existed or how to use an Imperial Reflex Camera.
She wasn't able to say if she took 1, 2, 3, or 4 pictures (there were at least four).
She couldn't explain to the HSCA how to operate the camera (strange that she wouldn't remember the first time she ever used a camera).
Still, she probably did take the photos but if that's true, why has her testimony been so inconsistent?
I don't believe that she has ever been inconsistent on taking the BY photos. She just couldn't remember exactly when or how many such photos that she took when asked many months later. Many people couldn't remember exactly when they took a picture if you asked them months after the event. That creates no ambiguity, however, about her taking them. If even one is genuine, there would be no reason whatsoever for anyone to fake additional photos.
I’m not arguing that the BYP are fake so no, I’m not questioning the experts’ view that the photos are authentic.
On the rifle in the BYP, the loop for the rifle strap is on the bottom of the rifle while the rifle found on the Sixth floor of the Book Depository had loops/straps on the side. I’ll post a photo later if I can find comparisons.
The remaining controversy regarding the BYP is, who took the pictures if not Marina? She has given very inconsistent testimony on the photos which suggests that either she lied about taking the pictures or she has a very poor memory.
Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked?Why ask the question if you have already decided the answer?
The first photo alterationist was Lee Harvey Oswald -- he wouldn't even admit that the face was his.Just stuffing words there.
Most people don’t forget details of the first time they did something. Especially if it was for an unusual occasion as strange as Lee’s backyard photos. How often did Lee ask her to take pictures of him posing with guns? Rare and emotionally stressful events aren’t easily forgotten.
No one in the film argues that the photos are fake.
The fact that they brought up the Backyard Photos while discussing the inconsistencies with the rifle imply that the producers of JFK Revisited accept that the BYP are authentic.
Then why question why Marina can't remember how many pictures that she took?
It's pretty clear from Marina's HSCA testimony that she had no idea how many Backyard photos existed or how to use an Imperial Reflex Camera.
She wasn't able to say if she took 1, 2, 3, or 4 pictures (there were at least four).
She couldn't explain to the HSCA how to operate the camera (strange that she wouldn't remember the details of the first time she ever used a camera).
Still, she probably did take the photos but if that's true, why has her testimony been so inconsistent?
Obviously Marina had to take them because Oswald wasn't really close to other people who would have taken them for him.Still wondering why it is so obvious. When demonstrating to Robert Blakey and the HSCA panel.. how she had used the camera ...she held it upside down. She couldn't state at first whether she took more than one picture...no one could explain how a 3rd B Y photo popped up out of the blue thirteen years later ---
In 1976, during the Schweiker-Hart assassination investigation, another "backyard photograph" emerged. This one was found by Mrs. Geneva Ruth Dees, widow of Roscoe Anthony White, who began working for the Dallas Police, in the photographic department, on October 7, 1963. The picture was found among a collection of 40 photographs retained by White as souvenirs. According to Mrs. Dees, White, her former husband, was skilled in trick photography.(https://harveyandlee.net/Ryder/133-A,B,C.jpg)
.. the Oswald Backyard photos went under rigorous forensic photo analysis just a few years ago and every photo was proven to be 100% authentic with absolutely no forgery....and Hussein had WMDs.
Lee Harvey Oswald in the backyard of his Dallas apartment home in April 1963.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/10/20/newser-lee-harvey-oswald/74264150/
For decades, conspiracy theorists have claimed the famous "backyard photo" of Lee Harvey Oswald, which shows him holding the same type of rifle used to assassinate JFK, is a fake — a claim that Oswald himself made when he was arrested. But thanks to a scientist who has studied this photo before and stated previously it was "highly improbable that anyone could have created such a perfect forgery with the technology available in 1963," that claim has now been debunked.
A new study out of Dartmouth, published in the Journal of Digital Forensics, Security, and Law, used sophisticated 3D imaging technology to analyze key details of the photo, including Oswald's pose, and found that the photo is indeed authentic, a press release notes.
"Our detailed analysis of Oswald's pose, the lighting and shadows, and the rifle in his hands refutes the argument of photo tampering," said Hany Farid, the study's senior author.
Both the Warren Commission and a special House committee on assassinations had already found photo tampering hadn't taken place, and Farid had done studies in 2009 and 2010 that determined the photo's lighting and shadows were indeed feasible, per Phys.org. But some said that Oswald's pose in the photo, in which he appears to be standing somewhat off-balance, was a physical impossibility, so this time around Farid and his team put the photo through a rigorous 3D stability analysis. By adding appropriate mass little by little to each section of a 3D model of Oswald, they were able to examine Oswald's balance to show he certainly could have stood that way. The study also found, once again, that the lighting, shadows, and rifle length were also plausible.
JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited, misuses an interview clip of Marina Porter to try and show her denying that she took the backyard photographs.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-uses-marina-porter-to-mislead-viewers (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-uses-marina-porter-to-mislead-viewers)
Because it could mean she didn’t tell the truth.
If your spouse asks you to take pictures of her posing with guns, would you easily forget major details about that event?
Because it could mean she didn’t tell the truth.
If your spouse asks you to take pictures of her posing with guns, would you easily forget major details about that event?
Most likely she wanted to distance herself from any involvement with Lee so she played dumb. People do this all the time.
Brokaw specifically mentions ballistics tests.
In her denial, Marina specifically mentions ballistics tests.
Not sure what you're seeing.
So you are questioning that they are authentic?
As I've posted in another thread, the Oswald Backyard photos went under rigorous forensic photo analysis just a few years ago and every photo was proven to be 100% authentic with absolutely no forgery. Forged photos from the 60's would be easy to identify, unlike from today, with the best computer technology that can alter photos making it more difficult to ascertain if they are indeed legitimate. Obviously Marina had to take them because Oswald wasn't really close to other people who would have taken them for him.
At no point in the film does anyone suggest that the photos are faked.
Still wondering why it is so obvious. When demonstrating to Robert Blakey and the HSCA panel.. how she had used the camera ...she held it upside down. She couldn't state at first whether she took more than one picture...no one could explain how a 3rd B Y photo popped up out of the blue thirteen years later --- (https://harveyandlee.net/Ryder/133-A,B,C.jpg)
I suspect that Roscoe White could have been involved in framing Oswald.
(https://harveyandlee.net/Ryder/2_negs.jpg)
I still wonder why.... Why no other rolls of film were ever connected to that camera?...Also where were the negatives processed and printed? ..Why was the rest of the film roll not utilized? ... I mean regular routine family pictures should have conscientiously occurred to a somewhat frugal Oswald.
Sorry...58 years later and it all still really stinks.
...and Hussein had WMDs.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/10/20/newser-lee-harvey-oswald/74264150/
Words like feasible and plausible don't sound all that exact to me.
The "study" reproduced models of the photos but did they ever find an actual guy who could stand like that rifle in hand? Oswald could have been on Americas got talent.
Someone explain why the rifle has a scope in some pictures and in others not?
No. I accept the authenticity of the photos.
Given her inconsistent testimony on the photos, I question if she was the person who actually took them. You don't need a great memory if you tell the truth...
So the photos are authentic and they show a Oswald holding a rifle, commie literature, and carrying his pistol. But the important point is who took the picture? It seems like the important point is why Oswald is carrying the rifle used to assassinate JFK. And then lied to the police about owning any rifle. If the rifle found on the 6th floor that had the same serial number as the rifle sent by Klein's to his PO Box is not the one owned by Oswald, then what happened to the rifle shown in the BY photos? It is not in place in which his own wife confirmed that he stored it on 11.22.63 when asked by the DPD. Even in a conspiracy frame up, it would make no sense to take a picture of Oswald holding some rifle other than one used to assassinate JFK. The notion that Oswald owned some other rifle that has never been accounted for while ignoring the mountain of evidence that links him to the TSBD rifle is weak sauce.
What does that have to do with the identical lumps on the right arm?
Also...you might go back and delete the name calling.
What does that have to do with the identical lumps on the right arm?
Also...you might go back and delete the name calling.
The mystery lump is actually quite a common phenomenon usually referred to as... a wrist bone. ::)You flunk anatomy there...that is not a wrist bone.
What about that knot on Oswald's right wrist that was there and then miraculously went away...and then was mystifyingly transported to Roscoe White's right wrist in the same identical place?
Pretty weird huh?
(https://harveyandlee.net/Guns/mar,_63-11.jpg)
Question always was..Why does the photograph look fake? Answer again is experts [supported by the see no evil media]---
Experts [only identified as "the experts"]...concluded that never mind all this doubt folks...all is well in la-la land.
(https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/oswald-life-cover.jpg)
Don't you think every minute detail was combed over in the photographs to look for anomalies?If they're so 'renowned' why can't you name them?
It's difficult to make the case the photos are forged or fake when each one went through forensic photo analysis and were concluded to be authentic by renowned forensic photo analysts.
JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary includes a video clip of John Connally seemingly disputing the single bullet theory. Oliver Stone doesn't tell you the whole truth about John Connally.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-doesn-t-tell-the-whole-truth-about-john-connally (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-doesn-t-tell-the-whole-truth-about-john-connally)
If they're so 'renowned' why can't you name them?
That shadow on the left cheek?...Some kind of freak eclipse I suppose?
Oswald's guilt and a conspiracy plot to kill JFK aren't mutually exclusive.
Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once AgainTrump delayed the release of the files to protect LBJ and the CIA? From exposing their involvement in the assassination?
Today is the 58 anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. We should all take some time today to remember his life and the optimism he engendered in Americans. Unfortunately, Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited, will be showing today and, once again, he crucifies Clay Shaw, an innocent gay man whose life was ruined by Jim Garrison. Shame on you, Oliver Stone.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-with-jfk-revisited-crucifies-clay-shaw-once-again (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-with-jfk-revisited-crucifies-clay-shaw-once-again)
True, but why then question the evidence against Oswald if you are entertaining the possibility that he was involved in the plot?
Why question the BY photos, Oswald's ownership of the rifle, and other evidence that links him to the crime if he actually assassinated JFK (even as part of the conspiracy)?
It's only in a situation in which Oswald is innocent of any involvement that the widespread faking of evidence to frame him would be necessary. If Oswald is playing along, then he is doing whatever the conspirators ask of him including posing with the rifle used to assassinate JFK. In that scenario, it is not the authenticity of the evidence that is at issue but what evidence there is to link Oswald to some group of conspirators. And of that there has been no credible evidence presented.
It's pretty clear from Marina's HSCA testimony that she had no idea how many Backyard photos existed or how to use an Imperial Reflex Camera.
She wasn't able to say if she took 1, 2, 3, or 4 pictures (there were at least four).
She couldn't explain to the HSCA how to operate the camera (strange that she wouldn't remember the details of the first time she ever used a camera).
Still, she probably did take the photos but if that's true, why has her testimony been so inconsistent?
If they're so 'renowned' why can't you name them?
That shadow on the left cheek?...Some kind of freak eclipse I suppose?
It's possible but doesn't explain her inconsistent testimony once she finally admitted to taking the photos.
Stone's so-called documentary mentions that Shaw was indicted for conspiracy to kill JFK. It's a bit rich in a film that is upset that Oswald did not get a trial, to NOT even mention that Shaw DID get a trial and that he was acquitted.
That is outrageous.
fred
Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again
Today is the 58 anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. We should all take some time today to remember his life and the optimism he engendered in Americans. Unfortunately, Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited, will be showing today and, once again, he crucifies Clay Shaw, an innocent gay man whose life was ruined by Jim Garrison. Shame on you, Oliver Stone.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-with-jfk-revisited-crucifies-clay-shaw-once-again (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-with-jfk-revisited-crucifies-clay-shaw-once-again)
Are you questioning this man's qualifications? ... that indeed makes him world renowned in his field of digital image forensicsHowever...the photograph is analog.
He is also called upon by intelligence agencies...Qualification there for a good team player.
You are just posting your own personal theory of what you want it to be and dismiss the forensic evidence.I [as many others have] never considered that Life Oswald photo as being phony and then I saw a Jack White presentation. He was an analog photographer [as I] before the digital world replaced it.
Do you have any forensic evidence that proves the shadow or any of these these Backyard photos to be forged or faked?Not at all. However...regarding expert forensic evidence, a panel of sound engineers, acoustical specialists and various other auditory authorities told the HSCA committee that there is a 95% chance that there was a 4th shot from the knoll area.
However...the photograph is analog. Qualification there for a good team player.I [as many others have] never considered that Life Oswald photo as being phony and then I saw a Jack White presentation. He was an analog photographer [as I] before the digital world replaced it.
Not at all. However...regarding expert forensic evidence, a panel of sound engineers, acoustical specialists and various other auditory authorities told the HSCA committee that there is a 95% chance that there was a 4th shot from the knoll area.
A whole lot more than 95% of the only one guy believers completely reject those experts.
I am skeptical.
JFK Revisited crams a lot of information into very short segments in the two-hour film and (it seems) the target audience is people who are already familiar with the basic details of the JFK assassination and the investigations that followed.
The Clay Shaw trial isn't mentioned in the film (it's only mentioned that Shaw denied working for the CIA and that the HSCA confirmed he did have a relationship with the CIA) but neither is the Tippit shooting or Gen. Walker stuff.
Less than a minute was spent on Clay Shaw so your thread title is a little ridiculous.
Many things related to the Kennedy assassination were left out due to time constraints, not dishonesty. They were required to keep the film no longer than two-hours.
An extended version will be released in February.
For us Dummies, it might be a good idea in your opening spiel to give a brief summation of where your following research leads because reading between the lines and trying to figure out what the heck you are trying to say, makes me skip a lot of your posts. Don't get me wrong I appreciate all the effort but sometimes it's just too difficult to make a link between your research and the JFK assassination.
JohnM
In 1857, Comus taught New Orleans how to parade | 300 for 300
https://www.300nola.com/portfolio-items/in_1857_comus_taught_new_orlea/
Jul 25, 2018 — Unlike Rex, Comus' identity is never revealed. The torch carriers who helped illuminate the Comus parade were the beginning of the flambeaux .
https://www.tor.com/2013/08/09/toby-barlow-cia-agent-babayaga/
I Never Knew My Grandfather, Only What He Pretended to Be
Aug 9, 2013 — His name is Philip Strong and he has boarded here in the Hamburg station, ... strike up an acquaintance with a fellow name Otto Fuerbringer.
JFK Revisited Lays an Egg
There were several articles on the JFK assassination yesterday. My friend Alecia Long was in the Washington Post, and Tim Weiner had an excellent article in Rolling Stone. Links are in my post. Oliver Stone also had an article but it was in the Hollywood Reporter! His paranoia-riddled so-called documentary has laid an egg.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-lays-an-egg (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-lays-an-egg)
If Stone just believed in one specific JFK conspiracy theory, that would be bad enough but he apparently accepts them all. Hundreds or thousands of people would have to be involved in the conspiracy under Stone's interpretation of events.He thinks the Cold War was a conspiracy caused by militarists in the US. Poor Uncle Joe Stalin didn't have a chance <g>. And that Hitler's rise was caused by American industrialists who funded the Nazi machine. It's always the US that is behind and the cause of every bad thing.
He thinks the Cold War was a conspiracy caused by militarists in the US. Poor Uncle Joe Stalin didn't have a chance <g>. And that Hitler's rise was caused by American industrialists who funded the Nazi machine. It's always the US that is behind and the cause of every bad thing.
Just for clarification, not everyone, including myself, agrees with Stone that the entire Military Industrial Complex killed JFK due to his resistance towards escalation of US involvement in Vietnam. Stone is entitled to his own opinion but there's room for other points of view.Jon, you guys who suspect some sort of small "c" conspiracy involving perhaps a rogue element in the CIA should be furious at Stone's recklessness. He makes your side look foolish with all this nonsense. Instead of giving him a standing ovation you should be jeering him. The entire JFK conspiracy cause went haywire after Garrison's poison. And you've never recovered.
Beyond that, both sides are to blame for the start of the Cold War but the US is (arguably) more responsible for it lasting several decades. I'm sure there's more than one interpretation of Cold War history but the TV series you're referring to was written by Historian, Peter Kuznick. Almost all historical events have more than one interpretation and the consensus of historians can change over time. For example, President Ulysses Grant is experiencing a revival in popularity among contemporary historians after spending a century being called one of the worst US Presidents. So it seems perfectly fine and normal to read or watch Kuznick's alternative interpretations of 20th century world history.
Lastly, Stone's opinions on the MIC and US covert ops are based in reality.
It's fair to criticize how much Stone blames Defense and Financial institutions for the evils of the world but the criticisms aren't baseless. After all, it was none other than President Dwight Eisenhower who first warned about the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex and President Harry Truman after the JFK assassination who called for the CIA to be reined in.
Have you read any of the books on the Dulles brothers? They were the epitome of the "Deep State".
Jon, you guys who suspect some sort of small "c" conspiracy involving perhaps a rogue element in the CIA should be furious at Stone's recklessness. He makes your side look foolish with all this nonsense. Instead of giving him a standing ovation you should be jeering him. The entire JFK conspiracy cause went haywire after Garrison's poison. And you've never recovered.
As to the Cold War: I think it's absolutely false to argue that the US caused the Cold War to last longer than it did. Did our policies unnecessarily contribute to it? Of course, our hands weren't clean. And absolutely false to say "both sides" caused it to start. The US dramatically dismantled the military after the war; if the MIC was so powerful how did they let that happen? It was only Stalin's betrayals at Yalta, the Red Army's occupation of Eastern Europe, the attempted subversion of the West, that caused the conflict. Why did the countries in Western Europe go along with this? It wasn't just the US that felt threatened by Moscow. We had troops there with the approval of those governments; the USSR had troops in Eastern Europe after installing puppet governments.
You're reading what the US did - the Dulles et cetera - and ignoring what the Soviets and Chinese were doing that precipitated those actions. This is like Howard Zinn's history where he cites what the US did and never includes the policies of Moscow and others. I certainly don't want to re-fight the origins and causes of the Cold War here <g>.
One final note: the idea that JFK was opposed to these policies, was some sort of critic of US opposition to the Soviets is frankly groundless. I don't think there's a whiff of evidence that as Stone and Garrison argue he was going to "end" the conflict. Or pull out of Vietnam. Or make nice with Castro. That's all part of this mythical JFK as Camelot. JFK was a hard-headed realist who, yes, wanted to avoid conflict with the Soviets, but who recognized the existential danger they posed to us.
Standing ovation for Stone’s film at Cannes.
Rising User Review Ratings on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes.
Ordinary people who have watched the film have given it rave reviews.
More proof that Film Critics and the Mainstream media in general are irrelevant today.
Standing ovation for Stone’s film at Cannes.
Rising User Review Ratings on IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes.
Ordinary people who have watched the film have given it rave reviews.
More proof that Film Critics and the Mainstream media in general are irrelevant today.
Ordinary people don't give a crap about the JFK assassination
The people are standing because they are leaving
The clapping is token
You lot are the irrelevant ones
Not as irrelevant as your goofy posts about Oswald...
Not at all. However...regarding expert forensic evidence, a panel of sound engineers, acoustical specialists and various other auditory authorities told the HSCA committee that there is a 95% chance that there was a 4th shot from the knoll area.The "95%" claim was made by Wiess and Ashkenazy, no one else. Two guys.
A whole lot more than 95% of the only one guy believers completely reject those experts.
I am skeptical.
Actually...crucified?... is way over the top.
Less than a minute was spent on Clay Shaw so your thread title is a little ridiculous.
Oliver Stone Crucifies Clay Shaw Once AgainClay Shaw was not martyred...He smoked himself to death---
Tell us us how posting sworn testimony is goofy
Sworn testimony?
(https://i.postimg.cc/tRK1c9hB/TOO-SOON.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls
8/26/72: Occiput had large defect
Lifton: [W]as the main damage to the skull on the top, or in the back?
Stringer: In the back.
Lifton: ...High In the back, or lower In the back?
Stringer: Oh, the occipital part in the back there (garbled) up above the neck.
Lifton: …In other words, the main part of his head that was blasted away was in the occipital part of the skull?
Stringer: Yes. the back part. [Tape played for Stringer in 1996, p78]
The "95%" claim was made by Wiess and Ashkenazy, no one else. Two guys.
The study was supervised by Dr. James E. Barger, the firm's chief scientist. At the time of the reconstruction in August 1978, the committee was extremely conscious of the significance of Barger's preliminary work, realizing, as it did, that his analysis indicated that there possibly were too many shots, spaced too closely together, 5 for Lee Harvey Oswald to have fired all of them, and that one of the shots came from" the grassy knoll, not the Texas School Book Depository. When questioned about the probability of the entire third impulse pattern representing a supersonic bullet being fired at the President from the grassy knoll, Barger estimated there was a 20 percent chance that the N-wave, as opposed to the sequence of impulses following it, was actually caused by random noise.(65) Accordingly, the mathematical probability of the entire sequence of impulses actually representing a supersonic bullet was 76 percent, the product of a 95 percent chance that the impulse pattern represented noise as loud as a rifle shot from the grassy knoll times an 80 percent chance that the N-wave was caused by a supersonic bullet. (66)https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
The committee found no evidence or indication of any other cause of noise as loud as a rifle shot coming from the grassy knoll at the time the impulse sequence was recorded on the dispatch tape, and therefore concluded that the cause was probably a gunshot fired at the motorcade.
It was Oswald
(https://i.postimg.cc/TPphLbXm/FINALFINAL-NEELY.png)
billchapman_hunter of trolls_you_are_next
"It was Oswald"
You said it so it must be true.
Fake genius.
Fake artist.
Fake quotes.
Next?
« Last Edit: Today at 01:42:22 PM by Bill Chapman »
Edit?
ROFL
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
The Backyard pictures do not prove that Oswald killed JFK.
In retrospect...being plastered on the cover of LIFE magazine with the caption 'weapons used to kill Kennedy and Officer Tippit' instilled prejudice in the minds of Americans no matter the questions and no matter the circumstantial evidence.
Posing with the murder weapons while looking like some type of political loon has that impact. Another example of arguing that the evidence against Oswald is so overwhelming that it can only mean he is innocent. LOL.The problem with the photos is not that they showed a unstable crackpot posing like this - look at this guy! - no the problem is that news magazines ran the photos and poisoned opinion against him.
The problem with the photos is not that they showed a unstable crackpot posing like this - look at this guy! - no the problem is that news magazines ran the photos and poisoned opinion against him.
Suggestion: if you don't want people to think you're an unstable person then don't pose for photos that make you look like an unstable person.
How unusual or unstable is it for someone who lives in Texas to take a picture posing with guns? I would think that sort of thing is normal down there given how rifles and hunting are a big part of their culture.
It only looks incriminating after Oswald is accused of shooting the President. Short of that, there's nothing inherently bad about the backyard photos.
You believe that it was "normal" for people in Texas during the 1960s to have pictures taken of themselves holding guns while displaying Commie literature? While dressed in all black.
The Commie literature thing is unique for someone from the South (Marxists were extremely rare in the Jim Crow South)but not incriminating.
The only way something like that becomes incriminating relevant is if the person in the photos is accused of a violent crime.
I'm not exactly sure what other context something could ever be deemed incriminating unless someone is accused of a crime. The BY photos are incriminating in the context of the JFK assassination. They are not normal photos like other sane people in Texas would take. Of course no one would ever have any cause to see them had Oswald not committed a high-profile crime. He would just be another anonymous oddball in the world (of which there are many) but I'm not sure what relevance that has in this context.
Taking pictures with rifles is "normal" in Texas. No one would think the photos are strange or incriminating if he wasn't accused of shooting the President. There are also photos of Oswald posing with a shotgun in Russia by the way.
Oswald was never diagnosed with any sort of mental illness. Dismissing everything he did as an example of "insanity" is just intellectual laziness on your part.
He did it for a reason. Just admit that you don't know why he did it. Almost no one knows why...
You keep suggesting it is somehow "normal" for Oswald to have pictures taken of himself holding weapons and displaying Commie literature. There is nothing normal about that. It is downright bizarre. In the 1960s, it would have been even more atypical. I thought even CTers agreed with that obvious conclusion since they often allege the photos were faked to incriminate Oswald as some type of kook. But if this is "normal" can you show us other such examples of Texas citizens engaging in this behavior? I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit. Only Oswald knows why he posed for these pictures and assassinated JFK. The rest of us can only speculate on that based upon what we do know about his nutty background. The evidence confirms, however, that he did both. If you are asking why he posed for such a bizarre picture, my guess is that he had some type of fantasy that he was going to be a kind of revolutionary hero. And the BY pictures were meant to document that for history. Which, in a way, they have done but in a different way than he anticipated.
You keep suggesting it is somehow "normal" for Oswald to have pictures taken of himself holding weapons and displaying Commie literature. There is nothing normal about that. It is downright bizarre.
Yes, it would be for a superficial person who does not know the actual reasons for those pictures being taken.
I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit.
Wow, now there's a surprise
Only Oswald knows why he posed for these pictures and assassinated JFK. The rest of us can only speculate on that based upon what we do know about his nutty background.
What "nutty background" would that be? You know something we don't or are you just swallowing the stuff they are feeding you?
If you are asking why he posed for such a bizarre picture, my guess is that he had some type of fantasy that he was going to be a kind of revolutionary hero. And the BY pictures were meant to document that for history.
Let's see if I understand this.... Oswald had these photos taken, months before he knew Kennedy was coming to Dallas and without knowing he would be in a position to take a shot to kill him, to be portrayed as a "revolutionary hero"?
It seems your imagination is running away with you.....
You keep suggesting it is somehow "normal" for Oswald to have pictures taken of himself holding weapons and displaying Commie literature. There is nothing normal about that. It is downright bizarre.
But if this is "normal" can you show us other such examples of Texas citizens engaging in this behavior?
I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit.
I'm sure that your daddy still loves you even if you are a closet CTer.
You keep suggesting it is somehow "normal" for Oswald to have pictures taken of himself holding weapons and displaying Commie literature. There is nothing normal about that. It is downright bizarre.
Yes, it would be for a superficial person who does not know the actual reasons for those pictures being taken.
I'm not sure what you are asking me to admit.
Wow, now there's a surprise
Only Oswald knows why he posed for these pictures and assassinated JFK. The rest of us can only speculate on that based upon what we do know about his nutty background.
What "nutty background" would that be? You know something we don't or are you just swallowing the stuff they are feeding you?
If you are asking why he posed for such a bizarre picture, my guess is that he had some type of fantasy that he was going to be a kind of revolutionary hero. And the BY pictures were meant to document that for history.
Let's see if I understand this.... Oswald had these photos taken, months before he knew Kennedy was coming to Dallas and without knowing he would be in a position to take a shot to kill him, to be portrayed as a "revolutionary hero"?
It seems your imagination is running away with you.....
Neither the rifle or the Marxist publications in the photo are incriminating or crazy if Oswald never becomes a suspect in JFK's murder.
In the US of A where we love our guns, there's nothing weird or unusual about taking pictures with rifles.
You mean posing with guns or posing with Marxist publications? Obviously, there weren't many Marxists in Texas in 1963 so that part would be odd. But even if it's odd, that alone doesn't make it incriminating.
I have friends who live in the south and like guns. Gun culture isn't taboo there like in the northern States.
I've seen lots of pictures of people posing with their guns or rifles. Again, something like that only becomes incriminating if the person commits of violent crime.
Admit that you don't have all the answers for a change.
We don't know why Oswald did it but there's no reason to assume based on no evidence, that he was mentally unstable at the time when the photos were taken.
The real irony for Oswald is that CTers have desperately attempted to rob him of the historical credit of his one notable achievement. Assassinating the President. And unfortunately for Oswald, he comes off even to those who accept his guilt as less like Che Guevara and more as some pathetic loser who blamed society for his disappointments and failures. The BY photos are highly incriminating in that context.
You are getting increasingly hysterical. What "nutty" background did Oswald have? Are you for real? You mean the guy who defected to the USSR? HA HA HA. When these photos were taken Oswald was contemplating killing Gen. Walker and defecting to Cuba. No one said it had anything to do with assassinating JFK. More strawman nonsense. This is real simple. Even for you. Forget about me and try to focus on the subject matter. I know that is difficult for you. Ready? Do the BY pictures depict a "normal" pose for someone in Texas during the 1960s or not? A man dressed in all black including a polo type shirt holding his rifle and displaying Commie literature. Do you find that to be "normal" behaviour or not? Don't get sidetracked.
Oswald denied that he shot anyone.
I don't think Che Guevara or a true radical revolutionary would've claimed to have been a Patsy when caught.
Therefore, if Oswald killed Kennedy, it wasn't for political reasons. So the photos he took pretending to be a communist aren't relevant in my honest opinion.
Oswald wanted historical credit not legal responsibility for his heinous crimes. It's not surprising or inconsistent with a political motive that he denied it to the authorities. They were the cops so "let them figure it out" was his motto. Are you really suggesting that photos of the person who is accused of killing the President are not "relevant" when they depict him holding the murder weapon and displaying Commie literature? Nothing to see there? Honestly, that is unreal. Even most CTers disagree with that since they allege the photos were faked to make Oswald appear guilty (i.e. they were incriminating). Oswald thought he had all the time in the world to come clean. The one card that he still held after his arrest was his confession. He wasn't going to give that up within 48 hours before he even had a lawyer to negotiate a deal to save his hide from Old Sparky.
I was looking at BY photos a lot but only at JFK Revisted learned about the ring. Writing about normal and not normal, how do you think that this ring change happened? What do the LNrs think, why did he change the ring in three photos, what made him do that? Marina, wait I need to move the ring. Why?
Taking pictures with rifles is "normal" in Texas. No one would think the photos are strange or incriminating if he wasn't accused of shooting the President. There are also photos of Oswald posing with a shotgun in Russia by the way.
Oswald was never diagnosed with any sort of mental illness. Dismissing everything he did as an example of "insanity" is just intellectual laziness on your part.
He did it for a reason. Just admit that you don't know why he did it. Almost no one knows why...
Oswald wanted historical credit not legal responsibility for his heinous crimes.
It's not surprising or inconsistent with a political motive that he denied it to the authorities. They were the cops so "let them figure it out" was his motto. Are you really suggesting that photos of the person who is accused of killing the President are not "relevant" when they depict him holding the murder weapon and displaying Commie literature? Nothing to see there? Honestly, that is unreal.
Even most CTers disagree with that since they allege the photos were faked to make Oswald appear guilty (i.e. they were incriminating). Oswald thought he had all the time in the world to come clean. The one card that he still held after his arrest was his confession. He wasn't going to give that up within 48 hours before he even had a lawyer to negotiate a deal to save his hide from Old Sparky.
That makes no sense unless you're implying that Oswald knew in advance that he would be killed before having his day in court (which allowed the US government to convict him in the court of public opinion without a real trial).
Assuming that he didn't know that Jack Ruby was going to kill him, we can't assume that he had any idea how "history" would view him.
At the time of his death, maybe he believed that he could beat the charges. That's the only reasonable explanation for his denial of responsibility (assuming he was guilty).
It's only relevant if Oswald expressed anger towards JFK or a dislike of his policies, which he NEVER did despite the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis.
In fact, Oswald told several people including Marina that he liked JFK and supported his policies on Civil Rights. In other words, there's no indication that Oswald's expressions of Marxist beliefs had anything to do with JFK.
I find it more plausible that the photos were related to Oswald's hatred of General Edwin Walker but that's just speculative and based on the "Hunter of Fascists" caption that was found on George DeMorenschildt's copy of the BYP.
I accept the authenticity of the photos. I question "who" took them if not Marina, who has given sketchy and inconsistent testimony on the photos.
Beyond that, there's nothing incriminating about the photos. It only becomes incriminating when associated with someone accused of a violent crime.
'It's only relevant if Oswald expressed anger towards JFK or a dislike of his policies, which he NEVER did despite the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis. In fact, Oswald told several people including Marina that he liked JFK and supported his policies on Civil Rights. In other words, there's no indication that Oswald's expressions of Marxist beliefs had anything to do with JFK'.
_Good plan on Oswalds part: Sing the praises of Kennedy to everyone within earshot
_Except he had no plan at all beyond a last minute-epiphany
_Fck the politics: At that window, every man for himself.
Plan?
I thought LN'ers believe the Kennedy assassination was a crime of opportunity?
If that's true, how could Oswald saying nice things about JFK years and months before 11/22/63 have been part of a plan? What plan?
Uh-oh, another rookie mistake by our "artistic genius"!
Thumb1:
Um, them two new lines just made things worse.
Took "retarded" to the next level.
Thumb1:
No, get a grip.
Let go, Chapman!
Thumb1:
Not the lines I quoted.
You just doubled down on your own stupidity.
Thumb1:
You didn't quote any lines.
Keep hiding by being evasive on everything you post
You are not important here
Oh, btw.. Jon completely skirted my actual conclusion by ignoring my actual conclusion:
(https://i.postimg.cc/Y0vw772G/BANKS-IGNORED-LAST-TWO-LINES.png)
You are not important here
This coming from the guy, formerly known as a selfproclaimed "artist", who gets not a single response to any of the threads he pollutes this forum with is utterly hilarious.
My career proclaimed itself
Unlike you, I'm not looking to get replies
Not my bad that you chuckleheads can't
put names to your claims.
What, too soon?
Where did I conclude he had a plan
Now read past the the first line
_Good plan on Oswalds part: Sing the praises of Kennedy to everyone within earshot
_Except he had no plan at all beyond a last minute-epiphany
_Fck the politics: At that window, every man for himself.
Unlike you, I'm not looking to get replies
No of course not. You are posting silly post after post on a public forum to be ignored and get no response. How silly of me not to see that makes perfect sense.... :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
I can see where being unable to put names-to-claims can render one a little jumpier than usual, as you've just demonstrated..
Fair enough. Maybe you should take a break from posting if you have nothing constructive to add to these conversations
What claims?
Your imaginary ones or the ones I didn't make?
The ones you JAQed
The stance of a coward
Now keep pretending that you're not an Oswald arse kisser
So your bad in plan/no plan
Sounds constructive on my part
Maybe you should take a hike
My comment that you responded to was in response to Richard’s suggestion that Oswald had the foresight to know that people would still be debating the Kennedy assassination almost 60 years later.
Take your concerns about my response up with him…
The stance of a coward
Yes it most certainly is. You can't even answer the question.
Now keep pretending that you are an "artist"
My comment that you responded to was in response to Richard’s suggestion that Oswald had the foresight to know that people would still be debating the Kennedy assassination almost 60 years later.
Take your concerns about my response up with him…
Yes it most certainly is. You can't even answer the question.
_I just did, JAQer
Now keep pretending that you are an "artist"
_No pretence needed, Slick
_No pretence needed, Slick
In Hollywood there are thousands of waitresses, bell boys etc who say the same thing and call themselves actor or actrice.
My career proclaimed itself
Unlike you, I'm not looking to get replies
Not my bad that you chuckleheads can't
put names to your claims.
What, too soon?
(https://i.postimg.cc/k58gdnHV/Calling-card-with-nose.png)
That makes no sense unless you're implying that Oswald knew in advance that he would be killed before having his day in court (which allowed the US government to convict him in the court of public opinion without a real trial).
Assuming that he didn't know that Jack Ruby was going to kill him, we can't assume that he had any idea how "history" would view him.
At the time of his death, maybe he believed that he could beat the charges. That's the only reasonable explanation for his denial of responsibility (assuming he was guilty).
It's only relevant if Oswald expressed anger towards JFK or a dislike of his policies, which he NEVER did despite the Bay of Pigs and Cuban Missile Crisis.
In fact, Oswald told several people including Marina that he liked JFK and supported his policies on Civil Rights. In other words, there's no indication that Oswald's expressions of Marxist beliefs had anything to do with JFK.
I find it more plausible that the photos were related to Oswald's hatred of General Edwin Walker but that's just speculative and based on the "Hunter of Fascists" caption that was found on George DeMorenschildt's copy of the BYP.
I accept the authenticity of the photos. I question "who" took them if not Marina, who has given sketchy and inconsistent testimony on the photos.
Beyond that, there's nothing incriminating about the photos. It only becomes incriminating when associated with someone accused of a violent crime.
I actually said just the opposite. Oswald had no way to know that he had less than 48 hours to live after his arrest. For all he knew he had months or years to hold out the possibility of a confession to explain his motives. That was the only card that he had to play after his arrest. From a legal perspective, he was not going to give up his confession without some type of concession from the authorities such as not sending him to the electric chair. He knew he had pulled the trigger to assassinate the President. The historical implications were already his even if he never confessed to the act.
You keep asking for a rational explanation for the irrational act of a mentally unbalanced person then rejecting it because it doesn't make sense to you. Of course it makes no sense to assassinate the President from any rational perspective. Oswald himself likely couldn't articulate any "motive" if you mean by that some reasonable explanation for his actions. We are only left to speculate based on what we know about his character and background. He was a life-long malcontent who appeared to blame society for his failures. The poster boy of the angry nut who commits a violent act that we have become so familiar with in the last few decades.
Well your post is perfect example of your attempting to have it both ways.
In your mind, Oswald was rational enough to have a plan for his legal defense but at the same time, he was so mentally unstable that he assassinated JFK for no reason.
Both things can't possibly be true.
If he was such a Loon that he would shoot someone for no reason then it can't reasonably be assumed that he was rational enough to have a strategy for his legal defense.
Sure they can. Being mentally unbalanced doesn't mean an individual can't make any reasoned decisions. Particularly when taking actions in their own self interests. Such folks are often quite intelligent and cunninng.
And I didn't say that Oswald assassinated JFK for "no reason." I said there can be no tidy explanation that we all agree upon because it was not a rational act and whatever subjective motivation that caused Oswald to take this action is known only to him with certainty. His background provides some insight for informed speculation but there is no way to know with absolute certainty. This is not like an episode of Perry Mason where the motive for a crime is apparent (i.e. the stepson did it because he was cut out in the will).
Personally I think the photos are probably real, but the backstory is most likely bogus. How else can it be that a BY photo was found in George DeMohrenschildt's storage room, which not only was of far better quality than the others but also had writing on the back from a person who was never identified?
In a scenario where Oswald had the photos taken by his wife and developed them himself at his place of work, why would the quality of the photos not be the same for all the photos and why in the world would he give a copy to George DeMohrenschildt, if the latter had nothing to do with any of it? Do you know of many would be assassins who, after allegedly committing attempted murder, gives an incriminating photo of himself holding the murder weapon to a man he hardly knew?
There is no point whatsoever to even try to have any kind of normal conversation with the vinegar drinking nutjob, formerly known as "artist".
I can see why you want to have just a 'normal' conversation
A man's got to know his limitations, and you've nailed that.
Buried in the mountain of LN nonsense produced in this thread, there was a serious question asked to see if those LNs, in particular "Richard Smith", were able/willing to actually discuss and/or explain an evidence conundrum
It took you a whole day to come up with that one? :D
Too bad you don't know what a normal conversation is. Your posts on this thread provide conclusive evidence of your ignorance.
Unlike you lot, i don't need instant gratification.
A normal conversation in your case is to try to insult every LNer from the get-go
You lot are the ones saddled with ignorance: Six decades and nothing but landfill from you brainiacs.
My posts retell — with brilliant artistry and no little sarcasm— actual witness testimony, not CT misinterpretation of same.
Garbage in, garbage out
Just for clarification, not everyone, including myself, agrees with Stone that the entire Military Industrial Complex killed JFK due to his resistance towards escalation of US involvement in Vietnam. Stone is entitled to his own opinion but there's room for other points of view.
Beyond that, both sides are to blame for the start of the Cold War but the US is (arguably) more responsible for it lasting several decades. I'm sure there's more than one interpretation of Cold War history but the TV series you're referring to was written by Historian, Peter Kuznick. Almost all historical events have more than one interpretation and the consensus of historians can change over time. For example, President Ulysses Grant is experiencing a revival in popularity among contemporary historians after spending a century being called one of the worst US Presidents. So it seems perfectly fine and normal to read or watch Kuznick's alternative interpretations of 20th century world history.
Lastly, Stone's opinions on the MIC and US covert ops are based in reality.
It's fair to criticize how much Stone blames Defense and Financial institutions for the evils of the world but the criticisms aren't baseless. After all, it was none other than President Dwight Eisenhower who first warned about the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex and President Harry Truman after the JFK assassination who called for the CIA to be reined in.
Have you read any of the books on the Dulles brothers? They were the epitome of the "Deep State".
The study was supervised by Dr. James E. Barger, the firm's chief scientist. At the time of the reconstruction in August 1978, the committee was extremely conscious of the significance of Barger's preliminary work, realizing, as it did, that his analysis indicated that there possibly were too many shots, spaced too closely together, 5 for Lee Harvey Oswald to have fired all of them, and that one of the shots came from" the grassy knoll, not the Texas School Book Depository. When questioned about the probability of the entire third impulse pattern representing a supersonic bullet being fired at the President from the grassy knoll, Barger estimated there was a 20 percent chance that the N-wave, as opposed to the sequence of impulses following it, was actually caused by random noise.(65) Accordingly, the mathematical probability of the entire sequence of impulses actually representing a supersonic bullet was 76 percent, the product of a 95 percent chance that the impulse pattern represented noise as loud as a rifle shot from the grassy knoll times an 80 percent chance that the N-wave was caused by a supersonic bullet. (66)The quote from the HSCA report you've presented doesn't rebut what I said. In fact, the quote supports my position. Weiss and Aashkenazi came up with the 95% number. The other acoustics group working for the HSCA, BRSW, looked at the WA study and immediately knocked the number down from 95% to 76%. If only they'd listened to the "garbled transmission" that they found at the time of the "shots."
The committee found no evidence or indication of any other cause of noise as loud as a rifle shot coming from the grassy knoll at the time the impulse sequence was recorded on the dispatch tape, and therefore concluded that the cause was probably a gunshot fired at the motorcade.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/part-1b.html
The Backyard pictures do not prove that Oswald killed JFK.
In retrospect...being plastered on the cover of LIFE magazine with the caption 'weapons used to kill Kennedy and Officer Tippit' instilled prejudice in the minds of Americans no matter the questions and no matter the circumstantial evidence.
Garbage in, garbage out
Wow. I did not expect so much self awareness from you Thumb1:
So Oswald didn't say that his head was pasted on someone else's body. Got it.
I saw/said.. you saw/fled.
Awesome triple selfie!
Go Chapman!
Thumb1:
My bad.
When you said "It was Oswald" I thought you were referring to the false words you'd put in his mouth which you then claimed were "sworn testimony".
So, when you said, "It was Oswald", you weren't referring to your belief Oswald took the shots.
You were referring to what Oswald was reported to have said regarding the BYP.
Just to clear up any confusion - Oswald is reported to have said these things.
Better stay inside on Tuesdays.
"Baden says he saw the photographs taken of the president’s brain at the time of the autopsy, and under his direction the HSCA’s medical illustrator, Ida Dox, drew a diagram of the brain viewed from the top".
Buried in the mountain of LN nonsense produced in this thread, there was a serious question asked to see if those LNs, in particular "Richard Smith", were able/willing to actually discuss and/or explain an evidence conundrum
Nice try but Dr. Baden wasn't present at JFK's autopsy.Sorry, photographs don't trump eyewitness accounts? Where does that standard come from? If a photo shows a blue car hitting another car and the eyewitnesses say it was a green car then it was a green car? I thought one thing we all agreed upon was the unreliability of eyewitness accounts and how they must be corroborated?
Photographic evidence doesn't trump the descriptions of Kennedy's head wound and missing brain matter from witnesses at Parkland or the witnesses at his autopsy.
"McClelland recounts when he was shown the JFK autopsy photos in 1988. He agreed the photos showed the president’s wounds as he saw them on November 22, 1963. The only exception, said Dr. McClelland, was the photo that showed the right rear JFK’s head. He said that a flap of scalp had been pulled over Kennedy’s fatal wound changing the appearance of the wound.
“That’s where there was a massive hole in the back of his head,” McClelland said. “I looked at that hole from 18 inches for about 12 minutes.”"
https://jfkfacts.org/what-did-dr-mcclelland-think-about-jfks-wounds/
In which the argument is made yet again that the evidence of Oswald's guilt is so overwhelming that he must be innocent. Very amusing. I can understand why you basically stick to playing the contrarian. Of course, when the BY photos were taken Oswald had no idea that he would ever be leaving the murder weapon at the scene of a crime to be traced back to him through a photo. Rather, his plan was to assassinate Walker and take the rifle with him from the crime scene, hide it, and retrieve it at some later point. Which he did. The JFK assassination scenario was not contemplated at the time of the BY photos and assassinating the president in broad daylight entails as part of the calculation to move forward with that action either arrest or death. It doesn't matter how much "evidence" is left behind when Oswald pulls the trigger. He knew as part of the equation to do it that he would not get away with that crime. Or do you think he shows up at the TSBD on Monday morning as usual ready to move some books? HA HA HA.
The writing on the BY photos is that of Marina. Oswald had no apparent sense of humor and was certainly too insecure to be self deprecating. The sentiment fits perfectly with Marina's amusement at Oswald fantasy of himself as some revolutionary figure. Oswald had no apparent qualms at hiding these pictures. His intent was that they memorialize him in a classic revolutionary pose. How those pictures would come to be used after the JFK assassination, he would have had no clue at the time they were taken for the reasons noted above (i.e. he was not contemplating assassinating JFK at the time). Rather, he was building a resume to gain entry to Cuba.
Personally I think the photos are probably real, but the backstory is most likely bogus. How else can it be that a BY photo was found in George DeMohrenschildt's storage room, which not only was of far better quality than the others but also had writing on the back from a person who was never identified?
In a scenario where Oswald had the photos taken by his wife and developed them himself at his place of work, why would the quality of the photos not be the same for all the photos and why in the world would he give a copy to George DeMohrenschildt, if the latter had nothing to do with any of it? Do you know of many would be assassins who, after allegedly committing attempted murder, gives an incriminating photo of himself holding the murder weapon to a man he hardly knew?
Sorry, photographs don't trump eyewitness accounts? Where does that standard come from?
So many words and not even a beginning of an answer to the actual question being asked. Exactly what was expected!
Just for good measure, here's the question again;
The question clearly is about a BY photo being given to DeMohrenschildt, around the time of the attemp on General Walker.'s life It has nothing to do with the assassination of Kennedy which "Richard" is rambling on about.
Everything "Richard" has written is worthless speculation about what Oswald was thinking and what he must have known. In other words the usual self serving mumbo jumbo.
It is ironic however that "Richard", who seems to think he knows everything Oswald ever thought, fails miserably to explain why Oswald would give a high quality print of a photo to George De Mohrenschildt only a few days before he allegedly attempts to kill General Walker.
The writing on the BY photos is that of Marina.
This is a bald faced lie. It was never established who wrote the Russian text but it was determined beyond doubt that it wasn't Marina.
The writing on the BY photos is that of Marina. Oswald had no apparent sense of humor and was certainly too insecure to be self deprecating.Richard Smith---Handwriting expert and psychoanalyst extraordinaire? :D
LOL. So we can only address the parts of your silly posts that are highlighted? It has never been "determined beyond doubt that it wasn't Marina" who wrote the Russian text. That is simply a lie. It has been determined that Oswald inscribed it to DeM and signed his name on the picture. The one he later claimed was faked.Now what? Make up my mind Mr Expert [Gaslighter] ::)
LOL. So we can only address the parts of your silly posts that are highlighted? It has never been "determined beyond doubt that it wasn't Marina" who wrote the Russian text. That is simply a lie. It has been determined that Oswald inscribed it to DeM and signed his name on the picture. The one he later claimed was faked. Oswald and George DeM were long standing acquaintances. One of the few, if not only, that Oswald had. Thus, no great surprise that he would have given him such a picture. Again, though, you are trying to take us down the rabbit hole game asking someone to explain Oswald's motivations to your subjective satisfaction so that you can play the contrarian and say it isn't so. Only Oswald can know for sure why he took these pictures, why he gave one to DeM etc. You are asking for speculation on Oswald's motive to deflect from the important point. For whatever reason he did it, we know Oswald must have given DeM the picture because that is what the evidence confirms beyond any doubt. The photo exists. It was in DeM's possession. Oswald even inscribed it to him and signed it. There is absolutely no doubt of the issue under those circumstances.
In reality, Eisenhower was warning American’s about the MIC’s new chief, JFK.Whoa that's a laugher :D
The "eyewitness accounts" by the autopsy doctors - who spent more than four hours closely examining JFK - of the location of the head wound is corroborated by the physical evidence; that is photos, film, x-rays. And forensic pathologists who examined the x-rays, photos and other material in the National Archives said the same thing.
If we have to go with eyewitness accounts I'll go with the account of those autopsy doctors over that of amateurs or people who saw the president in a rushed, hurried, frantic environment.
It's not even a close call.
Too bad Tom Robinson, one of Kennedy's embalmers also confirmed a big hole in the back of his head. But then, what would he know, right? He and his colleagues only worked on preparing the body for funeral for several hours.
In reality, Eisenhower was warning American’s about the MIC’s new chief, JFK. It was JFK who campaigned on the phony missile gap with the soviets and was telling American’s to build bomb shelters. In his short tenure as POTUS, the MIC became the largest in America’s history. JFK was a staunch anti communist pillorying Harry Truman while a Senator for losing China to the communists. It would not happen on his watch he told aides.
Correct and the 44 witnesses that Aguilar referred to includes some autopsy witnesses.
Also strange how Steve refers to the Parkland doctors as “amateurs” as if they had no prior medical experience with gunshot wounds or other physical trauma.
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1h1bR0AsKOUT_gIwGBGMDy-2TiWtbIuJl) | (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/nelson.jpg) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) Doris Nelson (1983) Nursing Supervisor, Parkland ER |
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1h1bR0AsKOUT_gIwGBGMDy-2TiWtbIuJl)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Doris Nelson (1983)
Nursing Supervisor, Parkland ER
Whoa that's a laugher :D
(https://www.weinbergerlawgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Depositphotos_265384346_l-20151.jpg)
Why?Paul, I've never read any account that Eisenhower was pointing that warning, directly or indirectly, at JFK. Do you have any source on that?
Paul, I've never read any account that Eisenhower was pointing that warning, directly or indirectly, at JFK. Do you have any source on that?
It seems to me that Eisenhower was worried about a type of Congressional/military industrial alliance where defense spending and arms programs became a type of jobs program or politically beneficial program for some groups against the interest of the country. Sort of what Madison warned about when he talked about "factions" influencing policy.
In the same speech, he said this: "We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."
Not exactly a peacenik <g>.
'atheistic in character'
_Sounds exactly like CTer fare:
Nothing is knowable
Nothing is provable
Nothing is believable
Further:
Everything is Sinister
Everything is a Lie
Everything is Planted
Everything is Faked
Everything is Altered
Everything is a Hoax
Everything is a Sham
| Witness | Aguilar's Claims | McAdams Site | ||
| Dr Marion Jenkins | skull wound rearward on the right side | So Jenkins says the missing bone was "occipital or temporal" -- he's not sure which. | ||
| Dr James Carrico | Carrico's memory seemed to undergo a transformation when confronted by an interviewer who seems to have preferred he recall things differently than he did under oath |
| ||
| Dr David Osborne | Among group who located "the major skull defect in the rear of the skull" | But Aguilar does not mention -- perhaps because he's not aware of -- Osborne's interview with the HSCA. It's Record Number 180-10102-10415, Agency File Number 013623. The document reports "In regard to the head wound Osborne said that there was no question that the bullet entered the back of the head and blew the top off of the head." Why Aguilar would list so clear a "top of the head" witness as being a "back of the head" witness is puzzling. | ||
| Capt James Stover | Among group who located "the major skull defect in the rear of the skull" |
| ||
| Dr Robert Grossman | He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput |
| ||
| Dr Charles Baxter | [In] a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, "...the right temporal and occipital bones were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..." [In testimony], that sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads "...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)...". (WC-V6:44) |
| ||
| (https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif) Dr Paul Peters | "...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput... It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. |
|
The McAdams site had some revealing insights on Gary Aguilar's "Back-of-the-Head" witness claims. Here's a few ...
Witness Aguilar's Claims McAdams Site Dr Marion Jenkins skull wound rearward on the right side So Jenkins says the missing bone was "occipital or temporal" -- he's not sure which. Dr James Carrico Carrico's memory seemed to undergo a transformation when confronted
by an interviewer who seems to have preferred he recall things differently than
he did under oath
- As he did with Jenkins, Aguilar ignores the "right side" statement
- This from 7 HSCA 278. So it seems it was *above* the ear, extending "almost from the crown of the head."
Dr David Osborne Among group who located "the major skull defect in the rear of the skull" But Aguilar does not mention -- perhaps because he's not aware of -- Osborne's interview with the HSCA. It's Record Number 180-10102-10415, Agency File Number 013623.
The document reports "In regard to the head wound Osborne said that there was no question that the bullet entered the back of the head and blew the top off of the head."
Why Aguilar would list so clear a "top of the head" witness as being a "back of the head" witness is puzzling.Capt James Stover Among group who located "the major skull defect in the rear of the skull"
- The interesting thing about this is the fact that Aguilar could classify a witness who quite clearly said "top of the head" as a "back of the head" witness.
- "Stover recalled seeing . . . a severe wound to the top of the head."
Dr Robert Grossman He (Grossman) said that he saw two large holes in the head, as he
told the (Boston) Globe, and he described a large hole squarely in the occiput
- So while Groden and Livingstone admit that Grossman remembered seeing two wounds, the "large defect in the parietal area above the right ear" is tossed down the Memory Hole. The wound that Grossman remembered in the occiput has become, in Groden and Livingstone's retelling, the "large" wound.
- [When Dr Clark showed Grossman the President's head, Grossman recalled]:
"Then it was clear to me that the right parietal bone had been lifted up by a bullet which had exited.- Globe interview also has Grossman saying "I could have been wrong" about the smaller ("about one-and-a-quarter inches in diameter") occiput wound.
Dr Charles Baxter [In] a hand written note prepared on 11-22-63 and published in the
Warren Report (p. 523) Baxter wrote, "...the right temporal and occipital bones
were missing (emphasis added) and the brain was lying on the table..."
[In testimony], that sentence was recorded by the Warren Commission and reads
"...the right temporal and parietal bones were missing. (emphasis added)...". (WC-V6:44)
- Or Baxter has simply decided that "occipital" was wrong.
- Baxter [in testimony] then described the head wound saying, "...literally the right side of his head had been blown off."
(https://sites.google.com/site/jfkforum/misc/newsgroup/spacers/dot_clear.gif)
Dr Paul Peters"...I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput... It seemed to
me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect.
- [At] the National Archives in 1988 to view the autopsy photos and x-rays for NOVA, he said: "Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time."
- Peters then explained that the "cerebellum" statement shows how "even a trained observer can be wrong."
Paul, I've never read any account that Eisenhower was pointing that warning, directly or indirectly, at JFK. Do you have any source on that?
It seems to me that Eisenhower was worried about a type of Congressional/military industrial alliance where defense spending and arms programs became a type of jobs program or politically beneficial program for some groups against the interests of the country. Sort of what Madison warned about when he talked about "factions" influencing policy too much.
In the same speech, he said this: "We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment."
Not exactly a peacenik <g>.
And since when does one have to be a professional to see where a hole is and how big it is?
Oswald wanted historical credit not legal responsibility for his heinous crimes.
And you know this how? Talk to the dead much, do you?
Are you really suggesting that photos of the person who is accused of killing the President are not "relevant" when they depict him holding the murder weapon and displaying Commie literature?
Of course, the photos are relevant, but maybe not in the way you think they are. What forensic evidence is there that the weapon Oswald is holding in the photograph is in fact the murder weapon or, for that matter, even the same weapon that was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD?
Even most CTers disagree with that since they allege the photos were faked to make Oswald appear guilty (i.e. they were incriminating).
Personally I think the photos are probably real, but the backstory is most likely bogus. How else can it be that a BY photo was found in George DeMohrenschildt's storage room, which not only was of far better quality than the others but also had writing on the back from a person who was never identified. In a scenario where Oswald had the photos taken by his wife and developed them himself at his place of work, why would the quality of the photos not be the same for all the photos and why in the world would he give a copy to George DeMohrenschildt, if the latter had nothing to do with any of it. Do you know of many would be assassins who, after allegedly committing attempted murder, gives an incriminating photo of himself holding the murder weapon to a man he hardly knew?
Oswald thought he had all the time in the world to come clean. The one card that he still held after his arrest was his confession. He wasn't going to give that up within 48 hours before he even had a lawyer to negotiate a deal to save his hide from Old Sparky.
Are you psychic or just making stuff up because it's convenient?
'why would the quality of the photos not be the same for all the photos'
_Oswald was not an expert. He was a trainee. Problem solved. Booyah.
One of the best LN oversimplifications I have ever seen. Thumb1:
It illustrates exactly just how superficial their way of thinking really is.
Good idea to STFU unless you can prove Oswald developed the print(s).
Good idea to CC that knee-jerk demo to Weidmann, since he was the one JAQing the idea of Oswald as print expert..
When you make up stuff, at least try to make it somewhat believable. Since you didn't, I'm sure you can show us all where exactly I said that Oswald was a print expert?
Or alternatively, be exposed, yet again, as the liar you truly are.
In which the argument is made yet again that the evidence of Oswald's guilt is so overwhelming that he must be innocent. Very amusing. I can understand why you basically stick to playing the contrarian. Of course, when the BY photos were taken Oswald had no idea that he would ever be leaving the murder weapon at the scene of a crime to be traced back to him through a photo. Rather, his plan was to assassinate Walker and take the rifle with him from the crime scene, hide it, and retrieve it at some later point. Which he did. The JFK assassination scenario was not contemplated at the time of the BY photos and assassinating the president in broad daylight entails as part of the calculation to move forward with that action either arrest or death. It doesn't matter how much "evidence" is left behind when Oswald pulls the trigger. He knew as part of the equation to do it that he would not get away with that crime. Or do you think he shows up at the TSBD on Monday morning as usual ready to move some books? HA HA HA.
The writing on the BY photos is that of Marina. Oswald had no apparent sense of humor and was certainly too insecure to be self deprecating The sentiment fits perfectly with Marina's amusement at Oswald fantasy of himself as some revolutionary figure. Oswald had no apparent qualms at hiding these pictures. His intent was that they memorialize him in a classic revolutionary pose. How those pictures would come to be used after the JFK assassination, he would have had no clue at the time they were taken for the reasons noted above (i.e. he was not contemplating assassinating JFK at the time). Rather, he was building a resume to gain entry to Cuba.
:D :D :D
Sorry, your own speculation and personal opinion of Oswald doesn't count as real evidence. How do you know Oswald had no "apparent sense of humor"? Did you know the man personally to know that?
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1S-vVZ5DytkKdir6Fu7FrlPrclVI9Rxjb) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/normal_BE3_HI.JPG) |
In reality, Eisenhower was warning American’s about the MIC’s new chief, JFK.
Paul, I've never read any account that Eisenhower was pointing that warning, directly or indirectly, at JFK. Do you have any source on that?That is because...in reality, he just made that up. The opposite is true however----
It was JFK who campaigned on the phony missile gap with the soviets and was telling American’s to build bomb shelters.Just made that up too.
In his short tenure as POTUS, theThe JFK military spending made the USA military forces second to none it's true ....so what?MICArmed Forces became thelargestmost powerful in America’s history.
I will spoof assassination lore as I please
To Jon Banks - everything you're saying here is great. You obviously have critical thinking skills and can analyze things instead of waving them away with a dismissive hand like others in this forum.
As I've said, too, for years is a lot of the folks who simply can't take their thinking further about this case is a result of extreme bias toward the Kennedys. It really does remind me of the ignorance in this country that led up to what happened last January 6. There's a lot of negativity and hatred in this country, on top of ignorance, resulting in folks simply not having the mental capacity to question things.
I just looked at that video and the vast majority of the comments are positive. The funny thing, too, is you don't have to like Stone or Kennedy to not at least question some of the more suspect evidence that was conjured up to railroad Oswald as the killer. You also don't have to accept every single conspiracy out there about this case, and as I'm sure you know, there are some real goofy whoppers out there.
But of course the usual cast of naysayers here say everything is goofy, everything is wrong. The funny thing though is if one of their own was murdered, then it'd be a totally different view. That's the real essence of this case.
There is quite a lot written about Oswald and his personality by many people who knew him including his own wife. Can you provide us with an example of Oswald's sense of humor? Does he come across as a humorous guy to you? I bet this was his favorite knock, knock joke:
Knock, knock!
Who’s there?
Oswald.
Oswald who?
Oswald my chewing gum by mistake!
To Jon Banks - everything you're saying here is great. You obviously have critical thinking skills and can analyze things instead of waving them away with a dismissive hand like others in this forum.
As I've said, too, for years is a lot of the folks who simply can't take their thinking further about this case is a result of extreme bias toward the Kennedys. It really does remind me of the ignorance in this country that led up to what happened last January 6. There's a lot of negativity and hatred in this country, on top of ignorance, resulting in folks simply not having the mental capacity to question things.
I just looked at that video and the vast majority of the comments are positive. The funny thing, too, is you don't have to like Stone or Kennedy to not at least question some of the more suspect evidence that was conjured up to railroad Oswald as the killer. You also don't have to accept every single conspiracy out there about this case, and as I'm sure you know, there are some real goofy whoppers out there.
But of course the usual cast of naysayers here say everything is goofy, everything is wrong. The funny thing though is if one of their own was murdered, then it'd be a totally different view. That's the real essence of this case.
Here's one even old sour puss Oswald might enjoy:
Knock, knock!
Who's there?
Otto.
Otto who?
Otto know. I’ve got amnesia.
You are reading what other people have written about him. When people are negative against an individual they are going to write negative things.
So, you never met the man personally which is why you can't speculate using absolute statements.
I've known several people who felt uncomfortable around a certain group of people and acted serious. When they were in their own environment and loosened up their demeanor and personality completely changed. They were joking, enjoying themselves, and were having a good time.
Indeed...
It seems Oswald was good with kids. Whenever he was in Irving he was always playing with them.
If she took one photo, that means at least one BY photo is authentic and depict Oswald holding the rifle. What would then be the point of any conspirator faking the other photos? It doesn't make any sense."Knock knock"? Is anyone home inside that head?
You are reading what other people have written about him. When people are negative against an individual they are going to write negative things.
So, you never met the man personally which is why you can't speculate using absolute statements.
I've known several people who felt uncomfortable around a certain group of people and acted serious. When they were in their own environment and loosened up their demeanor and personality completely changed. They were joking, enjoying themselves, and were having a good time.
Indeed...
It seems Oswald was good with kids. Whenever he was in Irving he was always playing with them.
You are reading what other people have written about him. When people are negative against an individual they are going to write negative things.
So, you never met the man personally which is why you can't speculate using absolute statements.
I've known several people who felt uncomfortable around a certain group of people and acted serious. When they were in their own environment and loosened up their demeanor and personality completely changed. They were joking, enjoying themselves, and were having a good time.
So you can't come up with a single example of Oswald having any sense of humor. Got it. What point are you trying to make? That Oswald wrote "Hunter of Fascists, HA HA HA" in Russian on the DeM BY photo as a joke on himself? Do you think he thought of himself as being humorous in that photo? My point was that the sentiment is more aligned with Marina's view of his erratic behavior. Thus, she likely wrote. Why don't you stick with your endless political rants and leave the discussion of the JFK case to others?
So silly. Playing with kids means what exactly in this context? Did anyone ever suggest Oswald didn't like kids? Wow. Hilarious that you are so desperate to play the contrarian on everything. Even when it goes against your own claim that someone other than Oswald or Marina wrote "hunter of fascists" on the BY photos. The point being discussed was that there is no evidence of Oswald displaying any type of self-deprecating humor such as contained in that sentiment. He certainly would not do so on the BY photos which depict him holding weapons and displaying Commie literature just before trying to kill General Walker. I'm agreeing with you that Oswald did not write that notation on the BY photo. Given that it is written in Russian that substantially narrows the list of possibilities in Dallas to Marina or DeM. The sentiment sounds much more like that of Marina who found Oswald's behavior to be absurd. And it was traced over pencil which is consistent with how Marina apparently wrote on her own personal photos.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KYvHNvJM/oswald-color-laugh.png)
I'm agreeing with you that Oswald did not write that notation on the BY photo.
Of course you agree. You have no other option. Even a nearly blind person can see that the handwriting is completely different from what is supposed to be Oswald's handwriting.
Given that it is written in Russian that substantially narrows the list of possibilities in Dallas to Marina or DeM. The sentiment sounds much more like that of Marina who found Oswald's behavior to be abb]surd. [/
And on and on the selfserving speculation goes on....
And it was traced over pencil
Which actually means that anybody could have written the ink version
which is consistent with how Marina apparently wrote on her own personal photos.
Apparently? Really... back to making assumptions again that you can not prove?
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-guy-banister (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-guy-banister)
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary is extremely misleading on the relationship between Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald. The film claims that Banister gave Oswald an office at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation.
fred
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Saint Jack vs. the Eeeeeevil CIA. That about sums it up. And did you notice that they totally skipped the head x-rays when discussing the autopsy? Gee, I wonder why.
Instead of playing the endless contrarian how about you provide us with some explanation of how a note written in Russian is on this BY photo? How many people, for example, who had access to this picture in Dallas could write in Russian? That can't be a long list. If it wasn't Marina, then who do you believe are the suspects and why did they write it? It's not clear what you are even suggesting. You appear to accept the photo is genuine. Oswald himself signed and inscribed it to DeM. So tell us what point you are trying to make here.
Having to cast doubt on the evidence as the product of lies or fakery is an implicit acknowledgement on Stone's part that the evidence links Oswald to the crime. The same could be said for the naysayers who frequent this forum. Yet they would never admit that the Warren Commission got anything right.
Why don't you stick with your endless political rants and leave the discussion of the JFK case to others?So any skeptics should just leave the forum and let the nutters all sit around and agree with each other?
If Stone just believed in one specific JFK conspiracy theory, that would be bad enough but he apparently accepts them all. Hundreds or thousands of people would have to be involved in the conspiracy under Stone's interpretation of events.I have no idea, none, why reasonable conspiracy believers - and there are some - are not furious with this nonsense by Stone and DiEugenio. Nothing discredits their theories, their concerns, their legitimate questions (there are still a few at this late date) than this series of slanders and outrages and fantasies promoted by them.
how about you provide us with some explanation of how a note written in Russian is on this BY photo?
No, let's not play that game. There is Russian handwriting on the back of the DeMohrenschildt BY photo and it was not ever linked to anybody we know. As you are the one who is ruling out the involvement of anybody else in the assassination of Kennedy, it's up to you to tell us how that handwriting got there and who wrote it.
How many people, for example, who had access to this picture in Dallas could write in Russian? That can't be a long list.
You tell me. You are the one who constantly claims to know details about Oswald that none of us know. I most certainly do not know how many people, that could write in Russian, Oswald was in contact with in late March 1963.
If it wasn't Marina, then who do you believe are the suspects and why did they write it? It's not clear what you are even suggesting.
We know it wasn't Marina. There is no "if" about it. Who did write the text is unknown and that's exactly the point. And you understand this, but you can't explain it, which is why you now suddenly play ignorant and try to shift the burden of proof.
You appear to accept the photo is genuine.
Yes, I don't think it's faked, if that's what you mean. What I have serious doubts about is the backdrop story.
Oswald himself signed and inscribed it to DeM. So tell us what point you are trying to make here.
Well, let's see;
The official narrative tells us Marina took the pictures and the Oswald developed them at his place of work, which implies that they were the only to people involved in the making of these photos.
However, over the years that pass, Marina frequently tells a different story about the number of photos that she took and when asked for a demonstration, it turns out she doesn't even know how the work the camera. Then we learn that a copy of one of the photos is found, in 1967, in a storage room of the DeMohrenschildt's which allegedly has Oswald's handwriting on the back as well as a text in Russian written by an unknown individual. Now, the story becomes that Oswald gave that picture to George DeMohrenschildt as a present, before he left the country.
Strangely enough neither George or Jeanne DeMohrenschildt mention that picture in their testimony to the WC, in April 1964, some two months after Life Magazine caused a publicity storm by publishing one of the pictures on it's front cover.
So, now we have already four known persons involved with the BY pictures and one unknown person who wrote the Russian text on the back.
Today, we also know that Michael Paine confirmed in a television interview (iirc with CBS) that Oswald had shown him the BY photo shortly after it had been taken. However, Paine also not only did not tell the WC and/or investigators this. He went even so far as to claim that he did not know Oswald had a rifle.
So, at least five personswe know were somehow involved with the pictures. Massive media attention because of the Life Magazine publication and nobody is talking, except Marina, who can't get her facts right. And then there is the unknown writer of the Russian text.
Now you do the math....
I have no idea, none, why reasonable conspiracy believers - and there are some - are not furious with this nonsense by Stone and DiEugenio. Nothing discredits their theories, their concerns, their legitimate questions (there are still a few at this late date) than this series of slanders and outrages and fantasies promoted by them.
If I wanted to discredit the conspiracy movement or cause I would hire someone like Stone and DiEugenio to do so. And this is how I'd do it.
Bottom line - the photos are genuine. They depict Oswald holding the murder weapon and Commie literature (the relevant point). There may be some debate about who wrote the "Hunter of Fascists" note on the back but it likely wasn't Oswald. Most believe it was Marina and contrary to your claim she has not been ruled out. If she didn't do it, that only leaves a couple of folks who had access to this photo and could write in Russian. Big deal. What difference does it make unless you think some fantasy conspirator wrote it for some inexplicable reason? How is that relevant to what the picture depicts? This is just more rabbit hole nonsense to deflect from the important point. The photo is genuine and Oswald is holding the murder weapon. There was understandable reluctance by George DeM and Marina to be associated with these photos. Awareness of Oswald's bizarre behavior could lend itself to criticism that they should have known he was a potentially violent kook and reported him. George DeM wanted nothing to do with that. So maybe he socks his picture away and plays dumb.
Careful or I'm sure some CTer will latch onto this and suggest the CIA is behind Stone's documentary. I find it astounding as well. But there are a lot of intelligent people who still believe in Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster. There is no dissuading such people with facts, evidence, or logic because if those concepts had any impact they would not have come to these conclusions in the first place. It is a faith-based belief system impossible to dissuade with reason.
I have no idea, none, why reasonable conspiracy believers - and there are some - are not furious with this nonsense by Stone and DiEugenio. Nothing discredits their theories, their concerns, their legitimate questions (there are still a few at this late date) than this series of slanders and outrages and fantasies promoted by them.
I mentioned before that response by Stone when asked about the smearing of Shaw: he said, "Sometimes in a war you have to sacrifice people." My guess is that this is what he and DiEugenio are doing. They think they're fighting a war against the secret "they" that really runs America, to wit, this mix of "deep state" actors and military industrialists and quasi-fascists in Wall Street and elsewhere. And so in such a battle if innocents get hurt that's just the price that will be paid. It's a nasty business; collateral damage will happen.
If I wanted to discredit the conspiracy movement or cause I would hire someone like Stone and DiEugenio to do so. And this is how I'd do it.
I guess if you believe the Cold War was caused by the US, by Truman's policies, by the "national security state" and "military industrial complex" and you think that JFK was going to end all of that - Stone, DiEugenio and the absurd Jim Garrison did - then it makes sense on some level that the assassination was engineered by them. That's providing a twisted sort of motive but never explains how. In any case, it is sheer nonsense and completely false that the East-West conflict was caused solely or even predominantly by the West. I mean good lord, Josef Stalin a victim?
Evidence doesn't matter to Fred. He spins everything to support his anti-Oliver Stone narratives in his bad faith blog posts.Question please: Why aren't Stone and DiEugenio engaging in bad faith arguments by not including what Fred shows? Aren't they also "spinning everything" to promote their pro-Oliver Stone narrative?
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-guy-banister (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-guy-banister)Usually Oswald defenders here don't like it when people make claims about him that make him look bad. They examine the claims under the proverbial microscope.
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary is extremely misleading on the relationship between Guy Banister and Lee Harvey Oswald. The film claims that Banister gave Oswald an office at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation.
fred
Given that it is written in Russian that substantially narrows the list of possibilities in Dallas to Marina or DeM.Why? Also [because you believe yourself an expert on the matter] can you link a picture of that statement?
Question please: Why aren't Stone and DiEugenio engaging in bad faith arguments by not including what Fred shows? Aren't they also "spinning everything" to promote their pro-Oliver Stone narrative?
Which is more irresponsible?: a major Hollywood name like Stone "spinning" things or Fred? Stone is smearing and defaming all sorts of people. And you folks don't seem to care.
Here's one even old sour puss Oswald might enjoy:
Knock, knock!
Who's there?
Otto.
Otto who?
Otto know. I’ve got amnesia.
I don't know how credible George DeMorenschildt is but his book on Oswald humanizes and shows his complexity more than most other books.
I'm still undecided on what role Oswald played in JFK's assassination (co-conspirator or patsy?) but I'm unconvinced that he was just a deranged madman.
So you can't come up with a single example of Oswald having any sense of humor. Got it. What point are you trying to make? That Oswald wrote "Hunter of Fascists, HA HA HA" in Russian on the DeM BY photo as a joke on himself? Do you think he thought of himself as being humorous in that photo? My point was that the sentiment is more aligned with Marina's view of his erratic behavior. Thus, she likely wrote. Why don't you stick with your endless political rants and leave the discussion of the JFK case to others?
So any skeptics should just leave the forum and let the nutters all sit around and agree with each other?
The are no discussions just attaboy pat pat ...conspiracy kooks --"indeed" Thumb1:...Oswald did it -never mind the particulars.
#TALKINGTRASHBAG
(https://i.postimg.cc/brQNSjkD/CT-GARBAGE.png)
:D :D :D
I don't see anybody agreeing with you here at all.
Have you hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald to know that he didn't have a sense of humor?
All you do is present your false narrative and attempt to spin it without facts or evidence.
However, over the years that pass, Marina frequently tells a different story about the number of photos that she took and when asked for a demonstration, it turns out she doesn't even know how the work the camera.
Hahaha! So, we can't believe Marina's original statement of admitting to taking the BY photos, but when she claimed she didn't even know how to use the camera, that was clearly her telling the God's honest truth and proves she couldn't possibly have taken them?
Do you believe O.J. Simpson was completely innocent too because the gloves wouldn't fit his hands properly when he was asked to demonstrate putting them on in court?
This is rich considering the source. Is anyone agreeing with you in those thousands of endless rambling political posts that you have cluttered up this forum with over the years? In fact, no one even bothers to respond at all. Are you really suggesting that someone must "hang out" with an historical figure to form any opinion about them? Do you hang out with President Trump? That hasn't deterred you from posting thousands of rambling posts about him.
Again, instead of your silly personal commentary, how about directing us to a single example of Oswald displaying any self-deprecating humor? And what is the point that you are trying to make here? That you think Oswald did write "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" on the BY photos? You think it's possible that he was making fun of himself by holding a rifle and Commie literature just before trying to kill someone. Old Ozzie was a barrel of laughs?
This is rich considering the source. Is anyone agreeing with you in those thousands of endless rambling political posts that you have cluttered up this forum with over the years? In fact, no one even bothers to respond at all. Are you really suggesting that someone must "hang out" with an historical figure to form any opinion about them? Do you hang out with President Trump? That hasn't deterred you from posting thousands of rambling posts about him.
Again, instead of your silly personal commentary, how about directing us to a single example of Oswald displaying any self-deprecating humor? And what is the point that you are trying to make here? That you think Oswald did write "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" on the BY photos? You think it's possible that he was making fun of himself by holding a rifle and Commie literature just before trying to kill someone. Old Ozzie was a barrel of laughs?
The point is Richard, you never knew Lee Harvey Oswald personally to know what kind of personality the man had. But you make absolute statements regarding his personality pretending you know everything about him when you never even met him. That is why you are wrong because you have no idea how he interacted with people during his lifetime.
because you have no idea how he interacted with people during his lifetime.
Indeed. There is no way that anybody, and that includes "Richard", could possibly know what Oswald was doing on a daily basis, except perhaps when he is known to be at work. For all we know, he could have been meeting with all sorts of people, who, after the assassination would not come forward or even admit knowing Oswald.
I watched the documentary. Stone doesn't claim the photos are fake, but rather the rifle pictured is not the same one found in the TSBD.
That's why Richard Smith's claim that Oswald was "never humorous" is absolutely ridiculous because even the most serious person is capable of cracking a joke.
Good point you made about people possibly not coming forward. Oswald knew people during his lifetime so we have no idea how he acted around certain individuals on a daily basis besides his co-workers that really didn't know him to make an accurate assessment of his personality.
And it's a known fact that people act completely different in a work environment than when they are around their closest friends.
The point is Richard, you never knew Lee Harvey Oswald personally to know what kind of personality the man had. But you make absolute statements regarding his personality pretending you know everything about him when you never even met him. That is why you are wrong because you have no idea how he interacted with people during his lifetime.
Again, very silly. Particularly coming from you. You have made thousands of posts about Trump and the kind of "personality"" that he has on this forum. Have you met him? According to your bizarre logic maybe he is a warm and fuzzy guy in private and you should refrain from comment about him. Again, though, what point is it that you are trying to make in this context? Can you focus? Are you suggesting that perhaps Oswald wrote "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" on the BY photo because he thought of himself as being humorous in that picture? The one that depicts him holding the rifle he intended to kill someone with just a few days later.
Are you really suggesting that someone must "hang out" with an historical figure to form any opinion about them? Do you hang out with President Trump? That hasn't deterred you from posting thousands of rambling posts about him.
What a pathetic comparison. Oswald was a private individual who was not the center of attention on a 24/7 basis. Trump, on the other hand, was and to compare the two is just idiotic.
Richard is stuck in the same loop..... So funny!
Oh well, two can play that game......
Knock-Knock.
Who's there?
Roger.
Roger who?
Roger Weidmann.
Oswald is not a "private" individual." He is an historical figure who assassinated the President. There have been thousands of books, millions of pages, movies/documentaries and several investigations into him and his background/motivations for assassinating JFK. Many more books and investigations exist relating to Oswald than even a person like Trump. But Rick's silly point is that it is impossible to reach any conclusion about an individual's private persona unless you know them in person. And you are apparently not bright enough to realize that the point being made is one supportive of the conclusion that Oswald did not write the "Hunter of Fascist" notation on the BY photo. A point that you agree with. You are so fixated on playing the contrarian that you are even interjecting your endless nonsense into this discussion. How about applying this contrarian mantra to some of Stone's long debunked conspiracies theories?
Hi Sean, I've not seen the documentary yet, but would like to know what the differences are between the rifle in the BYP and the one found on the 6th floor.
A few members of this forum have made this point but when asked for details they have disappeared.
Demonstrating they are different rifles is a point of great importance.
Knock-Knock.
Who's there?
Roger.
Roger who?
Roger Weidmann.
Knock-Knock.
Who's there?
Roger.
Roger who?
Roger the Dodger
Look at this... the LNs are showing just how infantile they really are. Thumb1:
Good one Bill. Careful or he might challenge you to a debate! :D :D
Stone claims that the leather strap on the rifle seen in the backyard photos is attached to the bottom of the stock, whereas the one removed from the Depository is attached to the left side of the stock. He also noticed that Lee's wedding or Marine Corps ring is on his right hand in some photos, and on the left in another.
And give Brown another possibility to find excuses for running away? That game is getting old.
Look at these incriminating photos of American politicos
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFyIVyzX0AsYST0?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFuxU7GVIAIObD6?format=jpg&name=small)
The pic below clearly shows the strap is attached to the side of the stock and not the bottom.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mgqS9QQw/BYP-1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
This does not inspire me with confidence in Stone's claims.
If that is supposed to be the only difference noticed between the two rifles we can safely say the rifle Oswald is pictured with in the back yard is indistinguishable from the rifle found on the 6th floor.
Knock-Knock.
Who's there?
Roger.
Roger who?
Roger the Dodger
You ran scared on that one. And the delusional nonsense about sending a "private plane" was hilarious. Comedy gold. Hiding in your mom's basement while claiming to be in Europe etc. BS:
So silly. Did any of these people leave the weapon displayed in their photos at the scene of the assassination of the President? Did any of them display Commie literature? Did any of these people defect to the USSR?
Again, very silly. Particularly coming from you. You have made thousands of posts about Trump and the kind of "personality"" that he has on this forum. Have you met him? According to your bizarre logic maybe he is a warm and fuzzy guy in private and you should refrain from comment about him. Again, though, what point is it that you are trying to make in this context? Can you focus? Are you suggesting that perhaps Oswald wrote "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" on the BY photo because he thought of himself as being humorous in that picture? The one that depicts him holding the rifle he intended to kill someone with just a few days later.
Actually he did act differently that day
1) He 'reached out' to Kennedy while at a distance
2) He got 'up-close & personal' with Tippit
What a guy!
Try as you OAKers may, you'll never humanize the cold-blooded little cockroach
No sane person gives a rat's arse about Oswald's alleged 'personality' beyond what ultimate effect in had on Kennedy & Tippit
What you're doing is silly.
You made an absolute statement about Lee Harvey Oswald regarding his personality but you never met the man to know if he never had a sense of humor as you claimed.
Instead of answering the question regarding the absolute statement you made, you gaslight and bring up a different subject of Trump to avoid answering my question. Really pathetic.
Really pathetic.
That's "Richard Smith" alright. Let's see if the weasel accepts my challenge.... although I'm pretty sure he won't, as it would not only involve disclosing his true identity and expose the lies he's telling, but also cost him a pretty penny.
Oswald is not a "private" individual." He is an historical figure who assassinated the President. There have been thousands of books, millions of pages, movies/documentaries and several investigations into him and his background/motivations for assassinating JFK. Many more books and investigations exist relating to Oswald than even a person like Trump. But Rick's silly point is that it is impossible to reach any conclusion about an individual's private persona unless you know them in person. And you are apparently not bright enough to realize that the point being made is one supportive of the conclusion that Oswald did not write the "Hunter of Fascist" notation on the BY photo. A point that you agree with. You are so fixated on playing the contrarian that you are even interjecting your endless nonsense into this discussion. How about applying this contrarian mantra to some of Stone's long debunked conspiracies theories?
I seriously doubt that he will accept but you can be sure to get another gaslighting response from him.
Good one Bill. Careful or he might challenge you to a debate! :D :D
See the comparisons below:
(http://www.whokilledjfk.net/images/CE_139a.JPG)
(http://www.whokilledjfk.net/images/sling_1.jpg)
(http://www.whokilledjfk.net/images/ce133-c.jpg)
The backyard photos aren’t great quality so one can’t be 100% certain but it doesn’t look identical to the Book Depository rifle in my opinion. You can clearly see the front strap is on the bottom in the BYP, not on the side of the barrel…
Yep. If he was actually serious about it, wouldn't that be something?
You ran scared on that one. And the delusional nonsense about sending a "private plane" was hilarious. Comedy gold. Hiding in your mom's basement while claiming to be in Europe etc. BS:
More likely Rog would be ducking , dodging or deflecting into mom's basement
What's it like to have no life?
I like the way you start off saying the "backyard photos aren’t great quality so one can’t be 100% certain", before then pronouncing you "can clearly see".
Just to clarify - you can't clearly see where the strap is connected to the rifle. The quality of the photo is too poor to discern that. In my view, the way to determine where the strap is connected to the barrel of the rifle is to follow how the strap is hanging from the rifle. Gravity will pull the strap down from the point it is connected to the rifle (IMO).
In the pic below I have highlighted (with a red arrow) where the strap appears to be connected to the rifle.
(https://i.postimg.cc/mgqS9QQw/BYP-1.png) (https://postimages.org/)
"As we can clearly see", the strap is connected to the bottom of the barrel of the rifle and not the side. I believe there is a bit of excess strap material that bends off to the right after the connection and it is this you are using for your determination as to where the strap is connected to the rifle.
So I guess you cannot actually comment on my post?
fred
I'm glad Fred is on this Forum. He's a genuine researcher, not the lazy gutter-snipe incestuous-claim-reciting "citizen investigator" the CTs clowns fancy themselves to be.
I'm glad Fred is on this Forum. He's a genuine researcher, not the lazy gutter-snipe incestuous-claim-reciting "citizen investigator" the CTs clowns fancy themselves to be.
Researcher, Gil Jesus, has written extensively on the possibility that the Book Depository rifle isn’t the same as the rifle Oswald or “Hidell” ordered.Correction @ 3:00 on Gil's video above---That A J Hidell allegedly ordered.
But if they didn't use the Imperial Reflex....They did...that is why the film marks match the negatives that were found. The Imperial Reflex was used to copy the high quality prints created in a lab. That is why the released photos are so crappy.
Weeks later...Robert Oswald produced the camera.https://www.pimall.com/nais/news/backyard.html
Oswald's brother said that he found the camera at the Paine home even though the Dallas police had searched the home several times for the camera. Robert said that the camera belonged to his brother Lee Oswald. This reflex camera was a very poor quality camera and Oswald was highly interested in photography. He owned several very expensive cameras and no one ever explained why he would use such a cheap camera for these photographs.
Of course there is a perfectly logical explanation ...the nutters just haven't invented one yet.
How did that camera manage to sneak back to the Paine house?
David Von Pein
ROFL
David Von Pein
ROFL
I can't quite fully understand why most conspiracy theorists just don'tDavid Von Pein
look upon the Backyard Photos as being genuine (which, of course, they
are), and then utilize the "CT" philosophy that these "real" photos
have aided the "Patsy" plan after the fact (i.e., after the shots were
fired by their "look-alike Oswald" on the 6th Floor of the Book
Depository on November 22, 1963).
Let me say this. When David Von Pein was still on the Education Forum he was thanked by CTs for the resources at his site.Full of tacky criticism and verbose insults...I understand that is why he was removed from the ED.
Say what you want, his site is an amazing resource.
Full of tacky criticism and verbose insults...I understand that is why he was removed from the ED.
Yes it would. And the same goes for you.
You would be making a complete fool of yourself with BS like your claim of Callaway putting Tippit in the ambulance before making his radio call.
Too bad you will always find a way to weasel out of a face to face meeting. Your recent videos show that you love to hear yourself talk and your need to be in control of the discussion which is most likely why you want to hide behind a zoom meeting with the possibility of "technical difficulties" whenever something comes up you don't like.
Yes it would. And the same goes for you.
You would be making a complete fool of yourself with BS like your claim of Callaway putting Tippit in the ambulance before making his radio call.
Too bad you will always find a way to weasel out of a face to face meeting. Your recent videos show that you love to hear yourself talk and your need to be in control of the discussion which is most likely why you want to hide behind a zoom meeting with the possibility of "technical difficulties" whenever something comes up you don't like.
Gochenaur was not a direct witness to anything....So?
The difference is I'm serious about debating you while you're doing nothing more than putting up a false front with unreasonable travel demands, etc...
But I could beat your ass any day in an online debate.
Nah.
You just don't know how to read and correctly decipher the testimonial record combined with the police tapes; an obvious characteristic (and fault) of yours.
I didn't go wrong anywhere. You don't know what you're talking about. Your issue, not mine. It's all in the police tapes. Go have a listen.
Learn the case.
If all else fails, you can always go check out the police tapes. They'll tell you that the body was loaded BEFORE Callaway got on the radio and the ambulance was leaving as he was on the radio.
It's all laid out for you if you just go read the transcripts of the police tapes. It really isn't my problem if you cannot comprehend what you're looking at.
The police tapes obviously don't mention the body being loaded into the ambulance, but the tapes do tell us when the ambulance was leaving the scene en route to Methodist Hospital. The tapes tell us that the ambulance was leaving the scene as Callaway was making his report on the squad car radio.
More false fronts.
I have never "weaseled out of a face to face meeting with you". I've said close to a half dozen times now to let me know the next time you're in the States. You know how impractical this "face to face" scenario is and therefore you count on it to make it seem like you're game, which you clearly are not. If you were game, you'd agree to doing some sort of a debate on a podcast THIS WEEK (but everyone here knows you will not do this).
The sad part is that (for some unknown reason) you believe you're smarter than everyone else and you believe that no one else can see the false bravado you're putting up (with the "just tell me when and where" bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns). The reality is that everyone reading this can see through you.
The only person falling back on "technical difficulties" is you.
But I could beat your ass any day in an online debate.
You just don't know how to read and correctly decipher the testimonial record combined with the police tapes; an obvious characteristic (and fault) of yours.
It really isn't my problem if you cannot comprehend what you're looking at.
This is real simple. Debate me THIS WEEK. A host can be easily found. You won't, though.
Yeah right. A serious debate would not be about winning or losing. It would be an exchange of arguments and a willingness to be persuaded by the opponents arguments whenever they have merit. You clearly have a different goal;
Notice how he sneaks in "an online debate". That's the weasel at work, because he knows that online he has more flexibility to manipulate the conversation than during the face to face debate I actually proposed.
Lol, mr "Superior". You can't control it, can you now? You feel yourself to be far superior than anybody else. And yet, your entire Callaway BS has to start with a bogus claim that the witness (Callaway) was confused and wrong when he gave testimony, as if that was the only time he said it and as if his was the only witness testimony available.
No matter that the facts do not support your claim and/or that you can not produce, based on all the combined witness testimony, a coherent timeline that actually works for your claim. Come to think of it; there is a clear comparison between you and the My Pillow Guy; both make a bogus claim and constantly say they have the evidence to back it up, but never ever produce it.
The best indicator that your entire claim is bogus is the fact that you have failed completely to explain it in detail. You never got anywhere beyond a personal insult and a cop out.
Notice mr "Superior" at work?
And notice also that he went from "it's all in the police tapes" to it being in "the testimonial record combined with the police tapes" (see above). If it was in the testimonial record, he could just point to it and explain what he was talking about. He never did.... Go figure!
Instead he simply changes his story, contradicting himself in the process;
The tapes tell us no such thing. The combined witnesses testimony proves beyond any doubt to a reasonable person that Callaway helped put Tippit in the ambulance after he made his radio call, but this is typical Brown. Make a bogus claim and never defend or explain it. Just say it's somewhere in the evidence (in this case the police tapes) and insult the opponent. And when the claim can't be maintained anymore, just modify the claim. In a face to face debate he wouldn't get that opportunity, which is why he is using excuses to run from it as fast as he can.
I have never "weaseled out of a face to face meeting with you"
Says he, while weaseling out of a face to face meeting again!
You know how impractical this "face to face" scenario is
It's only impractical for you because you don't like it. You prefer to hide behind a keyboard and a screen. However, as I would be the one paying for the whole thing, it's going to be on my terms or not at all.
The sad part is that (for some unknown reason) you believe you're smarter than everyone else
Wrong. The really sad part is that your paranoid mind thinks this, when I have never said anything of the kind. You on the other hand do it all the time;
Shall I post some more of your belittling comments or do you get the picture?
Of course I won't. You know this, as I have said it before. It's not part of the offer I made to you and you don't get to change the rules, simply because you don't like my conditions. Your videos show clearly that you are the kind of guy who always wants to get things his way. You desperately need to control the narrative and you can't do that face to face. That's why you want to hide behind a screen and a keyboard.
"Notice how he sneaks in "an online debate". That's the weasel at work, because he knows that online he has more flexibility to manipulate the conversation than during the face to face debate I actually proposed."
Bollocks.
You have exactly the same "flexibility to manipulate the conversation", whatever that means.
It is clear to one and all your "face to face" BS: is to avoid being made an example of.
You're wrong. Oswald was a private individual and then became an historical figure later.
Sorry Richard, my point is not silly. You clearly stated that Oswald "never had a sense of humor in his life". The only way you would know that for a fact is If you knew the man personally, but you never did. In order to evade my question, you bring up Trump for some reason when he was never the subject of this topic.
I'll ask you again: How would you know if Oswald "never had a sense of humor" unless you knew the man personally?
That was a silly claim for you to make.
Rick desperately wants to make this personal because I'm the only one here who ever bothers to respond to any of his thousands of long, endless anti-Trump posts. Others here are apparently smart enough to completely ignore him. But let's make this one about the subject actually under discussion here. Did Oswald write "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" on the BY photo or not? That's the only relevant point. I don't think he did. I made a seemingly reasonable and incontrovertible point that Oswald wouldn't use self-deprecating humor to mock himself in this photo. To the contrary, in this situation he was deadly serious about portraying himself as some type of revolutionary figure in the BY photos willing to commit violence for the cause (thus the display of weapons and Commie literature). Even most CTers appear to accept this was the purpose of the BY photos since they argue that they were intended by their fantasy conspirators to portray Oswald in a sinister light to implicate him in the assassination (i.e. they depict an unhinged and potentially violent person). But the sentiment "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" is a remark that indicates mocking amusement at the subject depicted. Is Oswald the type of person who displayed this type of humor or any humor? No.If you read Priscilla Johnson McMillan's "Marina and Lee", which I think the most definitive work on Lee's personality at that time, you can see examples of a more light-hearted Oswald when in the USSR. There are stories in the book where he and Marina would laugh about matters.
Instead, the humorous sentiment being expressed is much more consistent with the viewpoint of Marina who found Oswald's nutty behavior to be amusing. A source of humor. But we are taken down the rabbit hole as to whether is it is possible to have a "hidden" sense of humor in which it is suggested that Oswald is a "private" individual and, therefore, no one can prove that he had no sense of humor. Classic rabbit hole deflection. Of course, despite the thousands of books and millions of pages written on the subject of Oswald and his background - many by people who knew him in his "private" life including his own wife - there is nary an example provided of Oswald displaying a sense of humor. Much less being self-deprecating. Rick and Martin have certainly not bothered to provide any example. Martin bizarrely interjected that Oswald "liked kids." Instead they ask me to disprove this to their satisfaction despite the extensive historical record being devoid of any such examples. Ironically, Martin even agrees with me on the relevant point that Oswald did not write "Hunter of Fascists" on this photo. But this is the rabbit hole direction he wants to debate endlessly. Rick refuses to even say what he is suggesting about the photo. Is he arguing that Oswald was secretly a barrel of laughs and he was mocking himself by writing this sentiment on the photo? Why is he taking issue with this? We will apparently never know. Instead we are down the rabbit hole about what constitutes a "private" individual and whether it is possible that Oswald has some hidden Richard Pryor alter ego never mentioned by anyone who ever encountered him because Rick apparently knew someone like that. Astounding. Endless posts are made on this subject while ignoring the relevant point. Who wrote "Hunter of Fascists" on the photo? Does that sound like something Oswald would have done? No. Does it sound like a sentiment Marina would express? Yes. Does it sound like a sentiment DeM himself might have expressed? Maybe. The humorous and mocking nature of the sentiment provides some insight into who wrote it. That is the full and complete implication of my original point which is obvious and does not require us to go down some bizarre rabbit hole.
More likely Rog would be ducking , dodging or deflecting into mom's basement
Rick desperately wants to make this personal because I'm the only one here who ever bothers to respond to any of his thousands of long, endless anti-Trump posts. Others here are apparently smart enough to completely ignore him. But let's make this one about the subject actually under discussion here. Did Oswald write "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" on the BY photo or not? That's the only relevant point. I don't think he did. I made a seemingly reasonable and incontrovertible point that Oswald wouldn't use self-deprecating humor to mock himself in this photo. To the contrary, in this situation he was deadly serious about portraying himself as some type of revolutionary figure in the BY photos willing to commit violence for the cause (thus the display of weapons and Commie literature). Even most CTers appear to accept this was the purpose of the BY photos since they argue that they were intended by their fantasy conspirators to portray Oswald in a sinister light to implicate him in the assassination (i.e. they depict an unhinged and potentially violent person). But the sentiment "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" is a remark that indicates mocking amusement at the subject depicted. Is Oswald the type of person who displayed this type of humor or any humor? No.
Instead, the humorous sentiment being expressed is much more consistent with the viewpoint of Marina who found Oswald's nutty behavior to be amusing. A source of humor. But we are taken down the rabbit hole as to whether is it is possible to have a "hidden" sense of humor in which it is suggested that Oswald is a "private" individual and, therefore, no one can prove that he had no sense of humor. Classic rabbit hole deflection. Of course, despite the thousands of books and millions of pages written on the subject of Oswald and his background - many by people who knew him in his "private" life including his own wife - there is nary an example provided of Oswald displaying a sense of humor. Much less being self-deprecating. Rick and Martin have certainly not bothered to provide any example. Martin bizarrely interjected that Oswald "liked kids." Instead they ask me to disprove this to their satisfaction despite the extensive historical record being devoid of any such examples. Ironically, Martin even agrees with me on the relevant point that Oswald did not write "Hunter of Fascists" on this photo. But this is the rabbit hole direction he wants to debate endlessly. Rick refuses to even say what he is suggesting about the photo. Is he arguing that Oswald was secretly a barrel of laughs and he was mocking himself by writing this sentiment on the photo? Why is he taking issue with this? We will apparently never know. Instead we are down the rabbit hole about what constitutes a "private" individual and whether it is possible that Oswald has some hidden Richard Pryor alter ego never mentioned by anyone who ever encountered him because Rick apparently knew someone like that. Astounding. Endless posts are made on this subject while ignoring the relevant point. Who wrote "Hunter of Fascists" on the photo? Does that sound like something Oswald would have done? No. Does it sound like a sentiment Marina would express? Yes. Does it sound like a sentiment DeM himself might have expressed? Maybe. The humorous and mocking nature of the sentiment provides some insight into who wrote it. That is the full and complete implication of my original point which is obvious and does not require us to go down some bizarre rabbit hole.
Who wrote "Hunter of Fascists" on the photo? Does that sound like something Oswald would have done? No. Does it sound like a sentiment Marina would express? Yes. Does it sound like a sentiment DeM himself might have expressed? Maybe. The humorous and mocking nature of the sentiment provides some insight into who wrote it.
Great, so now we have established that who ever wrote the text did not hold Oswald in any high regard. Despite "Richard's" constant suggestion that Marina wrote it - when it is beyond doubt that she didn't (otherwise we would have known it by now) - brings us automatically to an unknown third party who somehow knew Oswald and must have been involved in the making of the BY photos. This in turn is most relevant as it makes the taking of the picture more than just the family affair the WC wants us to believe it was. And that was exactly the point I have been making from the beginning!
I'm not aware of anyone who ever claimed that the person who wrote this did so to compliment Oswald. Not sure where you came up with that. It always has been interpreted as a humorous derogatory or satirical remark directed at Oswald. That was my entire point for why it is unlikely Oswald who wrote it. How does that prove it wasn't Marina - much less prove it "beyond doubt"? If anything, the sentiment is entirely consistent with her view of the situation. That is particularly rich coming from someone who otherwise applies an impossible standard of proof to any evidence linking Oswald to the crime. But here for some unspecified reason we can suddenly rule out Marina "beyond doubt." LOL.
A notation written on the back of the photo in no way suggests that the person who wrote it "must have been involved in the making of the BY photos." It simply means that they had access to the photo at some point in time after it was taken. Whether Marina or DeM wrote this notation is mostly a matter of historical curiosity at this point. If you want to believe we can't know with certainty who wrote it, then knock yourself out. The list of such people who had access to the photo and could write in Russian is very limited. Any uncertainty as to whether it was Marina or DeM adds nothing to the case for a conspiracy or whatever you are trying to suggest here.
Q. I will show you those two photographs which are marked JFK exhibit No. 1 and exhibit No. 2, do you recognize those two photographs?
A. I sure do. I have seen them many times.
Q. What are they?
A. That is the pictures that I took.
Q. What do you recall as far as the circumstances leaking up to you taking these pictures and when you actually took them and what happened?
A. I do believe it was a weekend and he asked me to take a picture of him and I refused because I don't know how to take pictures. That is the only pictures I ever took in my whole life. So we argued over it and I thought the pose, or whatever he was wearing was just horrible, but he insisted that I just click, just push the button and I believe I did it twice and that was it. I do not know whether he developed them, at home or somewhere else, I have no idea.
Q. What is he wearing in those photographs and what is he holding?
A. What was a surprise for me was for him to hold his rifle and a pamphlet, some kind of newspaper. It puzzled me, it was a ridiculous way to pose for a picture.
Q. Does he also have a pistol in his arm?
A. I don't see that, it looks like it-yes, I see now.
Q. And you recall testifying about these same two photographs when you testified to the Warren Commission?
A. Yes; I remember them asking if I ever took the pictures and I had completely forgotten because it was only once in my life and I didn't know who to take pictures. Yes, when they showed me that, yes, I did take the pictures.
Q. The camera you took them on, was that Lee Harvey Oswald's camera?A lie.
A. I believe so.
Q. Was it the same one he had in Russia or a different one, do you know?
A. I don't know, but I do believe it could be the same.
Q. What did he tell you to do with the camera as far as taking the pictures?
A. He just told me which button to push and I did.
Q. Did you hold it up to your eye and look through the viewer to take the picture?
A. Yes.
Q. And after you took the picture what did you do after you took the first picture?Marina did not like having to lie.
A. I went into the house and did things I had to attend to.
Q. How many pictures did you take?
A. I think I took two.
Q. When you took the first picture you held it up to your eye?
A. Yes; that is what I recall.
Q. What did you do next?
A. I believe he did something with it and told me to push it again.
Q. The first time you pushed it down to take the picture?
A. Yes.
Q. And the first time, what happened before you took the second picture?
A. He changed his pose.
Q. What I am getting at is, did you give the camera to him so he would move the film forward or did you do that?
A. He did that.
Q. So you took the picture and handed the camera to him?
A. Yes.
Q. What did he do?
A. He said, "Once again," and I did it again.
Q. So he have you back the camera?
A. For the second time; yes.
Q. Did he put the rifle down?
A. You see, that is the way I remember it.
Q. Did he put the rifle down on the ground between--
A. I don't remember. I was so annoyed with all this procedure so the sooner I could get through, the better, so I don't recollect.
Q. But you do remember taking the picture?I am. This means that there was someone else that would have been a witness to this backyard photo session...that apparently didn't exist.
A. Yes; I am the one who took the picture and the weather was right.
Q. What did you say?
A. Somebody speculated the picture couldn't be taken; the weather was wrong.
Q. I am not interested in what people speculated.
A. There is nobody to blame for it but me.
Q. When you took the first picture and you gave him the camera, did you walk over to him and give him the camera or did he walk over to you?
A. I don't remember.
Rick desperately wants to make this personal because I'm the only one here who ever bothers to respond to any of his thousands of long, endless anti-Trump posts. Others here are apparently smart enough to completely ignore him. But let's make this one about the subject actually under discussion here. Did Oswald write "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" on the BY photo or not? That's the only relevant point. I don't think he did. I made a seemingly reasonable and incontrovertible point that Oswald wouldn't use self-deprecating humor to mock himself in this photo. To the contrary, in this situation he was deadly serious about portraying himself as some type of revolutionary figure in the BY photos willing to commit violence for the cause (thus the display of weapons and Commie literature). Even most CTers appear to accept this was the purpose of the BY photos since they argue that they were intended by their fantasy conspirators to portray Oswald in a sinister light to implicate him in the assassination (i.e. they depict an unhinged and potentially violent person). But the sentiment "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" is a remark that indicates mocking amusement at the subject depicted. Is Oswald the type of person who displayed this type of humor or any humor? No.
Instead, the humorous sentiment being expressed is much more consistent with the viewpoint of Marina who found Oswald's nutty behavior to be amusing. A source of humor. But we are taken down the rabbit hole as to whether is it is possible to have a "hidden" sense of humor in which it is suggested that Oswald is a "private" individual and, therefore, no one can prove that he had no sense of humor. Classic rabbit hole deflection. Of course, despite the thousands of books and millions of pages written on the subject of Oswald and his background - many by people who knew him in his "private" life including his own wife - there is nary an example provided of Oswald displaying a sense of humor. Much less being self-deprecating. Rick and Martin have certainly not bothered to provide any example. Martin bizarrely interjected that Oswald "liked kids." Instead they ask me to disprove this to their satisfaction despite the extensive historical record being devoid of any such examples. Ironically, Martin even agrees with me on the relevant point that Oswald did not write "Hunter of Fascists" on this photo. But this is the rabbit hole direction he wants to debate endlessly. Rick refuses to even say what he is suggesting about the photo. Is he arguing that Oswald was secretly a barrel of laughs and he was mocking himself by writing this sentiment on the photo? Why is he taking issue with this? We will apparently never know. Instead we are down the rabbit hole about what constitutes a "private" individual and whether it is possible that Oswald has some hidden Richard Pryor alter ego never mentioned by anyone who ever encountered him because Rick apparently knew someone like that. Astounding. Endless posts are made on this subject while ignoring the relevant point. Who wrote "Hunter of Fascists" on the photo? Does that sound like something Oswald would have done? No. Does it sound like a sentiment Marina would express? Yes. Does it sound like a sentiment DeM himself might have expressed? Maybe. The humorous and mocking nature of the sentiment provides some insight into who wrote it. That is the full and complete implication of my original point which is obvious and does not require us to go down some bizarre rabbit hole.
:D :D :D
How hard is it to answer a simple question?
So, I ask Richard Smith a simple question and he writes a super long winded post still evading what I asked him.
Richard Smith claimed that Oswald "never had a sense of humor".
I simply asked Richard how would he know that since he never met the man.
He still refuses to answer that question and can only respond with personal insults and false accusations as usual.
I still don't see anybody agreeing with him.
Question for Richard Smith: How do you know Lee Harvey Oswald never had a sense of humor when you never knew the man personally?
Imagine Rick of all people complaining about "long winded" posts! HA HA HA. The absolute king of long, rambling endless rants thousands of words long. I've explained this you. Multiple times now. Thousands of books and millions of pages written about Oswald. No such examples. And you have provided none. Zero. Got it? Now how about you answer the very simple question that I posed to you? What point are you trying to make in this context? Are you suggesting that Oswald wrote "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" on the BY photo because he had a secret sense of humor?
Imagine Rick of all people complaining about "long winded" posts! HA HA HA. The absolute king of long, rambling endless rants thousands of words long. I've explained this you. Multiple times now. Thousands of books and millions of pages written about Oswald. No such examples. And you have provided none. Zero. Got it? Now how about you answer the very simple question that I posed to you? What point are you trying to make in this context? Are you suggesting that Oswald wrote "Hunter of Fascists. HA HA HA" on the BY photo because he had a secret sense of humor?
And Richard still hasn't answered the question. :D :D :D
I don't have to provide anything. You're the one who made the claim that Oswald "never had a sense of humor".
The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that. And you are doing everything possible to evade the question.
Question again for Richard: How do you know Lee Harvey Oswald never had a sense of humor when you never knew the man personally?
Seriously? After 58 years an argument ensues over whether Oswald had a sense of humor? Seriously?
There's no need for an argument. Richard Smith made an absolute statement and I simply asked him a question. He turned it into an argument in order to evade the question.
And Richard still hasn't answered the question. :D :D :D
I don't have to provide anything. You're the one who made the claim that Oswald "never had a sense of humor".
The burden of proof is on YOU to prove that. And you are doing everything possible to evade the question.
Question again for Richard: How do you know Lee Harvey Oswald never had a sense of humor when you never knew the man personally?
Just to put an end to this nonsense.
In Reply #116 Richard made this statement - "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor."
In Reply #129 you asked - "How do you know Oswald had no "apparent sense of humor"? Did you know the man personally to know that?"
By Reply # you are accusing Richard of making an "absolute statement" about Oswald, but the fact is by using the word "apparent" Richard is not making an absolute statement.
You then do something very deceptive.
In Reply #156 you ask - "Have you hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald to know that he didn't have a sense of humor?"
But Richard never said Oswald didn't have a sense of humour, that is an absolute statement. He said Oswald had no apparent sense of humour, which is not an absolute statement as it means Oswald's sense of humour is not apparent to Richard. It's an opinion. Not an absolute statement as you keep insisting.
You then do something truly deceptive. You actually change what Richard said. In Reply #168 you post - "That's why Richard Smith's claim that Oswald was "never humorous" is absolutely ridiculous..."
By putting "never humorous" in quotation marks you are implying this is what Richard actually said but it is something you have completely made up.
Then you go even further. In Reply #189 you make this outrageous claim - "You made an absolute statement about Lee Harvey Oswald regarding his personality stating "he never had a sense of humor" but you never met the man to know if he never had a sense of humor as you claimed."
So you have twisted "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor" into Oswald was "never humorous" and then into "he never had a sense of humor".
How can you justify this BS:
The whole thing is easily ended by Richard simply answering Rick's valid question.
Your attack on Rick's line of enquiry is just as unjustified as you defense of Richard Smith. Your selective quotes do not justice to what Richard Smith's initial statement was intented to communicate.
And what valid question is that?
Lay off the sauce.
Just to put an end to this nonsense.
In Reply #116 Richard made this statement - "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor."
In Reply #129 you asked - "How do you know Oswald had no "apparent sense of humor"? Did you know the man personally to know that?"
By Reply # you are accusing Richard of making an "absolute statement" about Oswald, but the fact is by using the word "apparent" Richard is not making an absolute statement.
You then do something very deceptive.
In Reply #156 you ask - "Have you hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald to know that he didn't have a sense of humor?"
But Richard never said Oswald didn't have a sense of humour, that is an absolute statement. He said Oswald had no apparent sense of humour, which is not an absolute statement as it means Oswald's sense of humour is not apparent to Richard. It's an opinion. Not an absolute statement as you keep insisting.
You then do something truly deceptive. You actually change what Richard said. In Reply #168 you post - "That's why Richard Smith's claim that Oswald was "never humorous" is absolutely ridiculous..."
By putting "never humorous" in quotation marks you are implying this is what Richard actually said but it is something you have completely made up.
Then you go even further. In Reply #189 you make this outrageous claim - "You made an absolute statement about Lee Harvey Oswald regarding his personality stating "he never had a sense of humor" but you never met the man to know if he never had a sense of humor as you claimed."
So you have twisted "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor" into Oswald was "never humorous" and then into "he never had a sense of humor".
How can you justify this BS:
And what valid question is that?
It's not BS: and you are making an useless argument for no reason.
Richard made an absolute statement. He stated Lee Harvey Oswald "never had a sense of humor". That indeed is an absolute statement.
I simply asked Richard how he would know that unless he knew Oswald personally and he refuses to answer.
This really isn't difficult. All Richard has to do is answer a simple question but he chooses not to and wants to argue instead.
Richard made an accusation so he needs to answer for it.
The whole thing is easily ended by Richard simply answering Rick's valid question.
Your attack on Rick's line of enquiry is just as unjustified as you defense of Richard Smith. Your selective quotes do not justice to what Richard Smith's initial statement was intented to communicate.
Where did he state Oswald "never had a sense of humor"?
I must have missed this.
:D :D :D
Are you serious? So, you come into this thread and start attacking me when you have no clue what's going on. Quit trying to start an argument when your are oblivious to the matter.
:D :D :D
Are you serious? So, you come into this thread and start attacking me when you have no clue what's going on. Quit trying to start an argument when your are oblivious to the matter.
In Reply #116 Richard made this statement - "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor."
In Reply #129 you asked - "How do you know Oswald had no "apparent sense of humor"? Did you know the man personally to know that?"
By Reply #133 you are accusing Richard of making an "absolute statement" about Oswald, but the fact is by using the word "apparent" Richard is not making an absolute statement.
You then do something very deceptive.
In Reply #156 you ask - "Have you hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald to know that he didn't have a sense of humor?"
But Richard never said Oswald didn't have a sense of humour, that is an absolute statement. He said Oswald had no apparent sense of humour, which is not an absolute statement as it means Oswald's sense of humour is not apparent to Richard. It's an opinion. Not an absolute statement as you keep insisting.
You then do something truly deceptive. You actually change what Richard said. In Reply #168 you post - "That's why Richard Smith's claim that Oswald was "never humorous" is absolutely ridiculous..."
By putting "never humorous" in quotation marks you are implying this is what Richard actually said but it is something you have completely made up.
Then you go even further. In Reply #189 you make this outrageous claim - "You made an absolute statement about Lee Harvey Oswald regarding his personality stating "he never had a sense of humor" but you never met the man to know if he never had a sense of humor as you claimed."
So you have twisted "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor" into Oswald was "never humorous" and then into "he never had a sense of humor".
What Reply did Richard state that Oswald "never had a sense of humor"?
Where did he post this?
It's not a difficult question to answer.
You've obviously not read through my post highlighting your deceitfulness in this matter.
Richard never posted that Oswald "never had a sense of humor".
This is a lie that you have created and continue to perpetuate.
I'm no fan of Richard's but I find your underhand dealings can't go unchecked.
The question still stands - how can you justify this BS:?
I wouldn't be asking Richard this question several times and he wouldn't be refusing to answer it if he never said it.
Before you embarrass yourself even more and make more false accusations against me I suggest you read this entire thread.
Doddering old man logic.
He never said Oswald "never had a sense of humor". You made this up. You don't understand this do you? You don't really understand what's going on, do you?
If you understood my post you would understand I have read through this thread - a number of times.
The BYPs are an important issue that must be integrated into an overall narrative. I have kept an eye on this thread getting increasingly annoyed over your (and your lapdog's) apparent attempts to derail it.
I am embarrassed because I thought there was a devious and cunning intelligence at work here but it turns out you're just a baffled old man who doesn't know what's going on.
Apologies for disturbing your nap, sir.
Wow...such anger and hostility in your post. You are out of line with your comments.
I've made nothing up and you're falsely attacking me for no reason. Go read the thread.
I never derailed anything. Richard Smith made an absolute statement about Oswald and his personality. I simply asked him a question and he refused to answer it. All I get back is long winded replies and insults.
The only person derailing the thread is you by attacking me Martin called you out on that as well.
"It is, in short, the most un-American of activities, and the average American has a most ambivalent attitude toward it. Of course, everyone knows and admits, that as long as the other great powers, particularly Russia, maintain intelligence systems, we must do the same. And yet, most of us consider the CIA with abhorence [sic], and a man who works for it, is considered not a patriot serving his country but as a kind of E. Phillips Oppenheim villain ... a somewhat sinister James Bond."
Wow...such anger and hostility in your post. You are out of line with your comments.
I've made nothing up and you're falsely attacking me for no reason. Go read the thread.
I never derailed anything. Richard Smith made an absolute statement about Oswald and his personality. I simply asked him a question and he refused to answer it. All I get back is long winded replies and insults.
The only person derailing the thread is you by attacking me Martin called you out on that as well.
In Reply #116 Richard made this statement - "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor."
In Reply #129 you asked - "How do you know Oswald had no "apparent sense of humor"? Did you know the man personally to know that?"
By Reply # you are accusing Richard of making an "absolute statement" about Oswald, but the fact is by using the word "apparent" Richard is not making an absolute statement.
You then do something very deceptive.
In Reply #156 you ask - "Have you hung out with Lee Harvey Oswald to know that he didn't have a sense of humor?"
But Richard never said Oswald didn't have a sense of humour, that is an absolute statement. He said Oswald had no apparent sense of humour, which is not an absolute statement as it means Oswald's sense of humour is not apparent to Richard. It's an opinion. Not an absolute statement as you keep insisting.
You then do something truly deceptive. You actually change what Richard said. In Reply #168 you post - "That's why Richard Smith's claim that Oswald was "never humorous" is absolutely ridiculous..."
By putting "never humorous" in quotation marks you are implying this is what Richard actually said but it is something you have completely made up.
Then you go even further. In Reply #189 you make this outrageous claim - "You made an absolute statement about Lee Harvey Oswald regarding his personality stating "he never had a sense of humor" but you never met the man to know if he never had a sense of humor as you claimed."
So you have twisted "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor" into Oswald was "never humorous" and then into "he never had a sense of humor".
You are the one who is out of line.
Richard said "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor".
This is not an absolute statement, it is an opinion.
In a move that was really out of line you started claiming he had said "He (Oswald) never had a sense of humor".
This is a falsehood and one that, instead of acknowledging and correcting it, you continue to perpetuate it.
Pointing out your falsehoods is not an "attack".
"I've made nothing up"
Really? Your falsehoods are documented here:
Any demented Nutter is entitled to a defence but I doubt Richard gives a sh!t about Dan's effort.
BTW, if anyone should have forgotten, right after his statement about Oswald's apparent lack of humor he cranked out two more BS claims right on top of each other,
Oswald had no apparent qualms at hiding these pictures.
His intent was that they memorialize him in a classic revolutionary pose.
It isn't about defending Richard who is someone I have come to blows with elsewhere on this forum and whose LN stance I do not share.
It's about calling Rick out on his underhand bullsh%t tactics.
In his last post Martin wrote:
"When Richard said "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor" it was of course an opinion,"
It's Martin's opinion that this was presented as a fact and that's just an opinion.
But Rick was calling it out as an "absolute statement", which it is not. So he did something which I find unacceptable - he actually changed what Richard had posted in order to make it an absolute statement and then kept derailing the discussion by constantly challenging Richard to answer for an absolute statement he had never made and it got on my tits because I thought it was quite an interesting thread and debate was being quashed by Rick's BS:
So I called him out on it.
Provided the quotes to back up what I was saying.
And that should have been the end of that.
You are the one who is out of line.Nice try at playing word games.
Richard said "Oswald had no apparent sense of humor".
This is not an absolute statement, it is an opinion.
In a move that was really out of line you started claiming he had said "He (Oswald) never had a sense of humor".
This is a falsehood and one that, instead of acknowledging and correcting it, you continue to perpetuate it.
Pointing out your falsehoods is not an "attack".
"I've made nothing up"
Really? Your falsehoods are documented here:
Oswald had no apparent sense of humor and was certainly too insecure to be self deprecating.
Don"t get involved with logic, Steve.Thanks. Merry Christmas to you too.
No, you're not difficult to figure out at all.
Thumb1:
Thanks. Merry Christmas to you too.
But my difficult observation is still there. Instead of cash, why not gift me an answer?
Again, I'll go slow (my fingers are typing real slow; so it left here that way):
If Oswald is dead then the conspirators can say he admitted that the BYP were authentic. Why say he denied their authenticity? Telling the public he denied their authenticity opens the door to them being challenged. If they say - again he is dead; they can say anything (remember they're pure evil) - he admitted to taking them then we lone nutter morons can say, "But he said they were authentic."
If you prefer to send cash that'll be fine anyway.
"JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary discusses a plot to kill JFK in Chicago in early November 1963. The only problem is that there is no evidence that there was actually a plot.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-the-supposed-chicago-plot (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-the-supposed-chicago-plot)
Oswald wanted historical credit not legal responsibility for his heinous crimes.What the hell does that mean?
"JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, misleads on JFK's throat wound. The film alleges that it is an entrance wound. The preponderance of evidence indicates that it is a wound of exit.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-jfk-s-throat-wound (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-jfk-s-throat-wound)
Fred, in one of your other postings ( Link (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/dr-cyril-wecht-on-the-bullet-wound-to-kennedy-s-back-throat) ) about the Wecht book, you ask:If that top drawing is what Fuhrman based the trajectory on, I would point out:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"I would very much like to see his trajectory diagram to show how the
bullet missed Connally but hit the windshield. And where does he think
that bullet came from? Of course, he presents no such diagram."
I don't know if this is what persuaded Wecht, but Mark Fuhrman--in his 2006 book "A Simple Act of Murder"--proposed something similar:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1Yuh6F6RPeEpj_-WXgoAHLq__vs4vAEZI)
If that top drawing is what Fuhrman based the trajectory on, I would point out:
1. At a distance of 175 feet from a point directly below the SN window (around z210), the angle of the SN to JFK's back wound was a shade more than 19 degrees below horizontal with the SN. This assumes the rifle was 65 feet above the road (CE884) and JFK's back wound was 4 feet above the road (a vertical difference of 61 feet from the rifle). So the angle would have been arctan(61/175) = 19.2°. This diagram shows that angle as shade under 28 degrees.
2. the exit point of the bullet was under and to the left side of JFK's tie knot, which is much lower than the exit point shown.
3. the car was also on a downward 3° slope, so the effective angle to JFK's back if he was sitting perfectly vertical in the car would have been 16° below horizontal.
With a 16 degree downward angle, the bullet exits at the nape of the neck, which is about where JFK's tie knot would have been positioned.
[The drawing is supposed to be an accurate drawing of JFK's head, neck and shoulders but it looks a bit odd. ]
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1wgl6VjE_NbhoqoI5WUAwM-KPny9FWGh2) (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1BXjBEP1ube2CdY1Grw7dOuPDk3TJvQUH) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1iMzV8R91_6hlVx8I8w115-cfd81JP5a_) |
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1NRbOI_ZkhBwiHM8PqQCt0oHfRKmHzYwt) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1A49RRn4EA4Y1ia6HHSBfJ7IAxPDOa3ZT) | (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=161ZyQvp_1lhLXc1nMfDQzJ7edqjfTVzn) |
Say, shifty Defense Attorney dude. Aren't you kind of on shaky ground when you critique a LN Alternative Theory given that your Pet Theory is ten-times more error-prone and unlikely?Yes. I forgot that my "batspombleprofglidnoctobuns crazy" notion, as you call it, that the first shot struck JFK in the back on a right to left trajectory and was not deflected, precludes me from pointing out facts that follow from evidence.
If that top drawing is what Fuhrman based the trajectory on, I would point out:
1. At a distance of 175 feet from a point directly below the SN window (around z210), the angle of the SN to JFK's back wound was a shade more than 19 degrees below horizontal with the SN. This assumes the rifle was 65 feet above the road (CE884) and JFK's back wound was 4 feet above the road (a vertical difference of 61 feet from the rifle). So the angle would have been arctan(61/175) = 19.2°. This diagram shows that angle as shade under 28 degrees.
2. the exit point of the bullet was under and to the left side of JFK's tie knot, which is much lower than the exit point shown.
3. the car was also on a downward 3° slope, so the effective angle to JFK's back if he was sitting perfectly vertical in the car would have been 16° below horizontal.
With a 16 degree downward angle, the bullet exits at the nape of the neck, which is about where JFK's tie knot would have been positioned.
[The drawing is supposed to be an accurate drawing of JFK's head, neck and shoulders but it looks a bit odd. ]
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1OF_6y4jMLGjZ-LwkX_rq6qW4LYMqN0V4)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
3D analysis of the back wound autopsy photo shows the entry wound was above the exit wound at the throat.
I wonder who "blacked out" the back of JFK's head in the top left photo.
"JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, misleads on JFK's throat wound. The film alleges that it is an entrance wound. The preponderance of evidence indicates that it is a wound of exit.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-jfk-s-throat-wound (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-jfk-s-throat-wound)
"JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat WoundNow why did you hijack your own thread about the backyard photos?
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass, misleads on JFK's throat wound. The film alleges that it is an entrance wound. The preponderance of evidence indicates that it is a wound of exit.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-jfk-s-throat-wound (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-jfk-s-throat-wound)
Dale Myers says the angle is about 17.5 degrees (http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl2.htm ). He puts the SBT at Z224.Yes, but Myers does not provide the data on which his numbers are based.
Yes, but Myers does not provide the data on which his numbers are based.
from Marina's HSCA deposition on September 20, 1977
https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/marinade.htm
Q. Did you ever write anything on the back of either the original or a copy of one of these photographs?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever write a note or anything to George de Mohrenschildt on the back of the original or a copy?
A. No.
Q. Are you sure of that?
A. Yes.
I thought it might be helpful to compare Mark Fuhrman's neck anatomy:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/Fuhrman_anatomy.jpg)
with that of a real person:
(http://www.dufourlaw.com/JFK/side_view_male.jpg)
| (http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1QX0PphbbylkjX7bUMRxN9CzF5mQAvqpk) | (https://ktxs.com/resources/media/2b60a0c5-3eff-4048-be9a-d6edefc453a6-large1x1_ImportedfromLakana.jpg) | (https://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com/albums/userpics/10001/BE1_HIO.JPG) |
Not helpful if you're comparing it to a "pencil neck".It is not the length of the neck that is wrong, in Fuhrman's drawing. Rather it is the position of the exit wound which was in the nape of the neck to the left of JFK's tie knot. Your profile photo shows that Fuhrman's placement of the exit point of the bullet is nowhere near the actual exit wound on JFK (which is below the bottom of the photo where his tie knot would be).
It is not the length of the neck that is wrong, in Fuhrman's drawing. Rather it is the position of the exit wound which was in the nape of the neck to the left of JFK's tie knot. Your profile photo shows that Fuhrman's placement of the exit point of the bullet is nowhere near the actual exit wound on JFK (which is below the bottom of the photo where his tie knot would be).
Good point!
Tell me more about Richard Smith...did he write a book?
fred
Jim Garrison's Shot from the SewerWhat's puzzling is as the years go by - more than five decades of them - the theories and claims either keep being repeated or keep expanding, get more convoluted. One would think that after all of this time, after all of these investigations, after the release of all of this information that the explanation would become narrower, more unified. Nothing is dismissed; even the three tramps were in on it. Do the conspiracy believers agree on anything other than there was a conspiracy? And that anything can be dismissed?
This is Garrison Peak Crazy!
In December 1967, Jim Garrison sent out three press releases about a shot from the sewer that hit JFK. Today I present the three press releases and the pictures that accompanied them. It doesn't get any crazier than this, folks.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jim-garrison-s-shot-from-the-sewer (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jim-garrison-s-shot-from-the-sewer)
When the lone crazy succeeds, it can be quite devastating. Some examples from the 1960s:We can add, in a different way, Jack Ruby. Granted he didn't hurt so many people, cause so much pain as the people above but I'm convinced that had he not shot Oswald that none of us would be here. None of us. Oswald would have talked, would have admitted to his acts, would have taken credit for his history changing event. He wanted to be a historic figure, this was his chance.(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)(Source: mostly Wikipedia)
- Thomas G. Doty (34)
May 22, 1962, boarded Continental Airlines Flight 11 at O'Hare, exploded dynamite, causing plane to crash in Iowa killing all 45 onboard. Thought motivated by insurance fraud.- Francisco Paula Gonzales (27), competitor at the 1960 Summer Olympics
May 7, 1964, boarded Pacific Air Lines Flight 773 in Reno, over California shot both pilots and himself, causing plane to crash killing all 44 onboard. Remains worst incident of mass murder in modern California history.- Charles Joseph Whitman (25), former Marine
August 1, 1965, killed mother and wife, then later reach the observation deck of the UT Austin "Main Building" where he shot and killed 14 and wounded 32 over 96 minutes.- Richard Speck (25), convicted in Texas of forgery and burglary, was on run from burglary arrest warrant.
July 13–14, 1966, killed eight student nurses in Chicago.- James Earl Ray (40), fugitive from Missouri State Penitentiary
April 4, 1968, assassinated civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr., single shot from Remington Gamemaster rifle. Conspiracy claims made.- Sirhan Sirhan (24)
June 5, 1968, shot Senator Robert F. Kennedy in Los Angeles (who died following day). Five others shot, but they recovered. Conspiracy claims made.
Also the Boston Strangler and the Zodiac Killer.
Yeah his memoirs--- "I Was A Teenage Nutter" :D
Tell me more about Richard Smith...did he write a book?
Richard is a poster on the Forum here. He's an excellent writer and rationalist concerning the JFK assassination.
Yeah his memoirs--- "I Was A Teenage Nutter" :D
(http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/Smileys/default2/3D_ROFL.gif)
Jerry Freeman "Skeptic" Not a Conspiracy Kook.Correct.
First Garrison Interview with Reverend Raymond Broshears
Raymond Broshears was a gay rights activist in San Francisco. He was also an incredible fabulist. He claimed to be David Ferrie's roommate, and he knew every person named in the Jim Garrison probe. Garrison flew him out to New Orleans for questioning, and he spouted some incredible nonsense. Not surprisingly, many conspiracy theorists find him credible. Here is the first Garrison investigation interview with Raymond Broshears.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/first-garrison-interview-with-reverend-raymond-broshears (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/first-garrison-interview-with-reverend-raymond-broshears)
Because he interviewed a homosexual?
fred
A Look Back at Clay Shaw's TrialWhat's a bit remarkable is that the major conspiracy theorists/proponents of that time - people like Lane, Lifton, Meagher, Weisberg, Epstein - all denounced or came to denounce Garrison's fraudulent investigation and abuse of power (although Weisberg was a bit late to the game, e.g., read his exchanges with Garrison during his grand jury testimony; they were having a ball).
The Baton Rouge Advocate Looked back on the trial of Clay Shaw in 1994
Columnist John McMillan said Garrison's case was "one of the biggest abuses of judicial power in the history of the country." He concludes "there may have been conspiracy, but I'll tell you one thing: Jim Garrison didn't know a damn thing about it if there was."
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/a-look-back-at-clay-shaw-s-trial (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/a-look-back-at-clay-shaw-s-trial)
The Persecution of Clay ShawI remain puzzled, completely, as to why Garrison never considered *any* role of organized crime, of elements of the mob, in the assassination. None. Not even on the periphery. In fact the accounts are that when asked about any role he would get very angry and simply dismiss the question. Yes, he'd have to admit that the Mob was operating in New Orleans. But that's an odd concern.
A terrific article from the August 26, 1969 issue of Look Magazine. Clay Shaw on Garrison and his case: "What a man like this has going for him is the will to believe. It's very, very strong in many people. It doesn't matter what the evidence is or how many nuts he puts on the stand; people just go on believing."
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-persecution-of-clay-shaw (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/the-persecution-of-clay-shaw)
I remain puzzled, completely, as to why Garrison never considered *any* role of organized crime, of elements of the mob, in the assassination. None.There is a book about that very subject----
....the answers detailing why New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison and the U.S. Justice Department refused to investigate Mafia boss Carlos Marcello in connection with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The true story of official corruption and deception over decades where the very existence of organized crime was denied by Garrison, the city's Superintendent of Police, the Special Agent in Charge of the FBI in New Orleans, and other U.S. Justice Department officials, even though Carlos Marcello was named as a possible "conspirator" in JFK's assassination by the U.S. House Committee on Assassinations.
Falsely Accused: Jim Garrison's Investigation of JFK's Assassination and the United States of America Versus R.E. Payne : the Mafia's Influence in New Orleans(https://books.google.com/books/content?id=e-s7mAEACAAJ&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=1&imgtk=AFLRE72GkmYuSV6urt8c3wQSdCKq1hVmlnTF2rCGF17D6ssz9EiOpoiGQRQRVntNMNjFEI1Y-gOzllnBit72ROitj9RkWSP8h2oKzEneUkqOHpizlO2hzBNTg_YS0mprvR7Fc_jPrs3f)
The CIA and Mafia’s “Cuban American Mechanism” and the JFK AssassinationIt should now seem so obvious that rogue CIA, the old Havana connected Mafia, and anti-Castro Cuban mercenaries were involved but...I can't find that interview.
Written by Paul Bleau ---------
As with many things, Jim Garrison was the first investigator to elucidate a three-sided conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy, the three participants being the CIA, the Cuban exiles, and the Mob. He had done this unearthing during his inquiry, but he formally announced it in a famous cover story for New Orleans Magazine in 1976.
JFK Unsolved (Josiah Thompson's project) ain't much better.
I thought this Oswald photos article was interesting from over 40 years ago.
. . .
Dallas police evidently found three negatives and at least two prints. The Warren Commission got only two prints and only one negative. Besides the traces of the one Sgt. Kirk uncovered, the evidence of another negative having been seized by police was obtained by the committee from two other sources.
Handwriting expert Joseph P. McNally agreed that it was not her writing.
Thanks. Merry Christmas to you too.
But my difficult observation is still there. Instead of cash, why not gift me an answer?
Again, I'll go slow (my fingers are typing real slow; so it left here that way):
If Oswald is dead then the conspirators can say he admitted that the BYP were authentic. Why say he denied their authenticity? Telling the public he denied their authenticity opens the door to them being challenged. If they say - again he is dead; they can say anything (remember they're pure evil) - he admitted to taking them then we lone nutter morons can say, "But he said they were authentic."
If you prefer to send cash that'll be fine anyway.
Really pathetic.
That's "Richard Smith" alright. Let's see if the weasel accepts my challenge.... although I'm pretty sure he won't, as it would not only involve disclosing his true identity and expose the lies he's telling, but also cost him a pretty penny.
Has it escaped anybody's notice that "Richard", who usually can't wait to mouth-off, was strangely silent on this offer? Trolling cowards like to hide behind anonymous aliases and sling insults.
Exclusive: Jim Garrison Tells the HSCA that Kerry Thornley Impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald
I have posted on Youtube another tape of Jim Garrison being interviewed by the HSCA in the summer of 1977. This is the first time this tape has been made public and I have also provided transcripts. More Garrison craziness - his belief that Kerry Thornley impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans in the early 1960s.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/exclusive-jim-garrison-tells-the-hsca-that-kerry-thornley-impersonated-lee-harvey-oswald (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/exclusive-jim-garrison-tells-the-hsca-that-kerry-thornley-impersonated-lee-harvey-oswald)
Gaeton Fonzi Channels Jim Garrison
Crack HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi spent some time with Jim Garrison during the early stages of the HSCA. Here is a Fonzi memo which shows he believed a lot of Garrison's nonsense.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/gaeton-fonzi-channels-jim-garrison (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/gaeton-fonzi-channels-jim-garrison)
Gaeton Fonzi Channels Jim GarrisonSome very smart and decent men, and I think Fonzi was one, got caught up during that time in all of the hysteria about the CIA and other matters. The
Crack HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi spent some time with Jim Garrison during the early stages of the HSCA. Here is a Fonzi memo which shows he believed a lot of Garrison's nonsense.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/gaeton-fonzi-channels-jim-garrison (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/gaeton-fonzi-channels-jim-garrison)
Good work. Conformation bias in action. Fonzi became convinced of a conspiracy and by his own admission refused to accept any other possibility. Then he saw "evidence" of the conspiracy everywhere he looked including Thornley and the example for which he is best known-Veciana.
How is this any different from an LN, who became convinced that Oswald did it alone and refuses to even consider other possibilities, regardless of the obvious weakness of the case against Oswald?
I have always said I am open to accepting a conspiracy, but I need proof.
Did Kerry Thornley Lie about Oswald's Height?Who cares what Thornley said?
Right. It's been nearly 60 years and we've had multiple investigations by the government, by the media, and by independent reporters/journalists and they've found nothing indicating a conspiracy. Yes, nothing for me.
I go to conspiracy sites, read conspiracy books - over these years, I've read literally thousands of books and articles and pieces from conspiracists (so much for supposedly living in an echo chamber) - and see a dozen-and-one, at least, different explanations as how this was pulled off. All kinds of different plans and people, some over here and others over there. It's been over half a century and the explanations become more complex and convoluted and contradictory. Every year a new explanation is given. This new person and this new conspiracy. Instead of the explanation becoming more coherent, the narrative cleaner, the explanations are move convoluted now than ever.
Since you know what happened, who shot JFK? Who ordered the murder? Where's the evidence for this order? Who carried it out? How did they plan it in advance - and get everyone to go along?
Go ahead, give us (well me) this evidence.
I'm with you there, Steve. Over the years, I have evenhandedly evaluated many of the "visual" conspiracy claims. For example, there was the claim that Umbrella Man's umbrella had eight ribs, which ruled against the HSCA's witness who produced an umbrella with ten ribs. But when examined in the Willis photo and Zapruder frames, the umbrella did have ten ribs. I suspect this was one of the little findings that jarred Gary Mack and made him less suspicible to conspiracy claims.Look, the government lied about some of this. We know it, we admit it. The CIA didn't want to reveal their operations in MC or their really awful violations of law in mail opening et cetera. And especially about the covert attacks on Cuba and assassination plots against Castro. I think RFK wanted Dulles on the WC to help keep that quiet. There is no defense for this. Hoover was just an awful person. The Cold War enticed them to do stupid and immoral things.
The same with the claims that the autopsy photos showed an entry point at T3 or lower.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1OF_6y4jMLGjZ-LwkX_rq6qW4LYMqN0V4)
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
3D analysis of the back wound autopsy photo shows the entry wound was above the exit wound at the throat. This is the first-attempt analysis. Nothing fancy. Let the chips fall. Yes, on this particular model, the missile path clipped the C7 vertebra, but allowing for normal human variation, the missile path could just as easily have not struck bone.
The point is the critics never applied science to the problem. They're going with gross observations that fool people--including those with a sizeable platform like Oliver Stone--who can't do the science.
And yes, the CIA did terrible things, albeit many of them with the approval and direction of presidents (including JFK); but going from that fact to the events in Dallas in November of 1963 is, for me, a stretch.
Look, the government lied about some of this. We know it, we admit it. The CIA didn't want to reveal their operations in MC or their really awful violations of law in mail opening et cetera. And especially about the covert attacks on Cuba and assassination plots against Castro. I think RFK wanted Dulles on the WC to help keep that quiet. There is no defense for this. Hoover was just an awful person. The Cold War enticed them to do stupid and immoral things.
The conspiracy by the government was one of failure, one of people in power covering up for their failures and for their abuses of power and, in some case, legitimate concerns. That was why they withheld information and lied.
The fact that the CIA or FBI did bad things doesn't mean they did THIS bad thing, i.e., killing JFK. Frankly, I have no idea how you could plan something like this out. Nobody said no? Nobody would expose this? JFK was admired by some people; and even those who hated him wouldn't all go along with this type of fascist coup.
The claim is that the WC covered it up. Well, Norman Redlich was the lead author of that report and the main person involved in the investigation. Redlich was a man of the political left; he attacked Joe McCarthy, he didn't care for Hoover, he was a noted civil libertarian. He's simply not going to go along with this quasi-fascist coup. He's not. Neither, in my view, were those other men, some of whom were top defense lawyers and civil libertarians. These were not gangsters or crooks; these were men of ethics.
The most obvious explanation: an angry, disaffected man who disliked the world he lived in killed the man who personified that world. He got lucky, chance helped him out. Ironically, a man who had little luck in life won the lottery of history. People don't want to accept that. So here we are some almost 60 years later.
Jefferson Morley and "JFK Revisited"
Tracy Parnell has written an excellent rejoinder to Jefferson Morley.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jefferson-morley-and-jfk-revisited (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jefferson-morley-and-jfk-revisited)
What horrible things did the CIA do with Kennedy's approval? There's currently no proof (beyond heresay) that JFK approved of the CIA attempts to kill Castro.Will probably say that he probably approved it :-\
The claim that Todd's initials are not on CE399 rest on still pictures that show the bullet length from four sides. So some areas aren't straight on to the camera. There's no reason to believe all the agents used the same method to apply there initials; some are barely visible today.
The differing times for the handover of CE399 I can only conjecture about. Some agents who "could not identify" CE399 were actually asked to positively identify the bullet, which they could not once it left their possession. They could generally say the bullet appeared to be the same. This is left out of the Stone film.
Stone's movie just grazes the surface of those types of issues. They had to squeeze a lot of info into two hours.
Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson's research is what the film references.
The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?
In a memo to the Warren Commission [C. E. #2011] concerning its investigation of the chain of possession of C.E. #399, the FBI reported that two Parkland Hospital eyewitnesses, Darrell Tomlinson and O. P. Wright, said C.E. #399 resembled the bullet they discovered on the day JFK died. But the FBI agent who is supposed to have interviewed both men and the Bureau’s own suppressed records contradict the FBI’s public memo. Agent Odum denied his role, and the FBI’s earliest, suppressed files say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question. This suppressed file implies the hospital witnesses saw no resemblance, which is precisely what Wright told one of the authors in 1967.
What we are left with is the FBI having reported a solid chain of possession for #399 to the Warren Commission. But the links in the FBI’s chain appear to be anything but solid. Bardwell Odum, one of the key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI’s own, suppressed records tend to back him up. Inexplicably, the chain also lacks other important links: FBI 302s, reports from the agents in the field who, there is ample reason to suppose, did actually trace #399 in Dallas and in Washington. Suppressed FBI records and recent investigations thus suggest that not only is the FBI’s file incomplete, but also that one of the authors may have been right when he reported in 1967 that the bullet found in Dallas did not look like a bullet that could have come from Oswald’s rifle...
https://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
take the challenge in my post, please. Prove me wrong.
I discuss Bolden in my post. He made an allegation. Show me some evidence to back him up.
Something. Anything.
Just one document.
Some testimony.
Anything.
That is the challenge.
fred
If someone "saw" Oswald anywhere, no matter how unlikely or even impossible the place, it must be true. Real investigators know that in a high-profile situation there will be such false sightings.
Especially when people are trotted into unfair and biased lineups.
“The right side of his face is up and I can see that his eyes are fixed. There's blood everywhere.-- Clint Hill
"I can see the gunshot wound. In the room that's in the skull I can see that there is no more brain matter left.
“That is something I could never, and have never been able to, erase from my mind.”
Oh, a few draw the line at something like Greer-Shot-Kennedy or Umbrella-lauched flechette. I haven't started on the second half of "Revisited" so I'll see how far off the deep end Stone goes.
I am impressed, mssr. litwin+
I discuss Bolden in my post. He made an allegation. Show me some evidence to back him up.
I was talking about sightings of Oswald where he couldn't have been not lineups.
When did "Knudsen tell the HSCA that he did not take photographs"? Exact quote please.Right here:
I see they still haven't made available the full transcripts of their phone and sit-down interviews with Odum. So much uncertainty arose from the phone interview, Aguilar and Thompson visited Odum in Dallas. Wonder what transpired. Odum as much as conceded he simply forgot about the Parkland visit (CE399 wasn't famous until after the Report came out) if a 302 report could be found. But 302s were not always issued if information was to be collated in a covering report, such as CE 2011.
It could be CE 2011 got wrong the name of the agent who went to Parkland. In a footnote in his 1967 book, Thompson thought Wright might have been mistaken about the bullet being pointed.
Raymond Marcus interviewed by phone Darryl Tomlinson on July 25, 1966:
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Marcus: Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you
found it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Tomlinson: I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin
from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel
with Mr. Wright there when they called me in.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Marcus: When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that
time, did they show you the bullet?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Tomlinson: Yes.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Marcus: Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Tomlinson: Yes, I believe they did.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Marcus: And as far as you could tell--- of course, you weren't making a
making a ballistics test of it--- but as far as you could tell, did it look
like the same one to you?
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Tomlinson Yes, it appeared to be the same one.
Right here:
Mr. PURDY - When did you first become aware of the existence of photographs of the autopsy of President Kennedy?
Mr. KNUDSEN - The morning following the autopsy, Dr. Berkley -- to the best of my knowledge, Dr. Berkley had the film holders in a brown paper bag and handed them to me. Jim Fox, the Secret Service expert, was told to go over and develop them and see that they were secure at all times.
Mr. PURDY - Did you ever have knowledge of, or were you ever told about, autopsy x-rays, for example?
Mr. KNUDSEN - No. I do not know that any were ever taken.
If Knudsen did know about the photos until the next morning, then he didn't take them. Not knowing if x-rays were taken is another, if a bit more subtle, giveaway.
So, Knudsen didn't actually "tell the HSCA that he did not take photographs".Again, his replies to the two questions that I quoted preclude him from having taken photos of the autopsy. Thus, he said he didn't. You are trying to insist that it doesn't count unless Knudsen said it in a way that you consider acceptable, but that requirement is simply your own invention.
Reviewing the Record
Stone and his writing partner James DiEugenio perform a basic task of journalism and history in their new documentary JFK Revisited, a task curiously ignored by our newspapers of record and academic historians. In the two-hour film, available on Showtime, the Oscar-winning director revisits a significant historical event—the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963–in light of substantial new evidence. You wouldn’t know it from the predictable media abuse, but his method is time-tested and honorable.
The Washington Post performed this function in June 2007 when the CIA declassified “the Family Jewels,” a file of allegations of CIA misconduct collected in 1973 amidst the Watergate scandal. Under court order, the Agency finally coughed up the 600-plus pages of material 33 years later. I was the World News editor at Washingtopost.com at the time and role player in the journalistic full-court press that followed.
Bob Woodward took the lead while other senior reporters sifted the papers for new information about the Watergate scandal. We looked for what was new and what it meant for historical understanding of the Watergate affair. At the Post web site, we strove to put the new information in context so readers could make sense of a major event in Washington memory. The in-depth coverage was capped by Woodward’s incisive take on what was truly newsworthy: CIA director Richard Helms emerged from the new files as “the perfect Watergate enabler.” This was proficient journalism as the first draft of history.
Stone’s granular documentary, narrated by actors Whoopi Goldberg and Donald Sutherland, seeks to do the same for JFK’s assassination on November 22, 1963: make sense of the newest information. A huge body of new information has come into the record since Stone made his movie. The commercial and critical success of JFK shamed Congress into releasing millions of pages of long-secret government files related to Kennedy’s assassination. Since passage of the 1992 JFK Records Act, federal agencies have made public more than 319,000 once-secret government records, amounting to a new historical record of JFK’s assassination, that is much more comprehensive and detailed than the record available to Stone in 1991.
What to make of this new information?
Stone and DiEugenio interviewed scores of witnesses and experts, me included. They asked us the same basic question about the JFK story that the Post asked about the Family Jewels: what do we know today that we didn’t know yesterday?
Leave aside the conclusions of JFK Revisited for a moment, and note its curious lack of their competition. The Washington Post has never comprehensively reviewed the new historical record of JFK’s assassination that has emerged since the 1990s. Nor has the New York Times, despite voluminous new evidence and a steady stream of newsworthy disclosures.
Since the 1990s, we have learned, among other things, about Operation Northwoods, a top-secret Pentagon plan—a policy conspiracy, if you will– to provoke a war with Cuba in 1963 via violent deceptive operations on U.S. soil. We have learned the surprising extent of the CIA’s pre-assassination surveillance of accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. We have learned about Agency propaganda operations involving Oswald before and after Kennedy was killed. We have learned about possible tampering with the photographic record of Kennedy’s autopsy, and we have learned about the CIA’s obstruction of Congress’s JFK investigation in the late 1970s.
JFK Revisited: Oliver Stone and the New JFK Fact Pattern
BY JEFFERSON MORLEY
Excerpt:
https://www.counterpunch.org/2021/12/31/jfk-revisited-oliver-stone-and-the-new-jfk-fact-pattern/
But what remains constant is the WC critics' luddite armchair-expert wherewithal to distort and misrepresent evidence and facts,
For example, the agitprop mockumentary "JFK Revisited" touches on the old chestnut that Gerald Ford edited a sentence in a draft of the Report to "move up" the back wound.
Did Gerald Ford “Move” Kennedy’s Back Wound To Make It Consistent with the Single Bullet Theory? ( Link (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/ford.htm) )
There's usually more than one interpretation of factual information and history. What you call "misrepresentation", I call "a different interpretation" of the facts. It happens all the time with historic events.
Historical consensus and historical narratives can and do change over time.
People who are convinced of a specific narrative tend to fall victim to Confirmation Bias, which affects how they interpret facts (new or old information).
And that logic applies to both the CT and LN sides of the JFK assassination debates.
There's no denying that we know far more today about the JFK assassination and the investigations that followed than what was known 40 to 50 years ago. So it seems unreasonable to suggest that people can't or shouldn't reach new or different conclusions about factual or historic information in the case.
I'll even go a step further and say that with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, we know more than the members of the Warren Commission knew at the time when their work was done.
I'm not sure what your angle is here. President Ford admitted to doing it. We can disagree on his motive or intent but there's no denying that he did it...
NY Times: Ford Made Key Change In Kennedy Death Report -
Mr. Ford's change strengthened the commission's conclusion that a single bullet passed through Kennedy and wounded Gov. John B. Connally, -- a crucial element in the commission's finding that Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole gunman.
Mr. Ford, who was a member of the commission, wanted a change to show that the bullet entered Kennedy ''at the back of his neck'' rather than in his uppermost back, as the commission originally wrote.
Mr. Ford said today that the change was intended to clarify meaning, not alter history.
''My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory,'' he said in a telephone interview.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/03/us/ford-made-key-change-in-kennedy-death-report.html
The quantity of information has certainly increased (theories, web sites, biased mockumentaries) but it's been at the expense of quality.
Would be no problem if "JFK Revisited" commended Gerald Ford for clarifying and making more accurate a passage in a draft of the Report.
Again, his replies to the two questions that I quoted preclude him from having taken photos of the autopsy. Thus, he said he didn't.
"JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Autopsy Photographs of JFK, Part Two
Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited, tries to make the point that a whole set of autopsy photographs are missing. But the whole truth about Saundra Spencer's testimony is left out...
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-the-autopsy-photographs-of-jfk-part-two (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-the-autopsy-photographs-of-jfk-part-two)
For students of the assassination, JFK Revisited doesn’t present fresh theories or new evidence. There is no attempt to identify additional shooters or name their locations, or to finger suspects in high places. The facts are the same as they’ve been for 58 years.
For that long, they have been hiding in plain sight: The Warren Commission’s conclusions, that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and there was no evidence of a conspiracy, are flat-out lies. The documentary is a reminder, reemphasizing how wide-ranging the cover-up was (and continues to be). Stone also offers an excellent primer for a new generation unfamiliar with what happened and why it still matters.
Scripted by Jim DiEugenio, author of several books on the assassination and co-founder of Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination, JFK Revisited sometimes moves too quickly for the novice viewer to fully grasp a particular sequence. But it leaves little doubt that three key points in the “official” narrative are fabricated: the number of bullets fired at the presidential motorcade, the military autopsy, and Oswald’s involvement.
Jerry Ford was the mole from the Warren Commission who kept J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ up to date on what the commission was discussing ! With Ford moving the back shot up to the base of the back of the neck which made the Magic bullet one of the most absurd ideas ever! Did Ford just do this on his own without talking it over with the rest of the Commission ? Dulles would have agreed with this moving shot no matter what since JFK fired him from the C.I.A. ......
Perry Russo Describes his Session on Sodium Pentothal
In January 1971, Perry Russo was interviewed by Clay Shaw's attorneys. He described his interview with Garrison's investigators after being injected with sodium pentothal. It doesn't sound like a fun experience.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/perry-russo-describes-his-session-on-sodium-pentothal (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/perry-russo-describes-his-session-on-sodium-pentothal)
Was Kerry Thornley a Spook?
A leading conspiracy theorist wrote that Kerry Thornley must have had intelligence connections because he met a Garrison investigator at NASA. But did this really happen?
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-kerry-thornley-a-spook (ftp://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/was-kerry-thornley-a-spook)
Two Important Posts Debunk "JFK Revisited"
Tracy Parnell debunks some of the articles found on whowhatwhy, and Andrew Jackson debunks JFK Revisited on Quora. Both posts are definitely worth your time today.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/two-important-posts-debunk-jfk-revisited (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/two-important-posts-debunk-jfk-revisited)
Pity that you guys have to spam this forum in order to get clicks for your blogs ::)I seem to notice that you like to link to and quote from others' blogs. What is the difference, other than Litwin and Parnell are doing their own research?
I seem to notice that you like to link to and quote from others' blogs. What is the difference, other than Litwin and Parnell are doing their own research?
I'm not spamming the forum by attempting to promote myself.
I couldn't care less if you guys read what I've written here or anywhere else.
Are there any CTs here who actually do original research? I know Chris Scally recently posted, but he's an exception.
I'm not spamming the forum by attempting to promote myself.If you link to a page containing research or thoughtful commentary, why does it matter if you wrote it or someone else did?
I couldn't care less if you guys read what I've written here or anywhere else.If you really believed that, you wouldn't be posting here. And you wouldn't be replying to me.
If you link to a page containing research or thoughtful commentary, why does it matter if you wrote it or someone else did?
If you really believed that, you wouldn't be posting here. And you wouldn't be replying to me.
There’s a huge difference between posting links for the purpose of discussion versus posting links to get clicks for your own blog or to promote your own books…
I'm pretty sure Fred is not into JFK research for book sales. And I doubt if traffic on his blog has led to more than a handful of book sales.
Contrast with the CT promotion of "JFK Revisited" as if it's a must-see factual documentary, rather than Riefenstahlesque brainwashing.
The world according to Jerry:
All LN's have honest intentions.
All CT'ers are evil.
::)
"All"?
I thought you saw the world in shades of gray, not absolutes.
I'm not talking about myself Jerry.
But in my opinion there are honest and dishonest people on both sides of the debates...
Sure. All LNers also think both sides have some issues. Fred Litwin does a credible job exposing the dishonesty of "JFK Revisited".
What on earth is dishonest on my post on Clay Shaw and JFK Revisited?
The so-called documentary makes a big deal out of Lee Harvey Oswald not having a trial, and then they
bring up Clay Shaw and say he was tried for conspiracy to kill JFK, without mentioning he WAS tried
and found not guilty.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-with-jfk-revisited-crucifies-clay-shaw-once-again (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-with-jfk-revisited-crucifies-clay-shaw-once-again)
fred
I'm pretty sure Fred is not into JFK research for book sales. And I doubt if traffic on his blog has led to more than a handful of book sales.
Contrast with the CT promotion of "JFK Revisited" as if it's a must-see factual documentary, rather than Riefenstahlesque brainwashing.
Mentally unsound and he engaged in criminal conduct and knowingly used perjured testimony . Any known facts to back up these statements ?
Don't forget about your Jan 20 Who How What Why When & Where post :-\
Forum nanny. 8)
Having it both ways:
- Fred only wrote his book for money.
- No one will buy your book.
My blog posts are pretty substantive. They usually don't even mention my own book. I have published
hundreds and hundreds of primary Garrison documents are not not available elsewhere.
fred
"JFK Revisited" Misleads on Dr. Burkley's Suspicions of a Conspiracy
Here is the fifth episode of my series on Dr. Burkley. The truth is finally revealed about Dr. Burkley and his belief in conspiracy.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-dr-burkley-s-suspicions-of-a-conspiracy (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-dr-burkley-s-suspicions-of-a-conspiracy)
Kudos to you and to Paul Hoch-excellent series.absolutely+
Why not let it got?
Because Stone made a ridiculous documentary, JFK Revisited, in which he once again victimizes Clay Shaw.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-with-jfk-revisited-crucifies-clay-shaw-once-again (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/oliver-stone-with-jfk-revisited-crucifies-clay-shaw-once-again)
fred
It's not the length of time.
It's also the hypocrisy. The film makes a big deal out of the fact that Oswald did not have trial. It then mentions that Shaw was indicted for conspiracy to kill JFK. It does not even mention that he was tried and found not guilty. That is the height of hypocrisy.
There is no need to bring Clay Shaw into the JFK assassination. He had nothing to do with it.
fred
"Coup in Dallas" - The Story of a Factoid
This nonsense conspiracy book repeats a factoid about Ferenc Nagy, who served as President of Permindex for a short period. The factoid - that Nagy lived in Dallas at the time of the assassination - derives from the Paese Sera (a communist-controlled newspaper in Rome) series on Clay Shaw after his arrest in March 1967. Here is the evolution of the factoid.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/coup-in-dallas-the-story-of-a-factoid (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/coup-in-dallas-the-story-of-a-factoid)
"Coup in Dallas" - The Story of a Factoid
This nonsense conspiracy book repeats a factoid about Ferenc Nagy, who served as President of Permindex for a short period. The factoid - that Nagy lived in Dallas at the time of the assassination - derives from the Paese Sera (a communist-controlled newspaper in Rome) series on Clay Shaw after his arrest in March 1967. Here is the evolution of the factoid.
Those JFK-CTs who like Trump and his docility towards Putin should be happy to learn that their "JFK" movie make-believe and its apparatchik "JFK Revisited" originated as propaganda from the Soviet Union.
This Is Where Oliver Stone Got His Loony JFK Conspiracies From
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The origin story for the CIA-killed-Kennedy myth is twistier than a magic bullet
— by Tim Weiner, Rolling Stone, Nov. 22, 2021 ( Link (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jfk-oliver-stone-conspiracy-theory-russian-disinformation-1260223/) )
"The tale can be traced to a Russian disinformation operation...
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
On March 1, 1967, the New Orleans district attorney, Jim Garrison, arrested
Clay Shaw, the director of the city’s International Trade Mart and a somewhat-
closeted gay man, and charged him with a central role in a conspiracy to
assassinate Kennedy. The D.A. told reporters that what happened in Dallas
had been “a homosexual thrill-killing.” Three days later, Paese Sera named
Shaw as a conduit for CIA funds for espionage and dirty tricks in Rome.
The story, crafted by the KGB, ricocheted around the world, landing in New York
on the front page of a New Left weekly, the National Guardian, on March 18.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
Garrison seized upon it. He fed the falsehood to a friendly newspaper reporter in
New Orleans and it landed on page one. told the world that Shaw was a
longtime CIA operative. (He wasn’t, though he had been a casual part-time
contact on questions of commerce, one among some 150,000 Americans who
volunteered information to the cold-war CIA.) The prosecutor then doubled down.
He proclaimed that the CIA had plotted to kill Kennedy and then covered up the
conspiracy, that Oswald had been under its control, that the agency was “infinitely
more powerful than the Gestapo,” and that it had masterminded a coup d’etat in
America in the name of anticommunism...
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
We have a moral obligation to call bullspombleprofglidnoctobuns when we see it. Especially when public
figures promote lies for profit. Stone’s JFK films are fantasies. Conspiracy theories
are not facts. They’re a kind of collective psychosis. And they’re driving our country
down the road to hell."
Garrison initially arrested innocent Clay Shaw because the victim allegedly participated in "a homosexual thrill-killing". Probably playing to the homophobia of the times. The CIA and "coup d-etat" angles came a little later.
Tim Weiner is the same guy who, in spite of the overwhelming evidence, denies that the CIA played a role in international drug trafficking.
https://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/19/us/cia-says-it-has-found-no-link-between-itself-and-crack-trade.html
Also, his claim about Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone falling for Russian propaganda has been easily debunked.
DiEugenio's response to Weiner's hit piece:
"This phony prelude leads to Weiner’s main theme. It’s not an easy job to soften and make acceptable the life and career of CIA Director Allen Dulles. One would think that, after all we know about Dulles today, no one would try, but Weiner has to, in order to sketch in his other false alternative. Namely that Stone says that Dulles was the “presiding genius of the plot against the president.” (The film doesn’t really say that, but accuracy is not what Weiner is after.)
So now Tim pulls out his make-up kit for Dulles. He writes that the CIA Director did not back the plots to overthrow Charles de Gaulle of France, which is a startling statement. For many interested observers, one of the best books on the career of Allen Dulles is The Devil’s Chessboard. Author David Talbot uses a variety of sources to show that Weiner is wrong. For example, the newspaper Paris-Jour centered on Dulles as the main culprit in the attempted overthrow of April 1961. Later, bestselling French author Vincent Jauvert traced the sources of these stories in the French press to de Gaulle’s own foreign ministry. (Talbot, p. 414) In fact, De Gaulle had come to this conclusion himself. (London Observer, May 2, 1961) Author Andrew Tully also noted columns in Le Monde and l’Express which he wrote were owed to high French officials. (CIA: The Inside Story, pp. 48–49)
In the USA, The Nation reported that high level French government employees thought the CIA had encouraged the attempted overthrow. And using l’Express, they wrote that one of the dissident French generals had several meetings with CIA agents who advised him that getting rid of de Gaulle would do the free world a great service. (The Nation, May 20, 1961) These stories also appeared in American mainstream newspapers like The Washington Post. (April 30, 1961) Most fatally for Weiner, his former employer The New York Times also printed the story. Scotty Reston wrote that the CIA was indeed “involved in an embarrassing liaison with the anti-Gaullist officers.” (New York Times, April 29, 1961) But further, Talbot goes into the reasons behind the conflict between Dulles and de Gaulle. It was the desire of the French leader to get rid of NATO’s Operation Gladio elements in France and also his intent to set free the French colony of Algeria in North Africa. (Talbot, pp. 416–17) One would think that all this would be enough to satisfy most objective observers.
In a neat bit of cherry picking, Weiner never mentions any of these sources. He borrows a trick from Max Holland and says that the idea that the CIA backed the attempts by dissident French officers to overthrow de Gaulle was all part of a Russian disinformation campaign that began in Italy. To most informed observers the idea that Scotty Reston would rely on the Italian newspaper Paese Sera is ridiculous on its face...
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/why-tim-weiner-never-called-me
I see where Paese Sera is briefly mentioned at the end, but where does DiEugenio debunk Weiner's article?
You only have to go to Wikipedia to see that Tarbot is as big a conspiracy fruitcake as DiEugenio and most of his apologists at JFK Ed-Forum.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
"Talbot's book The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of
America's Secret Government is a biography examining the career of Allen Dulles.
According to Talbot, Dulles orchestrated the assassination of Kennedy at the
behest of corporate leaders who perceived the President to be a threat to national
security, lobbied Lyndon B. Johnson to have himself appointed to the Warren
Commission, then arranged to have Lee Harvey Oswald take sole responsibility
for the act. The book charges that the conspirators in JFK's death also murdered
Bobby Kennedy as they perceived him to be "a wild card, an uncontrollable threat"
that would reveal the plot.
(http://drive.google.com/uc?export=view&id=1j4PIpNCtZbphz0kmWxmCckNi3vDlG5He)
The book has stirred debate about the history of the CIA. In a review for the
San Francisco Chronicle, Glenn C. Altschuler stated, "Talbot’s indictment is long,
varied and sensational." Altschuler wrote: "Animated by conspiracy theories, the
speculations and accusations in his book often run far ahead of the evidence, even
for those of us inclined to believe the worst about Allen Dulles."
David Talbot spouted his lies and misinformation on-screen in "JFK Revisited". Fred Litwin sorts out his Talbot's false claims.
- "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Supposed CIA Support of the 1961 Coup Attempt in France ( Link (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-on-supposed-cia-support-of-the-1961-coup-attempt-in-france) )
- "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth... ( Link (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-misleads-by-putting-words-in-kennedy-s-mouth) )
- "JFK Revisited" Misleads by Putting Words in Kennedy's Mouth, Part Two ( Link (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/jfk-revisited-puts-words-in-kennedy-s-mouth-part-two) )
Talbot's book is really horrible.
More debunking of Talbot to come.
fred
Gerald Posner and I have offered to debate James DiEugenio and Oliver Stone on Joe Rogan.
Still waiting for a response.
fred
I'd buy that for a dollar.
Stone's three-decade long slander of Clay Shaw, has made some people go batty.Again---Who cares if Shaw=Bertrand or not?
Again---Who cares if Shaw=Bertrand or not?
Does not prove Oswald killed Kennedy either way.
These non-consequential petty sideline spats drives a lot of people batty.
Alright. Might as well assign "who cares" to all of the conspiracy claims in "JFK Revisited". They're all equally-ridiculous and lead nowhere.Go ahead...take your time...who cares?
Gerald Posner and I have offered to debate James DiEugenio and Oliver Stone on Joe Rogan.
Still waiting for a response.
fred
Hugh Aynesworth on the Garrison InvestigationGarrison's general view on the assassination - that the national security state of the US that emerged after WWII due to the actions by Josef Stalin and the Soviet Union killed JFK because he threatened their power and status - still holds sway among a group of people including Oliver Stone. Who, in case it's not known, made a famous, widely shown movie promoting Garrison's claims about the murder of JFK.
Part one of a five party series of the farce in New Orleans. This series appeared in the Pittsburgh Press in February 1969.
https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/hugh-aynesworth-on-the-garrison-investigation (https://www.onthetrailofdelusion.com/post/hugh-aynesworth-on-the-garrison-investigation)
Garrison's general view on the assassination - that the national security state of the US that emerged after WWII due to the actions by Josef Stalin and the Soviet Union - killed JFK because he threatened their power and status - still holds sway among a group of people including Oliver Stone. Who, in case it's not known, made a famous, widely shown movie promoting Garrison's claims about the murder of JFK.
If none of this happened, if Stone et al. weren't still to this day promoting Garrison's nonsense, you likely wouldn't be writing about it. And we wouldn't be talking about it much if at all.
The problem is not with you; the problem is some people still believe and promote these falsehoods. And I find it both interesting and revealing that the people who are angry with you aren't angry with Garrison and Stone. They are the ones discrediting the conspiracy view not you.
If you're a conspiracy believer or think the lone assassin explanation is wrong (the two aren't the same) you should be furious with what Stone and DiEugenio are doing. The make your side look quite foolish.
Garrison's general view on the assassination - that the national security state of the US that emerged after WWII due to the actions by Josef Stalin and the Soviet Union killed JFK because he threatened their power and status - still holds sway among a group of people including Oliver Stone. Who, in case it's not known, made a famous, widely shown movie promoting Garrison's claims about the murder of JFK.
If none of this happened, if Stone et al. weren't still to this day promoting Garrison's nonsense, you likely wouldn't be writing about it. And we wouldn't be talking about it much if at all.
I was searching through a load of stuff on the three tramps, trying to find some stuff A.J. Weberman wrote. And I came across an article Chauncey Holt allegedly wrote in reply to a review of Posner's Case Closed. I don't know if it was ever published by the San Diego Union Tribune. Holt appeared to have researched the assassination minutia (going by his article).
I don't really want to paste a whole load of JPG's of the document so I'll drop it in PDF form and anyone interested can read.
I forgot I've had this document. Was kinda interesting Chauncey Holt claims he and Marvin Wise were in talks to meet up and discuss facts. Or something along those lines.
https://smallpdf.com/result#r=b8be6ab63e33ad8feefc0a8e067a4cad&t=share-document (https://smallpdf.com/result#r=b8be6ab63e33ad8feefc0a8e067a4cad&t=share-document)
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28739-critics-still-attacking-oliver-stones-jfk-film-with-same-old-factual-deviancies-crap/?do=findComment&comment=488755
I guess we shouldn't delve into the Weberman theory of two set's of tramps. The shadows in the pictures. The train stop after Bowers released it because he saw men climbing on down the track towards Union Station around two o'clock. The men in the grain car. Documented, then it disappeared.
but Gerald Ford moved that bullet hole up to the base of the back of JFK's neck so.......