Fiction
My review of the book is now up:From your book review.:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2018/10/book-review-i-was-teenage-jfk.html
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2018/10/book-review-i-was-teenage-jfk.html
... Litwin notes that ?? you weren?t a proper leftist if you didn?t understand the ?right-wing? plot to take over America and the huge coverup.? To illustrate the critic?s mindset, Litwin quotes Marcus who thought that If people became aware of the ?fraud? of the Warren Report, ?they?ll start to demand other answers. Maybe they?ll ask about the Rosenbergs, Hiss, the whole Cold War. Maybe we can get clean and whole. But if this stays down, there?s no hope.? However, while Litwin is critical of conspiracy theorists on the left, he notes that President Trump promoted the discredited story that Ted Cruz?s father was one of the men who handed out pro-Castro leaflets in front of the Trade Mart in New Orleans at the behest of Lee Harvey Oswald.....
http://www.startribune.com/new-exhibit-reveals-u-s-dark-history-of-segregation-and-anti-semitism/443978873/
New exhibit reveals U's dark history of segregation and anti-Semitism
Famous names on campus were behind discriminatory practices in the 1930s and 1940s.
By Sharyn Jackson Star Tribune SEPTEMBER 12, 2017 ?
...A report marked ?Confidential? lists ?radical leaders? at the U from 1934 to 1937.
On the list: Robert Loevinger, who became a pioneer in radiation treatment of cancer, is called a ?campus agitator. Marxist. Jew.? Minnesota Daily writer Eric Sevareid, who became a famous war correspondent, is described as: ?Radical. Pro-Communist. Anti-Fascist.? Minnesota Daily editorial director Joe Toner: ?Jew. Radical agitator.?...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism
...According to most scholars of fascism, there are both left and right influences on fascism as a social movement, and fascism, especially once in power, has historically attacked both left, moderate right wing and the opposition in the radical right in order to maintain power....
The point I am making is the election of JFK seemed an initial step in moving as a country from the embrace of fascism if the defeated confederacy and the ongoing legally codified racial segregation succeeding the militarily defeated C.S.A. were indications of the grip of extreme right political control.
Tom,
The point I was making is that Litwin criticizes conspiracy theorists on the left but not exclusively. Trump is certainly not on the left, although you are correct that as a populist some do not consider him on the right either. As for the political aspects of the book, I'll let Fred speak for himself if he so choses.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2014/0120/Martin-Luther-King-Jr.-and-John-F.-Kennedy-civil-rights-wary-allies
January 20, 2014 By Peter Grier Staff Writer
Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy: civil rights' wary allies
An old tape recording of Martin Luther King Jr., played in public Monday for the first time, is a reminder that MLK and JFK shared an era and a cause, but were not close allies on civil rights.....
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/10/hillary-clinton-responds-kavanaughs-claim-about-revenge/571963/
...."This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons, and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups,? Kavanaugh told lawmakers last week. ?This is a circus.?
I see implied in Mr. Litwin's commentary that the leftist /reaction / opposition to the WC Report positioned them
as useful idiots in the Soviet mission to discredit the U.S. and its government institutions, the American way of life.
If Mr. Litwin assumes JFK was ousted he must also assume JFK was in control of the left vs right dynamic.
"The single bullet theory is not a joke. Despite its"well-known flaws," "may be"
well-known flaws, the Warren Commission/House
Committee reconstruction may be in better shape
than any other single detailed reconstruction.
At least, it has to be taken seriously."
Paul Hoch's 1993 sea change
It was reading Paul Hoch's newsletters and reading the HSCA evidence. More about this in my book.
My review of the book is now up:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2018/10/book-review-i-was-teenage-jfk.html
"Conspiracy buffs." LOL. Where is the evidence that convinced him? Can you cite it for him?
From my review:
Two powerful influences for Litwin during this period were the HSCA volumes, which largely agreed with the WC findings, and the writings of noted researcher Paul Hoch. HSCA findings that impressed Litwin included the authentication of the autopsy photos and x-rays, the forensic pathology panel, the photographic panel, the study of ?earwitnesses?, the handwriting and fingerprint analysis, the Mannlicher-Carcano firing tests and the firearms panel. Hoch, who Litwin describes as ?not your run-of-the-mill conspiracy freak,? wrote in his newsletter ?My model is that there were many coverups, probably many independent ones ? One possibility-ironically- is that Oswald did it alone but so many people had things to cover up [unrelated to any assassination plot] that the reaction of the government made it look like the assassination resulted from a conspiracy.?
So you can't cite specific evidence for your about face?
If you are really curious, then read my book.
Of course I can. That is why I wrote a book! I don't think I want to post 272 pages
on this forum.
No one is asking you to. The evidence has exhibit numbers. Simply cite a number or two.
I am not going to simply cite a number of two. I wrote a whole book about
why I moved from believing in conspiracy to knowing that Lee Harvey Oswald
was the lone gunman. Look, don't read my book. It's not for you. That is obvious.
Is that the article which contains a big chunk of author's speculation? Surprised it didn't mention Larry Crafard either.
But you have no problem supporting the speculation of the WC, right?
Well, now we can all go home. John Armstrong, the guy who thinks there were two Oswalds and two Marguerites running around has cracked the case! :D
No.
Why the double standard?
The issue of two Oswalds goes way back before John Armstrong. How do you explain all the discrepancies in LHO's height and eye color?
Of course I can. That is why I wrote a book! I don't think I want to post 272 pages
on this forum.
So you're just marketing here then.
I don't think I want to shell out 17 bucks and wade through 272 pages of "the WC and HSCA concluded....". We can read thousands of pages of that right here.
What double standard?
Edit: I meant no, you aren't right, not no I have no problem supporting speculation by the WC. So no double standards.
I don't explain every discrepancy. Professional investigators (police, FBI) know that in any case there will be anomalies. In a case with millions of pieces of information like the JFK case, there are probably thousands of things that are "outliers." Completely normal.
Well, the Kindle version is only $9.99. :) But there is more to it than quotes from the WC and HSCA. It is a great story and an intellectual journey.
So you are saying that you do NOT support the WC's conclusion?
The problem is that the conclusion that LHO committed the crime relies upon unsupported speculation.I believe it was DPD Chief JesseCurry that said, paraphrasing, "We cannot place LeeHarveyOswald in that window with that rifle at that time"! And,some half century later, we still have basically two theories about the Murder of JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr. The LeeHarveyOswald LoneGunmanAssassin Theory, and the JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr AssassinationConspiracy Theory.
I believe it was DPD Chief JesseCurry that said, paraphrasing, "We cannot place LeeHarveyOswald in that window with that rifle at that time"! And,some half century later, we still have basically two theories about the Murder of JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr. The LeeHarveyOswald LoneGunmanAssassin Theory, and the JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr AssassinationConspiracy Theory.
The WarrenCommission conclusion points toward the LHO/LGA Theory. However, the HouseAssassinationsCommittee conclusion points toward at least the possibility of the JFKSr/AC Theory.
For me, the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter involving DPD Officer ML Baker and TSBD Bldg Superintendent RS Truly with LHO at about 12:31pm CST, indicates a timing problem for the LHO/LGA Theory.
I have to conclude that many, many questions could have been answered long ago, had LeeHarveyOswald been alive to stand trial, instead of being murdered on 11/24/'63, while in DallasPolice custody and being about to be transferred to the DallasCounty Jail.
I have explained my position before. Although the WC was flawed and made mistakes I, on balance, accept the conclusion that LHO was a lone gunman and that there was no conspiracy before the act. There was, I believe, an attempt to cover up mistakes and hide certain things by the FBI & CIA and others. The question was did I support the speculation of the WC, and I said no because where there is unsupported speculation I do not take it as fact. Saying this is different from saying that the conclusion of the WC is generally correct in my view.
I have explained my position before. Although the WC was flawed and made mistakes I, on balance, accept the conclusion that LHO was a lone gunman and that there was no conspiracy before the act. There was, I believe, an attempt to cover up mistakes and hide certain things by the FBI & CIA and others. The question was did I support the speculation of the WC, and I said no because where there is unsupported speculation I do not take it as fact. Saying this is different from saying that the conclusion of the WC is generally correct in my view.
https://quillette.com/2018/09/27/the-soviets-and-the-jfk-conspiracy-theorists/
Published on September 27, 2018 comments 25
The Soviets and the JFK Conspiracy Theorists
written by Fred Litwin
.....Jim Phelan wrote in the Saturday Evening Post that, after the Paese Sera article, Garrison?s switchboard ?blazed like a pinball machine gone mad.? He now had a direct link from Clay Shaw to the CIA.
Tom Scully comment:QuoteIN 1952, CLAY SHAW HIRED AS TRADE MART PR DIRECTOR, RECENTLY SEPARATED CIA COVERT AGENT,
DAVID G. BALDWIN. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54933&relPageId=2
Link to less legible copy with more background on preceding pages.:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=30153&relPageId=4&search=baxter_and%20calcutta
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6e7iexAG0lM/Vrds4GJIGUI/AAAAAAAACvM/3WomDDWJrMw/s512-Ic42/BaldwinLemannStepsisterCarpenter.jpg)
In addition, the plethora of left-wing conspiracy enthusiasts who had flocked to New Orleans convinced Garrison to move away from his initial theory that the assassination had been motivated by homosexual thrill-seeking and to begin theorizing about an ever-widening plot. Over time, Garrison?s conspiracy would grow to include ?Minutemen, CIA agents, oil millionaires, Dallas policemen, munitions exporters, ?the Dallas Establishment,? reactionaries, White Russians, and certain elements of the invisible Nazi substructure.? But at the heart of Garrison?s thinking was some sort of massive CIA-planned assassination plot, although even that was somewhat malleable.
Clay Shaw was eventually found not guilty and the Garrison prosecution was exposed as a massive fraud. That didn?t stop Oliver Stone from making Jim Garrison the hero of his film JFK and Clay Shaw the evil villain. Stone, of course, makes use of the Paese Sera story, and does so with a subtle sleight of hand, characteristic of his slippery handling of facts. ...
http://jfkfacts.org/thomas-jeffersons-affair-with-sally-hemings-tell-us-about-jfk/#comment-857445(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-knckgt3ASNI/Vrd2i7xQ1aI/AAAAAAAACvo/5jaPhYc302k/s512-Ic42/BaldwinFirstCousinCarpenter.jpg)
Tom S. February 11, 2016 at 4:40 pm
......
I was not aware until last night that Joan Mellen met Garrison just after the Shaw trial, in 1969.
I do not know what you?re inclination is, but mine is to attempt to make sense of the entirety of the details.
Would your question of me, if it is a valid premise, all one team giving the appearance of opposing factions,
account for the following (and for Stone?s film)? If not, what else might?:
https://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.
??.
Rex: Joan?.. One, there?s a story in the Grand Jury testimony told by three different parties involving Sheridan when he came out to do his NBC White Paper, having a meeting set up with an organized crime figure named Zachary Strate that was apparently set up by either Malcolm O?Hara, a judge who was a political enemy of Garrison?s, and a lawyer named Edward Baldwin. I wonder if you might tell that story about what that meeting was all about??
??
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. Malcolm O?Hara is sitting there ? he doesn?t know what hit him ? and eventually Strate did not cooperate, and he went up there, and he attacked Sheridan ? of course, Sheridan had immunity ? nothing anyone could say about Sheridan whether in court, affidavits signed against Sheridan, Sheridan had immunity as a National Security Agency asset, cleared for FBI work, cleared for CIA work, working for the Department of Justice -??
http://jfkfacts.org/thomas-jeffersons-affair-with-sally-hemings-tell-us-about-jfk/#comment-857496
Tom S. February 11, 2016 at 10:51 pm
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-zLIoQLayKsA/VrZ3SCcgfuI/AAAAAAAACts/zP4r1-Uw53o/s512-Ic42/LemannWDSUFCC022067.jpg)
.....Garrison is describing Stephen B Lemann:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html??d=176&tab=page
2of2 Garrison 06/67 letter to FCC comm. Rosel H. Hyde
(Top of right side column)
?It should be added that the last described endeavor has been accomplished not by members of the station (WDSU) itself, but by an attorney closely connected with the station who has previously been known to disperse funds in the New Orleans area in behalf of the Central Intelligence Agency?.
December 21, 1991, JFK, the movie, is released in theaters.:
January, 1992 issue of GQ Magazine:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6761&search=lemann#relPageId=152&tab=page
The Case Against Jim Garrison
The ex-D.A.?s theory on who murdered JFK
reassessed and shot full of holes
By Nicholas Lemann
The Rise and Fall of Big Jim G. | News | The Harvard CrimsonCan we dismiss as coincidence that Oliver Stone/Garrison critic Nicholas B Lemann had criticized Garrison
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1974/2/6/the-rise-and-fall-of-big/
Feb 6, 1974 - The Rise and Fall of Big Jim G. Politics. By Nicholas Lemann, February 6, 1974 ... Garrison became the district attorney in New Orleans in 1962, ...
Russo v. Conde Nast Publications, 806 F. Supp. 603 (E.D. La. 1992 ...
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/806/603/1747985/
v. CONDE NAST PUBLICATIONS d/b/a Gentlemen's Quarterly. .... Lemann testified in deposition that his sole reference to Perry Russo was a reference to "his ...
SHOTS IN THE DARK | The New Yorker
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1992/11/30/shots-in-the-dark
Nov 30, 1992 - Garrison's only witness to the "conspiracy" was an insurance man named Perry Raymond Russo, whose testimony was given under the ..
Nicholas Lemann ? Charlie Rose
https://charlierose.com/guests/1395
Lists all of Nicholas Lemann's appearances on the Charlie Rose program on ... Nicholas Lemann, David Denby, and Zachary Sklar debate historical fact versus ...
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2009/11/01/windmills-revisited/.....certainly not to Stone's co-screenplay writer, the editor of Garrison's biography, Zachary Sklar.
Windmills, Revisited
by Nicholas Lemann November 1, 2009
I reported for duty at the Washington Monthly on July 1, 1976......
.... The Monthly, methodologically, was
always reportorial, and it was never conservativebut, when I joined the magazine, the other editorial employee besides me and Charlie was Tom Bethell, an actual conservative, and it seemed as if the magazine devoted its main energies to attacking conventional liberal positions. ....
Thanks for the explanation. The problem with your answer however is that the WC's conclusion is based on speculation as they provided NO supporting evidence for their claims in the twenty-six volumes.
You do have a double standard as you accept speculation by the WC, but you won't accept it from a conspiracy author/researcher. Why is that?
Are there indications of conspiracy after "the act"?
In addition, the plethora of left-wing conspiracy enthusiasts who had flocked to New Orleans convinced Garrison to move away from his initial theory that the assassination had been motivated by homosexual thrill-seeking and to begin theorizing about an ever-widening plot. Over time, Garrison?s conspiracy would grow to include ?Minutemen, CIA agents, oil millionaires, Dallas policemen, munitions exporters, ?the Dallas Establishment,? reactionaries, White Russians, and certain elements of the invisible Nazi substructure.? But at the heart of Garrison?s thinking was some sort of massive CIA-planned assassination plot, although even that was somewhat malleable.
Clay Shaw was eventually found not guilty and the Garrison prosecution was exposed as a massive fraud. That didn?t stop Oliver Stone from making Jim Garrison the hero of his film JFK and Clay Shaw the evil villain. Stone, of course, makes use of the Paese Sera story, and does so with a subtle sleight of hand, characteristic of his slippery handling of facts. ...
Author Joan Mellon described interviewing 1200 people in the course of compiling her book on Garrison and his investigation.:(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-knckgt3ASNI/Vrd2i7xQ1aI/AAAAAAAACvo/5jaPhYc302k/s512-Ic42/BaldwinFirstCousinCarpenter.jpg)
The back story in its simplest form is that David Baldwin?s wife, Mildred Lyons emerges as the stepdaughter of Monte Lemann, the stepsister of Stephen B. Lemann and his brother
Thomas, (who is the father of Nicholas B. Lemann), the sister-in-law of Edward M. Baldwin,
and the daughter-in-law of Adele Ziegler Baldwin Raworth, who was the sister of Harold J. Ziegler, father-in-law of Jim Garrison. David Gilmore Baldwin, III and his brother, attorney Edward M. Baldwin, were first cousins of Jim Garrison?s wife, Leah Elizabeth Ziegler Garrison.
Can we dismiss as coincidence that Oliver Stone/Garrison critic Nicholas B Lemann had criticized Garrison
in print since the early 1970s but never disclosed that his uncle Stephen B Lemann sponsored a new career
for Father Machann, formerly of Dallas, or that David G Baldwin was the spouse of Nicholas's aunt Mildred and
son-in-law of Nicholas's grandmother, Mildred Lyons Lemann?
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-iqSsbVnCyuY/VunrPn_XVHI/AAAAAAAADS4/uUGdOF8zSPog_XJPZ5JJJ0HRhos7kRaAACCo/s512-Ic42/FatherMachannLemann072265.jpg)
Bottom line.... I know more, or at least other than details about Garrison, Shaw and alleged interference in Garrison's
JFK Assassination investigation and the prosecution of Clay Shaw than the assumptions leading to author Fred Litwin's
analysis and strong opinion about Garrison and his motives. I am certain from the details unearthed in the course of
my research of only that authors Mellon, DiEugenio, and Litwin are not authorities on Garrison or Clay Shaw.
The blame for the contradictions and fog rests squarely on the shoulders of Jim Garrison and Dean Emeritus of
the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism, Nicholas B Lemann. Full disclosure has not been the practice of either
of these men.........certainly not to Stone's co-screenplay writer, the editor of Garrison's biography, Zachary Sklar.
Lots of text there but couldn't actually work out the point you were making. Could you put it simply for me please?
From the evidence I have seen LHO being a lone assassin makes the most sense to me. This happens to coincide with the conclusion of the WC. I find the arguments put forward by conspiracy authors/researchers to be unconvincing overall. This may reflect bias in my thinking but I continue to look into the case and look at the arguments, hence my visiting this forum. I do feel there are areas of doubt, but think this is true in most cases, hence the idea of beyond reasonable doubt. I don't think, for me, the conspiracy idea is helped by some of the outlandish ideas put forward by some CTers which tarnish the whole CT camp.
continue to have an interest, to look at the evidence but as present am not convinced. I'm not hear to try to convince anyone else but mostly to learn and try to understand what people think and why. I post only occasionally where I feel a mistake is being made or where I have a genuine question.
couldn't actually work out the point you were making.
A common problem, I'm afraid.
I normally put it down to Tom being way ahead of me. ::)
http://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-851707
Tom S. January 21, 2016 at 5:42 am
........
Now, Dr. McAdams can interject William Sheridan?s long relationship with RFK and Sen. Ted, and dump heaps of scorn on
authors Mellen and DiEugenio, as well as on the contents of their books, ask repeatedly what could anyone possible see as controversial about Nicholas Lemann or his status as Dean Emeritus of such a prestigious graduate school of journalism,
but how is any of that responsive to the facts?
.........
Lots of text there but couldn't actually work out the point you were making. Could you put it simply for me please?
https://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.
......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.....
JFK: The Book of the Film : the Documented Screenplay - Page 348Nicholas B Lemann attacked Garrison in print from 1974 to 1992 through the Harvard Crimson,
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1557831270 (https://books.google.com/books?id=GyskeQlVFfkC&pg=PA348&dq=sklar+lemann&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjsrbqv3f3dAhUjh-AKHaJJDCwQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=sklar%20lemann&f=false)
Oliver Stone, Zachary Sklar - 1992 - Preview - More editions
The Book of the Film : the Documented Screenplay Oliver Stone, Zachary Sklar. name names. Isn't it a bit unfair of Lemann to ask Garrison to do what these governmental investigators could not do? He had a small staff, was forced to battle the .
New Orleans, Mon Amour - AEI - American Enterprise Institute
http://www.aei.org/publication/new-orleans-mon-amour/
What?s really been happening since Hurricane Katrina? Tom Bethell, dismayed by media coverage, traveled back to the beautiful and tragic city where he once lived for a firsthand view. He found this story of rebirth.
Mar 23, 2007 - Tom Bethell, dismayed by media coverage, traveled back to the beautiful and .... Tommy Lemann, as he is called by nearly everyone, is a colorful figure ... the consumption of oysters now requires a trek into the French Quarter.
.....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.....
Nothing is more outlandish than the SBT. I am not sure what evidence you are referring to since you have never cited it, but none of it supports the WC's claims.
The evidence doesn't support the WC's claims. My series shows this. Why does an UNSUPPORTED theory make the most sense to you? I really am curious.
We've been her before regarding citing evidence and I laid out what I thought and why. You said you were curious then but weren't based on your response to that, so not going to waste my time again. You will just have to accept that that is my current position although I continue to 'study'. I'm not trying to convince anyone and am free to hold my opinion. Where I think there are clear misunderstandings I will raise them or if I have a view on some presented evidence and will ask questions along the way but I won't be trying to build a case to fulfill your alleged curiosity.
We've been her before regarding citing evidence and I laid out what I thought and why. You said you were curious then but weren't based on your response to that, so not going to waste my time again. You will just have to accept that that is my current position although I continue to 'study'. I'm not trying to convince anyone and am free to hold my opinion. Where I think there are clear misunderstandings I will raise them or if I have a view on some presented evidence and will ask questions along the way but I won't be trying to build a case to fulfill your alleged curiosity.
Don't worry Nicholas, Rob just enjoys saying there is no supporting evidence. He thinks if he repeats that often enough, it will become a fact. As you know, the reality is that we have the 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits from the WC, the HSCA report and volumes, several books such as Reclaiming History and websites such as John McAdams' and David Von Pein. All of these lay out the case for LHO as a lone assassin.
Now, if Rob wants to disagree with all of this that is fine. If he wants to say there are certain things in the original material that actually argue against the LN theory, that is fine (and quite true). However, to say there is NO supporting evidence is just nonsense and hyperbole on his part. And before he starts, no I don't want to waste my time debating someone like him who is working from such a silly position-I have better things to do.
Heck, I couldn't even get the creator of this thread to cite one piece of evidence that caused his supposed conversion.
Don't worry Nicholas, Rob just enjoys saying there is no supporting evidence. He thinks if he repeats that often enough, it will become a fact. As you know, the reality is that we have the 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits from the WC, the HSCA report and volumes, several books such as Reclaiming History and websites such as John McAdams' and David Von Pein. All of these lay out the case for LHO as a lone assassin.
The evidence that changed his mind was provided by the HSCA as my review indicates. It consisted of the authentication of the autopsy photos and x-rays,
the forensic pathology panel,
the photographic panel,
the study of ?earwitnesses?,
the handwriting and fingerprint analysis,
the Mannlicher-Carcano firing tests
and the firearms panel.
What is the timing problem of the Truly encounter?I am not sure about what is meant by the referenced "the Truly encounter".
The evidence that changed his mind was provided by the HSCA as my review indicates. It consisted of the authentication of the autopsy photos and x-rays, the forensic pathology panel, the photographic panel, the study of ?earwitnesses?, the handwriting and fingerprint analysis, the Mannlicher-Carcano firing tests and the firearms panel. It is too voluminous to cite here and you are presumably familiar with it anyway.
I am not sure about what is meant by the referenced "the Truly encounter".
In any event, my reference was to the SFLRE,that has reliable evidence of occurring at 90 seconds to 120 seconds after the assassination shooting. And, that would indicate that a LGA would have left the window, hid his rifle, descended from the 6th floor, and was inside the 2nd floor lunchroom at 90 seconds to 120 seconds after firing 3 shots at the Motorcade Limousine, and, as per testimony, was not out of breath when encountered. So, as stated, for me a timing problem exists.
Don't worry Nicholas, Rob just enjoys saying there is no supporting evidence. He thinks if he repeats that often enough, it will become a fact. As you know, the reality is that we have the 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits from the WC, the HSCA report and volumes, several books such as Reclaiming History and websites such as John McAdams' and David Von Pein. All of these lay out the case for LHO as a lone assassin.
Now, if Rob wants to disagree with all of this that is fine. If he wants to say there are certain things in the original material that actually argue against the LN theory, that is fine (and quite true). However, to say there is NO supporting evidence is just nonsense and hyperbole on his part. And before he starts, no I don't want to waste my time debating someone like him who is working from such a silly position-I have better things to do.
Thanks. Sounds about right to me.
So when I asked if you could put it more simply for me the answer was no. Oh well.
So, the legitimate question of an earnest, reasonably curious individual is, what did Garrison actually support and who was he really doing the bidding of?
I am not sure about what is meant by the referenced "the Truly encounter".
In any event, my reference was to the SFLRE,that has reliable evidence of occurring at 90 seconds to 120 seconds after the assassination shooting. And, that would indicate that a LGA would have left the window, hid his rifle, descended from the 6th floor, and was inside the 2nd floor lunchroom at 90 seconds to 120 seconds after firing 3 shots at the Motorcade Limousine, and, as per testimony, was not out of breath when encountered. So, as stated, for me a timing problem exists.
Why is that a problem? I've seen a reconstruction where it was shown to be easily possible. On what do you base your concerns?::)
::)
A reconstruction? Involving whom? Did LHO participate? And based on what? An eyewitness? When did LHO arrive in the lunchroom? When was his last visit to the Men's Room?
Easily possible does not equate to proof positive, and I stand by my conclusion about said timing.
A man of similar age and build, in a building of the same design traveling the same distance at a steady pass. The man completed it easily and was not at all breathless. It is not proof positive, and I never claimed it was. This addresses the point of a problem with the timings, which was what was posted. You may stand by your conclusion (I think you raised a concern but didn't actually state a conclusion) but you haven't answered my question which was 'On what do you base your concerns?'
I tried it myself in a similar building when I was in my 40s and not in that good shape. It is very easy to go down stairs without becoming out of breath-piece of cake.
Who did he work for?
Himself. He was a cool customer as the Dallas Police and FBI observed.
Sure. Sadly for you, there is NO supporting evidence for this claim and you have proven it in this thread by not citing a single piece of evidence.
I believe it was DPD Chief JesseCurry that said, paraphrasing, "We cannot place LeeHarveyOswald in that window with that rifle at that time"! And,some half century later, we still have basically two theories about the Murder of JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr. The LeeHarveyOswald LoneGunmanAssassin Theory, and the JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr AssassinationConspiracy Theory.As stated in this quoted post: For me, the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter involving DPD Officer ML Baker and TSBD Bldg Superintendent RS Truly with LHO at about 12:31pm CST, indicates a timing problem for the LHO/LGA Theory.
The WarrenCommission conclusion points toward the LHO/LGA Theory. However, the HouseAssassinationsCommittee conclusion points toward at least the possibility of the JFKSr/AC Theory.
For me, the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter involving DPD Officer ML Baker and TSBD Bldg Superintendent RS Truly with LHO at about 12:31pm CST, indicates a timing problem for the LHO/LGA Theory.
I have to conclude that many, many questions could have been answered long ago, had LeeHarveyOswald been alive to stand trial, instead of being murdered on 11/24/'63, while in DallasPolice custody and being about to be transferred to the DallasCounty Jail.
So, according to you the WC and HSCA volumes are filled with blank pages then? And I suppose that you have "proven" there was a conspiracy?
Straw man alert. They are filled with so-called evidence, but that is not the same as supporting evidence. You know this and that is why you avoid citing any of it.
Well, at least you admit there are book and they have information in them. A step in the right direction. Now what do you want me to cite?
I never said that there wasnt anything in them. I said there is no supporting evidence in them. I want you to cite supporting evidence for the WC's claims.
I wanted the author of this thread to cite the evidence that caused him to alter his outlook on the case.
I never said that there wasnt anything in them. I said there is no supporting evidence in them. I want you to cite supporting evidence for the WC's claims.
I wanted the author of this thread to cite the evidence that caused him to alter his outlook on the case.
OK, I'll leave that for Fred, but I think he would say it wasn't any one specific thing, rather many things that when added together caused his change of thought.
All you have to do is to read the HSCA supporting volumes of evidence. As Paul Hoch noted in one of his newsletters (I am paraphrasing here) - the HSCA did a lot of scientific
tests, and any one of them could have refuted the Warren Commission, and they didn't. Read the reports of the various panels on the HSCA - forensic, ballistics, photographic, etc. and
the evidence all supports Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman.
Why are you assuming that I haven't read them? I have and that is why I know that there is no evidence that points to LHO as a shooter. Perhaps I missed something so that is why I am asking you to cite the evidence that you found so compelling.
Himself. He was a cool customer as the Dallas Police and FBI observed.
As stated in this quoted post: For me, the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter involving DPD Officer ML Baker and TSBD Bldg Superintendent RS Truly with LHO at about 12:31pm CST, indicates a timing problem for the LHO/LGA Theory.
Isn't it amazing how Oswald can be anything to anybody, depending on whatever is required to make a theory work?
It's the exact same evidence the HSCA found so compelling.
Whatever. It is clear that you cannot cite any supporting evidence for LHO being a shooter let alone the only shooter. There is no need to continue.
By the way, the HSCA said that it was very likely that a conspiracy killed JFK. Thanks for responding.
I can cite lots of evidence that Oswald was the only shooter. But, I don't think you should be lazy. Read the supporting volumes of HSCA evidence. There
are several volumes. It's all very, very conclusive.
Yes, the HSCA concluded conspiracy but that was based on the acoustics evidence, and that was found by the NAS tp be nothing of the sort.
As stated in a previous post: For me, the SecondFloorLunchRoomEncounter involving DPD Officer ML Baker and TSBD Bldg Superintendent RS Truly with LHO at about 12:31pm CST, indicates a timing problem for the LHO/LGA Theory.Timing is used to refer to the time at which something happens or is planned to happen, or to the length of time something takes.
Timing is used to refer to the time at which something happens or is planned to happen, or to the length of time something takes.
I can cite lots of evidence that Oswald was the only shooter. But, I don't think you should be lazy. Read the supporting volumes of HSCA evidence. There
are several volumes. It's all very, very conclusive.
Yes, the HSCA concluded conspiracy but that was based on the acoustics evidence, and that was found by the NAS tp be nothing of the sort.
Lazy? I have a massive series on the WC and one on the HSCA. I am very familiar with the evidence in this case. I was not asking you to cite to save me research time, but rather to see what evidence turned you from believing in a conspiracy to believing that LHO did it alone. It is apparent that you cannot cite any and something else caused this change in all likelihood.
It wasn't bssed solely on the acoustics. Many aspects of the HSCA's work pointed to conspiracy. The acoustics were the reason given, but it wasn't the only one. The head of the HSCA thought that the mob was involved for goodness sake.
All you have to do is to read the HSCA supporting volumes of evidence. As Paul Hoch noted in one of his newsletters (I am paraphrasing here) - the HSCA did a lot of scientific
tests, and any one of them could have refuted the Warren Commission, and they didn't. Read the reports of the various panels on the HSCA - forensic, ballistics, photographic, etc. and
the evidence all supports Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman.
Blakey wrote a book saying the mob did it. But the HSCA did NOT conclude that it was the mob.
The draft report of the HSCA, written right before the acoustics, did not say there was a conspiracy.
If you want to see more of why I changed my mind, read my book. I am not going to post 272 pages here. But, if you don't want to read it, that is OK with me. I'd rather that certain people NOT read it.
fred
The Lopez Report shows that LHO (the man gunned down in Dallas) was not in Mexico City. Gaeton Fonzi's work shows that their was a conspiracy. Richard Sprague's book ("The Taking Of America...1, 2, 3") shows that it was a conspiracy. Henry Gonzalez, who served on the HSCA for a time thought that it was a conspiracy. Ditto Richard Schweiker.
One of the men closest to LHO, George de Mohrenschildt, thought a conspiracy was involved. Robert Blakey always felt that the mob was involved, thus, he thought that it was a conspiracy.
I don't read books that do not reflect what the evidence actually shows.
Thumb1:
On the Kennedy assassination, the HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:
1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at Kennedy. The second and third shots Oswald fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
JohnM
The Lopez Report shows that LHO (the man gunned down in Dallas) was not in Mexico City. Gaeton Fonzi's work shows that their was a conspiracy. Richard Sprague's book ("The Taking Of America...1, 2, 3") shows that it was a conspiracy. Henry Gonzalez, who served on the HSCA for a time thought that it was a conspiracy. Ditto Richard Schweiker.
One of the men closest to LHO, George de Mohrenschildt, thought a conspiracy was involved. Robert Blakey always felt that the mob was involved, thus, he thought that it was a conspiracy.
I don't read books that do not reflect what the evidence actually shows.
Lots of people believe there was a conspiracy. Lots of people believe in flying saucers. That doesn't make it true. The Lopez Report shows no such thing. Fonzi's book is full of allegations but no proof of anything; Richard Sprague was a complete crackpot, etc. and etc. De Mohrenschildt even suspected that Oswald had taken a shot at Walker, and of course, Oswald gave him one of the backyard photos. He later became quite mentally disturbed - just read Willem Oltmans book to see just how disturbed he was.
Hey, read what you want. But, if you find evidence of conspiracy, just post it.
... in my book.Fred, I've just now purchased the kindle version from Amazon Australia. I first download the free sample, read that straight away then couldn't resist and immediately bought your book.
Proof that Oswald killed Kennedy. Just read the volumes of evidence that the HSCA published. It's all pretty incriminating!
I have, and it isn't. Care to try again?
Not really. If that didn't convince you, I doubt there is ANYTHING I can say that will. And, I can
live with that.
What is so convincing about "read the HSCA"? There must be some reason you thought that their evidence pointed to Oswald as the murderer. Or is it just a giant appeal to authority? That's what they concluded, so it must be true? Is your book just 272 pages of "the HSCA thought so"?
All one has to do is read the hearings and exhibits of the WC and the HSCA to realize that the conclusions are actually not supported by the underlying evidence. They are just a bait and switch.
That's an important sentence. And, yes, I know all about what has been said about neutron activation analysis. But, he's right. It's amazing at how all the tests support a lone gunman.
But, read my book. I challenge you (even though I know you won't).
What's amazing is how you leap from neutron activation analysis and trajectory analysis to "Oswald did it".
I realize you're just here to sell books, but I'm not going to waste $16.99 (or even $9.99) without knowing how you made that leap. Sorry, there are plenty of books that go beyond "the HSCA said it, I believe it, and that settles it".
The HSCA didn't just "say it". They proved it.
The WC never proved anything so it was impossible for the HSCA to disprove anything that they claimed.
The HSCA did a lot of scientific tests. Every test supported a lone gunman. Like it or not, that's what happened.
The autopsy x-rays and photographs prove that Kennedy was hit by two bullets from behind.
The evidence is overwhelming that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy.
The HSCA did a lot of scientific tests. Every test supported a lone gunman. Like it or not, that's
what happened. The autopsy x-rays and photographs prove that Kennedy was hit by two
bullets from behind. Every single forensic pathologist who has examined the autopsy x-rays
and photographs agree with that. And, the HSCA did many tests to authenticate them.
The evidence is overwhelming that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. There was no conspiracy. End of story.
Your missing the point Fred. Even IF the HSCA conducted tests that proved a lone shooter killed JFK (and they didn't) that is still a ways from proving that LHO was that lone shooter.
The evidence that the WC provided us with doesn't link LHO with any shooting event on November 22, 1963.
Ok, we are making progress. First, admit that there was only a lone assassin. Then, we can move on to discuss Oswald.
Ok, we are making progress. First, admit that there was only a lone assassin. Then, we can move on to discuss Oswald.
We are not making progress as you fail to understand what I wrote. I did NOT claim/say that there was only one shooter, but rather said even IF the HSCA tests did what *you* claim (show that there was only one person involved) it doesn't prove that it was LHO.
Furthermore, one shooter does NOT prohibit a conspiracy from taking place.
I understand perfectly what you wrote. But, let's admit there was one gunman, and that that was proved by the HSCA,
I understand perfectly what you wrote. But, let's admit there was one gunman, and that that was proved by the HSCA, and then we can tackle Lee
Harvey Oswald and his guilt as the lone assassin.
Fred, You won't even get most of these jokers to agree that Oswald was in any way knowingly involved in the assassination. Some of them might eventually agree that Oswald played an innocent role such as agreeing to bring his gun to work that day but they still won't place him with it in his hands at 12.30.
Too much has been invested by some in their own sense of self esteem to concede anything that points to Oswald as a conspirator let alone the actual trigger puller. You only have read the ridiculous stuff thrown around to undermine the simple sequence of events involving Brewer and the Texas Theater. Much of that was a series of wilful distractions to desperately avoid the truth that Oswald pulled a weapon when challenged.
The notion of beyond reasonable doubt is not the measure around here.
Here it has to be 100% iron-plated or it's trashed as worthless. It's like they deny the existence of the moon and claim that it's just a large illuminated ball dragged across the sky each night at a height of 30 miles. When you explain that NASA has sent many missions to the moon a devout CT says NASA can't be trusted. When you point out the tides as evidence they claim that the earth is flat and that daily tilts of the earth resting on the back of a tortoise results in a rush of water from one side to the other.
I understand perfectly what you wrote. But, let's admit there was one gunman, and that that was proved by the HSCA, and then we can tackle Lee
Harvey Oswald and his guilt as the lone assassin.
Why would I admit something that was not supported let alone proven? The HSCA, like the WC, did NOT prove anything. So your way of getting to LHO is just to ignore all the evidence and act like the HSCA proved something when they didn't?
Yeah, that is not going to work.
It looks like if there is nothing new in this book.. why should anyone buy it?
Or has that been asked already? ::)
the incredible secretI see. A secret that must never be revealed..but is in the last chapter.
I see. A secret that must never be revealed..but is in the last chapter.
Gotcha ;)
Why would I admit something that was not supported let alone proven? The HSCA, like the WC, did NOT prove anything. So your way of getting to LHO is just to ignore all the evidence and act like the HSCA proved something when they didn't?
Yeah, that is not going to work.
Of course, for you it is not going to work. There is nothing that would work with you.
For instance, the best forensic pathology experts in the world all agreed that
Kennedy was shot from behind.
That means nothing to you.
The best experts authenticated the autopsy x-rays and photogrpahs. That probably means nothing to you.
We now have excellent trajectory diagrams that show Kennedy and Connally were aligned for a shot from the TSBD. That probably means nothing to you. It is not I who is impervious to
the evidence. It is you.
If you have evidence revealing that anyone other than the prime suspect knew there was to be an attempt made on Kennedy that day, by all means feel free to post it.
Don't have to. I sure hope that you learn the American legal system soon. These repitive ill informed comments are getting old.
When will you cite evidence that shows LHO knew that an attempt was going to be made? You again sound like a CTer.
I sure hope that you learn the American legal system soon.
This Forum is named JFKASSASSINATIONFORUM for a reason, we are here to find out who killed JFK...
All I've ever found here is the 100% probability that Oswald didn't do it and couldn't have even if he had really wanted to.
Of course, for you it is not going to work. There is nothing that would work with you. For instance, the best forensic pathology experts in the world all agreed that
Kennedy was shot from behind. That means nothing to you. The best experts authenticated the autopsy x-rays and photogrpahs. That probably means nothing to you. We now
have excellent trajectory diagrams that show Kennedy and Connally were aligned for a shot from the TSBD. That probably means nothing to you. It is not I who is impervious to
the evidence. It is you.
Of course that is all you find here. You're on a forum of conspiracy freaks. I doubt you've read Bugliosi's book, or have read the HSCA volumes of evidence, or have read JFK Myths by Larry Sturdivan.
Get real, you aren't Oswald's defence lawyer! Hahahahahaha!
This Forum is named JFKASSASSINATIONFORUM for a reason, we are here to find out who killed JFK and all you want to do is play games.
JohnM
Of course that is all you find here. You're on a forum of conspiracy freaks. I doubt you've read Bugliosi's book, or have read the HSCA volumes of evidence, or have read JFK Myths by Larry Sturdivan. But, I am sure you've read lots and lots of crazy conspiracy books.
I would posit that there are more LNers on here than CTers. They are easy to spot as they never cite any evidence for either their claims or those made by the WC.
Why are people who support a conspiracy, which has a lot of supporting evidence, "freaks", but those that support a theory with NO supporting evidence normal? Is it normal to support things that have have NO supporting evidence? I don't think so.
What is Bugliosi's book going to show us that the evidence doesn't? You have yet to cite one piece of evidence. Why?
I've cited a lot of evidence. You just don't like it. Take the forensic pathology panel of the HSCA. The best forensic pathologists of the United States agreed that Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind. Or how about all the other forensic pathologists who have examined the autopsy x-rays and photographs. They also agree that Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind.
I've cited a lot of evidence. You just don't like it. Take the forensic pathology panel of the HSCA. The best forensic pathologists of the United States agreed that Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind. Or how about all the other forensic pathologists who have examined the autopsy x-rays and photographs. They also agree that Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind.
As a reporter and author you should understand what constitutes a cite. You have made vague references to things, but you have NOT cited any evidence. All LNers are allergic to the actual evidence since it doesn't support their claims.
Your points are very weak since no one on the HSCA panel saw JFK's body. Furthermore, the autopsy X-rays and photographs have never been shown to be authentic and a true depiction of the wounds seen on JFK's body. Moreover, they are in direct conflict to the wounds actually observed by those that did see JFK's body after the assassination.
The autopsy X-Rays and photographs were authenticated.
See:
HSCA Volume VI, page 232 - anthropological analysis
[age 239 - analysis of x-rays
Proves that the x-rays and photographs are those of JFK
Volume VII, page 43: Report of Ellis Kerly, Phd, and Clyde Snow, Phd. anthopological consultants
Volume VII, page 63: Report of Lowell Levine, DDS, on dential identification
Volume VII, page 69 - Report of Frank Scott, medical photographer on the authenticity of the color photographs.
If these experts weren't at Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63 to see the X-rays and photographs then, how can they authenticate the ones presented to them in the 1970s? Please explain that.
Perhaps you should read the sections I have cited, and then ask your questions. Have you read the HSCA volumes or not?
You didn't answer my question. How did they know that these were X-rays and photographs taken during the JFK autopsy?
I did, but you don't like my answer. Have you read the HSCA Volumes of evidence? Why don't you read the authentication
reports that I referenced. You might find the answers you are looking for?
I did, but you don't like my answer. Have you read the HSCA Volumes of evidence? Why don't you read the authentication
reports that I referenced. You might find the answers you are looking for?
Even IF they were authentic (and they're not based on the PH witnesses and others), how do they prove that LHO was the shooter as you claim?
The current autopsy photographs and X-rays do not match the wounds seen by witnesses who viewed the body. It is clear that you put more weight with the HSCA then the contemperaneous witnesses.
Even IF they were authentic (and they're not based on the PH witnesses and others), how do they prove that LHO was the shooter as you claim?
You didn't answer it. None of those experts were at the autopsy in 1963, thus, they could only go by what they were told. Their supposed authentication of what they were provided means nothing since they have no idea if they truly depict the wounds seen on 11/22-11/23/63.
The current autopsy photographs and X-rays do not match the wounds seen by witnesses who viewed the body. It is clear that you put more weight with the HSCA then the contemperaneous witnesses.
Even IF they were authentic (and they're not based on the PH witnesses and others), how do they prove that LHO was the shooter as you claim?
Fred has been avoiding that question for 4 pages now...
Pardon me butting in but you can't rely on witnesses. Studies by Elizabeth Loftus and others have shown that. So, yes I put more weight with the HSCA. And other evidence shows LHO was the shooter who was firing from the rear. And before you ask for proof, check Bugliosi's list of evidence for LHO being the shooter or David Von Pein's website or book.
Not true Four Dallas doctors examined the autopsy x-rays and photos and told the NOVA science show on PBS that the photos and x-rays were consistent with what they saw. But, I would never expect all the eyewitnesses at parkland to agree - after all they were frantically trying to save Kennedy, not examine their wounds. And, that is why they all have a variety of different viewpoints as to what they saw. The best evidence is the autopsy x-rays and photographs and they clearly prove that Kennedy was hit by two bullets from behind.
As for Oswald, there's lots of time to get there. I'm trying to get agreement on the autopsy x-rays and photographs.
Have you read the documentation I referenced?
The Dallas doctors would have nothing to do with the autopsy to know if the X-rays and photographs are genuine. In terms of the wounds I am curious -- who were these four doctors?
The old, "they were trying to save his life" excuse. How does a doctor save someone's life if they don't know what wounds the patient suffered?
The best evidence is the body, but unfortunately the SS seized the body without jurisdiction and rushed it to a military controlled hospital for the autopsy.
The best evidence is the autopsy x-rays and photographs and they clearly prove that Kennedy was hit by two bullets from behind.
Silly. These witnesses were trained professionals in dealing with gunshot wounds. Also, how difficult is it to notice a MASSIVE wound in the right rear of JFK's head?
You have provided NO supporting evidence and Bugliosi certainly didn't provide any supporting evidence. How could either of you do so when the WC didn't provide any?
Good grief -- David Von Pein wrote a book? It must be full of belly laughs.
You're not answering the question I asked? Did you read the documents I referenced. You are so anxious for me to cite evidence. I have. Have you read what
I posted? And I still ask the question - have you ever read the HSCA supporting volumes of evidence?
The Dallas doctors were there to save JFK's life, not to make detailed observations on the wounds. That's what an autopsy is for.
Please. A MASSIVE wound to the head would be as obvious as Rudolph's red nose. What about this?
Quote on
ACTIVITIES OF PAT HUTTON
ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963
I came back from lunch, and went to the O.B.-Gynocology section where I was working. At approximately 12:30 P.M., the triage nurse called us to bring a cart out to the entrance. We took said cart out the door, and it was then that I realized who was in the car.
Several people helped put the President on the cart, and we then proceeded to the Major Surgery section of the Emergency Room to Trauma Room #1. **Mr. Kennedy was bleeding profusely from a wound on the back of his head**, and was lying there unresponsive.
As soon as we reached the room, a doctor placed an endotracheal tube, and prepared for a tracheostomy. Within a few minutes, there were numerous doctors in the room starting I.V.'s, placing chest tubes and anesthesia with O2. **A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head.**
Quote off
How's it feel? You have yet to answer several of my questions. What evidence stopped you from being a "freak" and converted you to a LNer?
And, how did the HSCA experts know that the autopsy X-rays and photographs they were provided with were the ones taken on November 22-23, 1963?
JFK was lying on the back of is head. Any wound there would not have been visible. The autopsy photos as well as the Zapruder film show the wound clearly. The witnesses were simply mistaken.
Why don't you read the evidence that I cited? You were desperate for me to cite evidence. I did. You refuse to read it. You want me to answer
your questions about it. Just how lazy are you?
Are you even familiar with the evidence? They were not mistaken. You wish that they were, but they weren't.
The nurse I quoted was asked to apply pressure to the wound. How do you think she could do this without seeing the wound?
She couldn't. And if he was lying on his back, which he was, the alleged wound would be invisible to her. You should study the available literature on eye witnesses, it is amazing how wrong they can be.
Pardon me butting in but you can't rely on witnesses. Studies by Elizabeth Loftus and others have shown that. So, yes I put more weight with the HSCA. And other evidence shows LHO was the shooter who was firing from the rear. And before you ask for proof, check Bugliosi's list of evidence for LHO being the shooter or David Von Pein's website or book.
Not true Four Dallas doctors examined the autopsy x-rays and photos and told the NOVA science show on PBS that the photos and x-rays were consistent with what they saw.
JFK was lying on the back of is head. Any wound there would not have been visible.
She couldn't. And if he was lying on his back, which he was, the alleged wound would be invisible to her. You should study the available literature on eye witnesses, it is amazing how wrong they can be.
(http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/tomsheadwound.jpg)
This is all wrong. As you can see from the autopsy photographs, Kennedy's head was a mass of brain tissue, matted hair, bone, etc.
People, there is a reason why we do autopsies.
This is all wrong. As you can see from the autopsy photographs, Kennedy's head was a mass of brain tissue, matted hair, bone, etc. Without
proper examination (which is why you do an autopsy) no one really understood his head wound. Given the frantic nature of attending to the
tracheotomy, everything else they were rushing to do, it is not surprising that the Parkland doctors all gave different descriptions of his
head wound.
People, there is a reason why we do autopsies.
Tracy's claim was that any back of the head wound would not have been visible. That's demonstrably false.
Did the HSCA do an autopsy?
I can simplify this debate. A mountain of evidence as summarized by Bugliosi and Von Pein shows JFK was struck from behind twice. It also shows that LHO was in such a position behind JFK and owned the weapon and so on. In order disbelieve this evidence, you have to believe that all the evidence I mentioned was faked, misunderstood etc. I believe that is a practical and physical impossibility.
As soon as you mention evidence from Bugliosi and Von pein, you lose the argument. (a bit like Godwin's Law for JFK)
Bugliosi and Von Pein ae merely summarizing the evidence that was originally developed by the WC, FBI etc. and confirmed y the HSCA.
You have failed to show that the autopsy photographs depict what was actually seen on November 22, 1963.
You have failed to show that the autopsy photographs depict what was actually seen on November 22, 1963.That will never happen. The presidents body was Shanghai-ed. It was spirited back to DC in violation of the law by order of Lyndon Johnson. This was along with the limo that would provide forensic evidence.
This is the story of a bullet ? a spent, misshapen, but otherwise intact, bullet ? that James Young, a Navy doctor, said was found late at night, on the floor, in the back of Kennedy?s limousine. He inspected it himself.https://whowhatwhy.org/2017/10/06/navy-doctor-bullet-found-jfks-limousine-never-reported/
The bullet was found by two chief petty officers who, during the autopsy, were sent to retrieve any skull fragments they could find in the limousine. They came back with three pieces of bone, and the bullet. The skull fragments were reported ? but not the bullet.
I can simplify this debate. A mountain of evidence as summarized by Bugliosi and Von Pein shows JFK was struck from behind twice. It also shows that LHO was in such a position behind JFK and owned the weapon and so on. In order disbelieve this evidence, you have to believe that all the evidence I mentioned was faked, misunderstood etc. I believe that is a practical and physical impossibility.
And if there were another government investigation, you folks would be tasked with showing how the evidence was faked beyond a reasonable doubt which you would not be able to do. Yes, there would be a few individuals, even some who are credentialed, who would agree with you. But the majority of the scientific community would not. But, you can sit here on forums and try to do it to your heart's content. And that is ok.
Bugliosi and Von Pein ae merely summarizing the evidence that was originally developed by the WC, FBI etc. and confirmed y the HSCA.
Not at all. You have failed to read the evidence. For all your complaining, it is clear that you have NOT read
the HSCA volumes of evidence. You seem totally unfamiliar with what is in them.
I have cited the authentication studies. The answers to your questions are there. I don't want to spoon feed you.
That is not my job.
At least do the minimum and read the studies.
And none of it supports the claims found in the WCR.
Provr that I have not read it. The point you keep dodging is -- you cannot show that the autopsy X-rays and photographs given to the HSCA experts depicted the wounds seen on JFK's body. You are stsrting with a false premise to make your point.
I know the evidence so you will not snow me.
I can simplify this debate. A mountain of evidence as summarized by Bugliosi and Von Pein shows JFK was struck from behind twice. It also shows that LHO was in such a position behind JFK and owned the weapon and so on.
I have a challenge for you. When will you be taking your "proof" of all this to the proper authorities who can right this injustice and bring the perpetrators (whom you have presumably named in your presumed theory) to justice?
From the HSCA Report:
"From the reports of the experts' analyses of the
autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at
the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner."
That is good enough for me and for most reasonable people.
I have a challenge for you. When will you be taking your "proof" of all this to the proper authorities who can right this injustice and bring the perpetrators (whom you have presumably named in your presumed theory) to justice? And if your answer is the same as all the other CTs I have given the same challenge to-that is they aren't taking it to anyone-then what is the point for you? Are you just going to sit on forums the rest of your life? Because, while the American people still believe in conspiracy, those in government, academia and the media don't. And they are the ones you have to convince. Unless you're just having a good time fooling around here.
From the HSCA Report:
"From the reports of the experts' analyses of the
autopsy photographs and X-rays, the evidence indicates that the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at
the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner."
That is good enough for me and for most reasonable people. The legal standard in this country is beyond a reasonable doubt and this satisfies that standard for me. Now, if you want to hold this evidence and all of the other evidence to some impossible standard you can do that. But I am satisfied.
They discuss the Dallas doctors in another section:
"the committee did, however, subject the
autopsy photographs and X-rays to scientific analysis. These
examinations by the committee's consultants established the
inaccuracy of the Parkland observations."
"it is less likely that the autopsy personnel would be
mistaken in their general observations, given their detailed and
thorough examination of the body. Consequently, it seems
reasonable to assume that the autopsy personnel were correct.
" (158) If the autopsy doctors are correct, then the Parkland
doctors are incorrect and either lying or mistaken. It does not
seem probable that they are lying, because it would be difficult
to maintain a conspiracy of lying among the approximately 14
persons involved for 15 years. On the other hand, it does seem
possible, that the Parkland personnel could be mistaken, given
their cursory observations of the wounds, the brief period of
time they examined the President, and their function at the time:
To administer emergency procedures to save the life of the
President, rather than to document the nature and location of his
wounds."
That's a conclusion, not evidence. I've read the HSCA reports. How/where did they determine when the autopsy photos they looked at were taken?
I have a few comments on the HSCA analysis.
- They looked only at color photos most of which the public does not have access to.
- They identified the body in the photos where the face is visible as JFK based on the measurements of certain facial landmarks, but included the handwaving of differences by attributing them to gravity, postmortem alterations (?), and cranial damage.
- Then using the newly made conclusion that an autopsy photo showing the face was JFK, they claimed to identify the back photo where the face is not visible as also being JFK based on the claim that they have the same visible bloodstains, abrasions, and wrinkles in both. I could find no pictorial illustration of these common features in any of the HSCA materials.
I've read the HSCA reports.
- They looked only at color photos most of which the public does not have access to.
and cranial damage.
- Then using the newly made conclusion that an autopsy photo showing the face was JFK, they claimed to identify the back photo where the face is not visible as also being JFK based on the claim that they have the same visible bloodstains, abrasions, and wrinkles in both. I could find no pictorial illustration of these common features in any of the HSCA materials.
BS:
(https://i.postimg.cc/W3Mvm7Zg/iacoletti-up-to-his-old-tricks.jpg)
Abrasion.
Wrinkles.
When you or Fred show that the HSCA were provided with the X-rays and photographs that were taken on November 22-23, 1963, then this will mean something. The extant versions do NOT match the wounds seen by numerous trained eyewitnesses.
When you or Fred show that the HSCA were provided with the X-rays and photographs that were taken on November 22-23, 1963, then this will mean something. The extant versions do NOT match the wounds seen by numerous trained eyewitnesses.
BS: yourself.
Well, I see yellow arrows. I don't see any indication of how what they point to are uniquely identical. This is the magic gouge all over again.
BS: yourself.
I don't see any indication of how what they point to are uniquely identical.
This is the magic gouge all over again.
There is an extensive discussion of the Dallas doctors by the HSCA and they dealt with it. The Dallas doctors certainly are "trained" but not to be eyewitnesses. Law enforcement personal are trained to make off the cuff observations but doctors are not.
Here is what four doctors at Parkland told NOVA:
Richard Dulaney
"I don't see evidence of any alteration of his wound in these pictures from what I saw in the emergency room."
Marion Jenkins
"Nothing that I've seen would make me think it had been changed from what happened that day."
Robert McClelland
"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly . . . "
Paul Peters
"Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time." Peters then mentions one minor discrepancy -- a small incision that he believes the autopsy doctors made while removing the brain.
Thumb1:
(https://i.postimg.cc/k4GvS7pb/Parkland-doctors-before-after-zps6dycr4dk.jpg)
The Back of Head eyewitnesses were not very consistent.
(https://i.postimg.cc/Pqt4tWbK/Lee-Kaniasbohwitness-zpsdrftrhuu.gif)
But the real eyewitnesses are all a lot more consistent.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bwL6SVw4/alotofevidence2a.jpg)
JohnM
the real eyewitnesses
Translation; the ones I can misrepresent and thus prefer
There is no such thing as a trained eyewitness.
There is an extensive discussion of the Dallas doctors by the HSCA and they dealt with it. The Dallas doctors certainly are "trained" but not to be eyewitnesses. Law enforcement personal are trained to make off the cuff observations but doctors are not.
Here is what four doctors at Parkland told NOVA:
Richard Dulaney
"I don't see evidence of any alteration of his wound in these pictures from what I saw in the emergency room."
Marion Jenkins
"Nothing that I've seen would make me think it had been changed from what happened that day."
Robert McClelland
"I find no discrepancy between the wounds as they're shown very vividly in these photographs and what I remember very vividly . . . "
Paul Peters
"Looking at these photos, they're pretty much as I remember President Kennedy at the time." Peters then mentions one minor discrepancy -- a small incision that he believes the autopsy doctors made while removing the brain.
Perhaps you should read these comments.
Too bad none of these people ever mentioned actually touching and investigating a clean wound, there is a reason why we have autopsies and this is why autopsies aren't based on vague recollections from the Emergency room.
A lot of the autopsy photos were taken in stereo pairs and can be viewed with stereo glasses and show a perfect 3D scene, or an easier way to view these photos is the following gif which connects the same body parts like skin, ears, hair and the overall shape of Kennedy's head in 3D space and because each set of all these parts are relatively an equal distance from the camera both images combined produce a series of mathematically correct interim images that when inserted into an animation produces a smooth rotation. So in a nutshell if there was any imaging tampering whatsoever there is no way to recreate this smooth rotation.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZ71rRFs/JFKBOHlatest-HD4-zps1159966c.gif)
JohnM
Too bad none of these people ever mentioned actually touching and investigating a clean wound, there is a reason why we have autopsies and this is why autopsies aren't based on vague recollections from the Emergency room.
A lot of the autopsy photos were taken in stereo pairs and can be viewed with stereo glasses and show a perfect 3D scene, or an easier way to view these photos is the following gif which connects the same body parts like skin, ears, hair and the overall shape of Kennedy's head in 3D space and because each set of all these parts are relatively an equal distance from the camera both images combined produce a series of mathematically correct interim images that when inserted into an animation produces a smooth rotation. So in a nutshell if there was any imaging tampering whatsoever there is no way to recreate this smooth rotation.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZ71rRFs/JFKBOHlatest-HD4-zps1159966c.gif)
JohnM
Perhaps you should read these comments.
*********************************************
The Warren Commission (WC) said that President John F. Kennedy (JFK) was shot from behind ONLY, thus, NO wounds should have been seen on the backside of JFK?s head (save for a small entrance wound), but many witnesses did see such a wound.
How can the WC defenders explain this?
| (http://i61.tinypic.com/dypqir.jpg) | (http://i68.tinypic.com/2zyg9yf.jpg) |
It's already been explained, you just don't want to accept it. You have two groups of witnesses who describe the wounds differently. So, to resolve this you look at the authenticated autopsy photos and x-rays which show no wound where the Dallas doctors said it was. Nor do any of the films. So, the doctors were wrong. As John M. explained, the doctors statements are examined carefully and their earliest observations are given more weight, their statements are not as contradictory as CTs make them out to be. All of this is explainable and understandable unless you have a bias toward conspiracy.
Thanks for posting that they also looked at the black and white photos, you said "They looked only at color photos...".
What, the gouge verified by photographic experts
In the following GIF, the squiggly yellow lines show the gouge in C2766.
So in a nutshell if there was any imaging tampering whatsoever there is no way to recreate this smooth rotation.
I dont have to accept false explanations. All these witnesses, and Chief Curfy too, saw a MASSIVE wound in the right rear of JFK's head. End of story.
No panel of experts in the late 1970s that didn't even see the body can alter this fact.
Well, we have gone about as far as we can with this debate. You accept the evidence you prefer, which is ok-you can do that. But the "best evidence" in this instance is the authenticated autopsy materials and the films (which all match) especially the Zapruder film. Eyewitnesses do make mistakes and that fact is proven by studies.
Wrong. The best evidence was, and always will be, the body and that didn't agree with the extant autopsy X-rays and photographs.
Your comments about doctors and nurses trained in gunshot wounds not being able to identify what they saw on November 22, 1963, is just absurd. If what you said was true then all gunshot victims would have to die to have their wounds assessed properly at an autopsy. Just silly.
I've already quoted four doctors from Parkland who said that the autopsy x-rays and photographs are in agreement with what they saw.
Your comment on autopsies is just ridiculous. Kennedy was dead and the doctors were frantic to save his life. They didn't even know he was shot in the back. Have a look at the 50th anniversary video from the Sixth Floor museum when they talk to witnesses. One of the Parkland doctors was on the panel, and he had no issues with the autopsy conclusions and he said that because Kennedy was on his back, they didn't know he was shot there.
There is a reason we do autopsies. But back to my main point. Have you read the HSCA evidence? It doesn't appear you are familiar with it at all.
I've quoted way more than four. I have also quoted SS agents who saw the body up close. I can quote Chief Curry too as he saw the body when the limousine arrived at PH. NONE of them described a head wound that we see in the extant X-rays and photographs.
No sir, your claims are ridiculous. You can't save a life IF you don't know what wound(s) they have. It is absurd to think that they didn't even bother to look at the head wound. A nurse was told to put pressure on it for goodness sake. You just keep ignoring this fact.
So you are claiming that doctors do not assess wounds while treating them. Got it. You are basically saying that wounds are not assessed until the person dies. Totally ridiculous.
You still have not cited one piece of evidence that supposedly caused your conversion from CT to LN.
Fred, understand who and what you?re dealing with here. Caprio has done this crap all over the internet for perhaps 10-15 years now. Always the same rhetoric. Always the same arguments. He?s been tossed off multiple sites for just this reason including conspiracy sites such as Deep Politics Forum and the The Ed Forum. He does NOT know the evidence in any respect. I have challenged him to debate ANY aspect of this case LIVE on line for all to view. He runs away. You waste your time engaging with him.
You are definately right.
You haven't quoted more than four doctors who say the autopsy x-rays and photographs do NOT agree with what they saw. I have quoted four doctors who say that the autopsy x-rays and photos DO agree with what they saw. I am not "basically saying that wounds are not assesed until the person dies." Those are your words. What I am saying is that the dallas doctors were frantically trying to save Kennedy's life. They did not turn his body over and they did not see his back wound. They were not measuring wounds. They were extremely busy with his IV drips and the tracheotomy, etc. And they didn't have much time and it was over. As for the head, yes, his head was a mess of bone, brain tissue, blood and hair. It was a mess. They did not do an examination.
There are issues with human memory, And that is why all the witnesses in Dallas say different things about what they witnessed. And that was shown earlier in this thread with the various pictures of where those witnesses place the head wound.
You refuse,for some reason, to read the authentication reports on the autopsy X-rays and photographs. It appears you are unfamiliar with the HSCA volumes of evidence. So, I will ask once again. Have you read the authentication reports that I cited earlier?
You are definately right.
You are definately [sic] right.
I hope your book doesn't have the same standard of spelling, Fred.
The book is extremely well written and I found no errors-spelling or otherwise.
Nevertheless, it's important to take even the nuttiest conspiracy-mongers to task
Great job pasting that Youtube link Bill! That's some impressive research.
As for the actual video. That's 6 minutes of life that nobody will ever get back. Here we see a guy named Steve Shives use the usual LN tactic of argument by appeal to ridicule, without ever actually addressing any reasons for believing the narrative.
His "5 Stupid things":
1. The endless list of potential suspects
This is the usual strawman that says that every CT believes every conjecture that has ever been brought forth. As an amusing aside he talks here about preferring the "explanation that requires the fewest assumptions" as if the WC explanation isn't absolutely loaded with assumptions.
2. The equally endless list of possible motives
As opposed to the WC's lack of any motive.
3. The lack of a coherent counter-narrative
As opposed to the WC's lack of a coherent narrative to begin with.
4. They attract people who aren't normally conspiracy theorists
I'm not sure why he considers this "stupid". But this may have something to do with this case being nothing like conspiracy theories like the moon landing hoax or Bigfoot, despite some LNers' best attempts to paint them with the same brush to avoid actually talking about the evidence.
5. They combine to form the perfect storm of conspiracy theories
Also not about anything stupid. I think Steve lost his train of thought halfway though the video. Here he shows a cute graphic with JFK's picture and the quote "Ask not what the evidence says happened. Ask what sounds good to you". Which in fact describes perfectly how the WC came to their conclusion.
Nice try, but a giant fail on multiple levels.
This is now the third time Bill has posted this nutty video and has completely ignored all previous replies.
Never fear, he will ignore it again and probably just tell the Jim Garrison pearly gates joke one more time.
(https://media.tenor.com/images/267122b38ed9e140b94a72c40b27ec4a/tenor.gif)
What, I should respond to every conspiracy nut job who will simply call everything faked anyway?
The Garrison joke is interactive, fits every conspiracist on the planet.
"John Iacoletti* reaches the Pearly Gates..." etc
What fail? You responded as per usual, yawn.
*That's right, even devil-worshipping atheists get a fair trial
And you've got a whole lot of 'splaining to do, Johnny666
Atheists don't worship the Devil.
What, I should respond to every conspiracy nut job who will simply call everything faked anyway?
A decent, if not impartial, synopsis of the Garrison case against Clay Shaw.
Still conspicuously absent: any of this "overwhelming evidence" that incriminates Oswald.
P.S. McAdams. LOL.
A decent, if not impartial, synopsis of the Garrison case against Clay Shaw.
Still conspicuously absent: any of this "overwhelming evidence" that incriminates Oswald.
P.S. McAdams. LOL.
The evidence is very well known. Get Reclaiming History or try this site:
http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
Iacoletti. LOL.
P.S. Gaslighter.
I have read both. But where is the "overwhelming evidence" that incriminates Oswald? Not in those places. Mr. Litwin was convinced by something specific after all, wasn't he? What was it?The treasure on Oak Island.
Mr. Litwin was convinced by something specific after all, wasn't he? What was it?
Asked and answered in the other thread (which you participated in). The answer is the HSCA volumes. Not sure why you keep asking this.
The evidence is very well known. Get Reclaiming History or try this site:
http://oswald-is-guilty.blogspot.com/
To all the CTs here:
The evidence against LHO is very well known and is as solid today as it was in 1963.
If LHO had gone to trial, he would have been convicted very quickly.
And by the legal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" he was guilty. We know this because the Dallas Police built a solid case against him.
Later, the WC, using the FBI as their investigatory arm, again built a solid case. In this instance, the WC inquiry was a fact-finding body and not a trial. But common sense tells us that the evidence would be more than enough for conviction had it been a legal proceeding. The HSCA again confirmed the WC if you discount the acoustics evidence, which most do at this point in time.
Now, if you want to hold the evidence to some impossible standard and say for instance that each and every piece of information and document etc. (which number in the millions) must point to exactly the same conclusion before LHO can be declared guilty, you are free to do that. But professional investigators know that not all evidence will point in the same direction. In this case, you have earwitnesses that differ for example (and other evidence of course). But the preponderance of the evidence indicates LHO's guilt. And the majority of the media and academia agree.
We had a discussion of much of the evidence in this thread and I see no real purpose in continuing that here. My purpose in this thread is to call attention to what I believe is a good book by Fred Litwin. And the thesis of his book is greatly under represented in the assassination literature IMO.
Garrison and Mark Lane are both dealt with in the book. Garrison's "investigation" was a major miscarriage of justice and he was eventually blocked from any further action against Shaw by a court decision. Minority witness statements do not trump the sniper's nest evidence which places LHO on the sixth floor as the shooter.
Why was it a miscarriage of justice? If it was, why wasn't Garrison sued or reprimanded?
If it was, why wasn't Garrison sued or reprimanded?
No, the unsupported claims against LHO are well-known, but the evidence isn't. That is the problem as most people only hear the unsupported claims over and over again.
You wouldn't be so shy in citing the evidence IF you believed what you wrote.
Garrison and Mark Lane are both dealt with in the book. Garrison's "investigation" was a major miscarriage of justice and he was eventually blocked from any further action against Shaw by a court decision. Minority witness statements do not trump the sniper's nest evidence which places LHO on the sixth floor as the shooter.
What sniper's nest evidence places LHO on the sixth floor as the shooter?
Why wasn't Garrison sued? He was. You don't know that?
Why wasn't he reprimanded? He was. Judge Christenberry stopped his persecution of Shaw writing
that his "pending prosecution was brought in bad faith and that such bad faith constitutes irreparable injury
which is great and immediate."
Had Shaw lived, he would have won his $5 million damage suit against Garrison.
Some people here are using the strategy that if you repeat something long enough, that the evidence against LHO is "unsupported", it becomes a fact. The Dallas police, the FBI and the HSCA didn't believe my "claims" were unsupported. As far as "citing" evidence, I have posted a link that lays out the case against LHO in a concise manner so that is unnecessary. Now, maybe you guys will get together and form a group that takes your "evidence" to the proper authorities and presents them with a unified theory. Oh that's right-you don't have one you're just fooling around on the Internet.
Ruby was told Oswald was being moved at 10ish....and where was this supposed CIA assassin...was he there to kill Oswald. No he was in his apartment etc. You know the rest.
There's a lot of confusion over the sightings of Oswald being in the lunchroom and the exact times etc. I haven't seen any 100% documentation or statements that place Oswald anywhere, either in the SN or in the lunchroom, at the time of the shots.
The "strategy" is to claim things and then never support them. That is the strategy of the WC defenders.
You are free to cite evidence anytime you wish, but you never do. Instead, like David Von Pein, you appeal to common sense and blame the other person for having an "impossible standard."
Everytime that you run from citing the evidence it becomes clearer that you support a false conclusion.
Paraffin tests related to gun crimes were inadmissible in court at that time. If you want to know why, look it up.
As an aside, law enforcement used such tests anyway, purportedly, as an intimidation tactic.
Give us an example...
But in the beginning they were going to use it as firm evidence. It was only after it came back negative for the cheek that it became worthless supposedly. If it was not a valid test why was it administered?
Mr. Parnell, I am surprised to read you dishing up and serving something I would not be surprised to see authored
You say you are "aware" of the evidence which implies I am unaware. Let me ask you, was the Warren Commission unaware of the evidence? How about the HSCA and the FBI? The same evidence you reject they found very compelling so perhaps it is just the way you are interpreting that evidence. And no, I do not wish to enter into another tired debate with you. You are well aware of the evidence against LHO and have argued it many times here. Any further debate would just hit the same talking points. The bottom line is any CT theory must assume massive fraud and I don't accept that. If I am wrong about that please post your theory that explains how the conspiracy was carried out and who was specifically guilty.
And BTW, I'll ask you the same question that I ask all CTs and they don't answer. When will you be taking this ironclad, obvious evidence to the proper authorities who will presumably immediately agree with you and do something to right the injustice? Or perhaps they will stop listening to you when you say to them that there is no evidence against LHO?
Try reading more carefully. The paraffin tests were used to intimidate people during interrogation; not used as evidence at trial.
Firearm Factoids
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
So you are saying that the police used false evidence to intimidate people that they had in custody?
No, the paraffin test was useless as evidence in those days. You can look it up...
My new book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak, is now available for purchase.
Fred Litwin recounts how he became a JFK conspiracy freak at eighteen, and then slowly moved to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. This book demonstrates how the left and the right have used the JFK assassination to drive home myths about power in America. There is also the horrible persecution of a gay man prosecuted for conspiring to kill Kennedy, the ugly story of Oliver Stone?s homophobic film JFK, an expos? of conspiracy nonsense on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a look at how the Soviets tried to influence American public opinion into believing the CIA was behind the assassination, and the incredible secret why some JFK assassination documents must remain locked up forever. And a whole lot more.
PRAISE for I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak
?As a young man growing up in the heyday of Kennedy assassination theorizing, Fred Litwin believed a conspiracy killed JFK. And then he grew, and he studied and he researched. The result is this volume, a thorough, cogent and meticulously argued case for a lone assassin. A seasoned conspiracy skeptic will learn new things here, and a conspiracy believer open to looking at the other side could do no better than this volume.?
John McAdams, Associate Professor of Political Science at Marquette University and author of JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy
?This is a great book for conspiracy buffs?and, more important, for those who debunk such theories. Fred Litwin does a terrific job in blowing up the myriad JFK assassination scenarios, not least in completely demolishing The Fifth Estate?s decades-long efforts to ?uncover? the truth. The CBC?s lead investigative show is revealed here to be more than slightly unhinged.?
J. L. Granatstein, Author of Who Killed Canadian History?
?Who killed John F. Kennedy has become the conspiracy theory of conspiracy theories. Despite the many recent books debunking all of them, scores of people still believe Lee Harvey Oswald was not involved or had accomplices, and was directed by either Moscow, the CIA, the FBI, Lyndon Johnson, Fidel Castro, or whomever one chooses to accuse.
In Fred Litwin?s marvelous book, he charts how he went from becoming one of the earlier skeptics to someone dedicated to dissecting their arguments and carefully tearing them apart. The penultimate chapter is the one in which Litwin takes a scalpel to the vehicle that has unfortunately convinced many Americans there was a real conspiracy. That source is the famous Oliver Stone movie, JFK, in which Litwin shows the director created a nonexistent homosexual cabal planning to assassinate Kennedy, which was also in cahoots with the CIA. The agency, according to Stone, wanted Kennedy dead because he was about to pull U.S. troops out of Vietnam! Exposing Stone?s lies after lies, the director won?t know what hit him if he dares to read Litwin?s book.
Litwin continues to update the many books and new theories that keep coming to prove conspiracy, up to the present. What he has accomplished is to put the final nail in the coffin of all the conspiracy theorists, who develop new ones as old theories are proven wrong. He has given us a beautifully written and compelling book, one in which Litwin tells the bold, unvarnished truth. How anyone reading this can still conclude that JFK was killed by various conspirators, rather than the lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, is beyond my comprehension. Everyone still concerned with JFK?s death and thinks it?s a mystery, must read Fred Litwin?s I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak. They will be glad they did.?
Ronald Radosh, Professor Emeritus of History at CUNY, opinion columnist for The Daily Beast and co-author of A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel.
?Mr. Litwin?s book is the best in many, many years in dealing with the truth about this horrendous piece of history?and exposing the fakirs, cons and opportunists who often call themselves ?historians.? A fine presentation!?
Hugh Aynesworth, Author of November 22, 1963: Witness to History and JFK: Breaking the News
I believe I tell the story of assassination critics in a new way. And I also tell a personal story. In addition, I have
a chapter of new information about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and their predilection for conspiracy. People
who believe that LHO was the lone gunman like the book - there are four 5-star review on Amazon and one five-star
review on Amazon.co.uk. For people who believe there was a conspiracy, well, I don't have to worry about
getting any low-star reviews, because they simply won't read my book.
OK...so, instead of CTers being silly you think they're well intentioned nincompoops? ;D I read the free chapter on Jim Garrison and it was informative but I missed the citations. I'm a stickler for citations. Thanks for the quick response and good luck with the book.
Sincerely,
Oscar
The citations are in my book. Every source is noted. I just didn't send them to John. I probably should.
I never said they were nincompoops. I said they won't read my book. And, if you go back in this post, you will see many posts from
people who believe in conspiracy saying that they won't read my book.
fred
There's a misunderstanding and it's probably my fault. I'm not accusing you of anything. My attempt at humor was in reference to your statement there's a different take or new way of explaining away how CTers function. That's the way I interpret it anyway.
Oscar
By the way, I'll be posting all the notes and sources to my chapter on Garrison in the next few days.
He's either history's Smartest or Dumbest criminal depending on the day of the week
Mark Lane LOL
You say you are "aware" of the evidence which implies I am unaware. Let me ask you, was the Warren Commission unaware of the evidence? How about the HSCA and the FBI? The same evidence you reject they found very compelling so perhaps it is just the way you are interpreting that evidence.
Or perhaps the way they did.
So John Iacoletti has uncovered a conspiracy that was invisible to the WC, HSCA, Vincent Bugliosi and the FBI. Well, at least you don't lack self-confidence.
Didn't the HSCA say that JFK was probably assassinated due to a conspiracy?
WC, Bugliosi and FBI birds of a feather?
So John Iacoletti has uncovered a conspiracy that was invisible to the WC, HSCA, Vincent Bugliosi and the FBI.
So again, why was it administered? And, why was the result of his hand test told to the media if it was useless?
The accused LoneGunmanAssassin of US President JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr(1917-1963), LeeHarveyOswald(1939-1963), who was also accused of critically wounding Tx Governor JohnBowdenConnallyJr(1917-1993), and as well, the murder of DPD Officer JD Tippit(1924-1963), in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas, not far from DealeyPlaza, was never to face a trial by his peers, with legal representation, and therefor never convicted of any crime occurring on 11/22/'63. Although The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, aka The WarrenCommission, concluded LeeHarveyOswald to be a LoneGunmanAssassin, it was not a conviction, but to me similar to an indictment. And, the said conclusion, at least to me, is indicative of LeeHarveyOswald as a LoneGunmanAssassin being itself, a theory.
And, it is my well considered conclusion, that just because someone has chosen to believe the LeeHarveyOswald as a LoneGunman AssassinTheory, said choice is not justification for their being labeled a 'freak'!
Those of us that have chosen not to embrace the LeeHarveyOswald as a LoneGunmanAssassinTheory, simply put, also in my well studied developed conclusion, said choice is not justification for our being labeled a 'freak'!
Speaking for myself, I do embrace the conclusion that most likely, A Conspiracy To Murder US President JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr by Assassination occurred in Dallas' DealeyPlaza on 11/22/'63, and caused the death of our ElectedPresident, at about 12:30pm, CST. And, simply put, I have to conclude that just because someone has chosen to embrace The Conspiracy To Murder US President JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr By AssassinationTheory, said choice is not justification for their being labeled a 'freak'!
For anyone who has chosen to not embrace The Conspiracy To Murder US President JohnFitzgeraldKennedySr by Assassination Theory, as well and absolutely said choice does not provide justification for being labeled a 'freak'!
At this point, and likely forever, any conclusion as to the reasoning for murder in the death USP Kennedy, has to be a theory. And that, of course, is a conclusion.
But in the beginning they were going to use it as firm evidence. It was only after it came back negative for the cheek that it became worthless supposedly. If it was not a valid test why was it administered?
I guess Bill Chapman can't answer my questions.
Too bad for you that you tall foreheads can't charge the FBI with omitting the tests.
For verbatim explanations, visit the link I provided.
Tracy,
On my personal evolution chart, I've gone from believing that "the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK" to entertaining the idea that Oswald did it by himself to my current position that there WAS a conspiracy, but it wasn't by the CIA/Military Industrial Complex/Far Right, but ... gasp ... by Nikita Khrushchev & Co. and/or Fidel Castro & Co.
Or, as Ion Pacepa says, maybe Oswald was programmed/trained to be an assassin in the USSR, and was sent back to the U.S. in June 1962 to kill JFK.
Pacepa says Khruschev got "cold feet" and tried to call the mission off, but was unable to do so, and Oswald, like the Energizer Rabbit, just kept right on a-goin'.
I'd been moving in the general direction that the Ruskies and/or The Bearded One did it after I read Tennent H. Bagley's "Spy Wars" and his "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and Mark Riebling's fine book "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA" a couple of years ago, reinforced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the successful Russian "active measures" shenanigans during our 2016 presidential election campaign (which installed pro-Russia KGB/Mafia "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president, IMHO).
My epiphany came a few months ago when it dawned on me that the KGB TRIPLE-AGENT James Angleton was referring to in his June, 1975, and his February, 1976, Church Committee testimony as "Byetkov*?" and "another hangnail," respectively, had to be the well-paid-by-the-Ruskies (WITH A HIGHLY REDACTED 48-PAGE CIA "201" FILE) Mexico City Soviet Embassy "security guard" Ivan Obyedkov (pronounced "ah-bee-ED-cough"), the dude who volunteered the WW III Virus-inducing name "Kostikov" to Oswald (or, more likely, Oswald's KGB or DGI impersonator) over the phone on 10/01/63.
That, plus the fact that another triple-agent, Aleksei Kulak (Hoover's beloved FEDORA) had already, for Hoover's and Angleton's and Bagley's benefit, implicated-by-association this Kostikov as a KGB Department 13 "wet affairs" officer by fingering Kostikov's and TUMBLEWEED's occasional contact, U.N. "diplomat" Oleg Brykin, as same.
-- Tommy
PS In a recent Facebook private message conversation I had with Bill Simpich, he agreed with my assessment that Angleton's "Byetkov*?" must have been this Ivan Obyedkov .
Tracy,
On my personal evolution chart, I've gone from believing that "the evil, evil, evil CIA killed JFK" to entertaining the idea that Oswald did it by himself to my current position that there WAS a conspiracy, but it wasn't by the CIA/Military Industrial Complex/Far Right, but ... gasp ... by Nikita Khrushchev & Co. and/or Fidel Castro & Co.
Or, as Ion Pacepa says, maybe Oswald was programmed/trained to be an assassin in the USSR, and was sent back to the U.S. in June 1962 to kill JFK.
Pacepa says Khruschev got "cold feet" and tried to call the mission off, but was unable to do so, and Oswald, like the Energizer Rabbit, just kept right on a-goin'.
I'd been moving in the general direction that the Ruskies and/or The Bearded One did it after I read Tennent H. Bagley's "Spy Wars" and his "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and Mark Riebling's fine book "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA" a couple of years ago, reinforced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and the successful Russian "active measures" shenanigans during our 2016 presidential election campaign (which installed pro-Russia KGB/Mafia "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president, IMHO).
My epiphany came a few months ago when it dawned on me that the KGB TRIPLE-AGENT James Angleton was referring to in his June, 1975, and his February, 1976, Church Committee testimony as "Byetkov*?" and "another hangnail," respectively, had to be the well-paid-by-the-Ruskies (WITH A HIGHLY REDACTED 48-PAGE CIA "201" FILE) Mexico City Soviet Embassy "security guard" Ivan Obyedkov (pronounced "ah-bee-ED-cough"), the dude who volunteered the WW III Virus-inducing name "Kostikov" to Oswald (or, more likely, Oswald's KGB or DGI impersonator) over the phone on 10/01/63.
That, plus the fact that another triple-agent, Aleksei Kulak (Hoover's beloved FEDORA) had already, for Hoover's and Angleton's and Bagley's benefit, implicated-by-association this Kostikov as a KGB Department 13 "wet affairs" officer by fingering Kostikov's and TUMBLEWEED's occasional contact, U.N. "diplomat" Oleg Brykin, as same.
-- Tommy
PS In a recent Facebook private message conversation I had with Bill Simpich, he agreed with my assessment that Angleton's "Byetkov*?" must have been this Ivan Obyedkov .
Or, as Ion Pacepa says, maybe Oswald was programmed/trained to be an assassin in the USSR, and was sent back to the U.S. in June 1962 to kill JFK.
That would implicate the State Dept. as it was in their power to accept or reject Oswald's re-entry into the USA and that would implicate the Justice Dept. as it was in their power to have placed Oswald under arrest for threatening to divulge secrets to the USSR. I'm pretty sure the Ruskies wouldn't have wasted their time and treasure in turning Oswald into a zombie assassin when they couldn't be sure they could get rid of him.
Another unrelated but critical piece to solving this puzzle. How would you explain Oswald having obtained the job at the TSBD. Was it part of the conspiracy or just plain dumb luck?
Hi Tommy, nice to hear from you. I always appreciated your work against the nonsensical H&L theory over at EF.
While I believe LHO acted alone for himself, I would definitely put your KGB theory above any CIA-did-it theories. I read Bagley's book and came away thinking that Nosenko could have been a false defector, a theory which puts me at odds with some LN advocates. He was either a false defector or alcohol had rendered him completely unable to remember simple details.
Tracy,
"With all due respect," if you believe it might have been excessive drinking and/or stress that made it impossible for Nosenko to remember details and caused him to change his story so often, then I think you need to re-read Bagley's book "Spy Wars" (and his pdf "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," if you've already read it, that is -- if not, then read it right here for the first time!).
That's a good point - i.e., that the Soviets couldn't be sure that the US would take him back. Although there were other defectors at or near that time that had returned/been accepted.
The US, as I understand it, was obligated to accept his request to return. He never formally renounced his citizenship so he was still an American citizen with all of the guaranteed rights extended to them. Would the Soviets understand this? That is the US would have to take him back? I think probably so, especially if they were training him for some sort of intelligence work.
Additionally, the Justice Department did look into whether he could be prosecuted for any crimes and determined that they had no evidence for it (see the HSCA report on this). Threatening to divulge secrets is, apparently, not a crime. Although it is interesting that Oswald asked the US Embassy official that he talked with whether he, Oswald, could receive any guarantees about not being prosecuted upon his return. He was certainly worried about it.
The Mailer book - "Oswald's Tale" - included numerous conversations/interviews he did with about 18 or so Belarus KGB agents assigned to monitor Oswald. He also quotes extensively from taps and other primary sources that were made available to him. If all of that is true then the KGB viewed Oswald with suspicion and didn't consider using him for any intelligence work, that he had no aptitude for anything. When he decided to return to the US - and the KGB learned about it almost immediately - their reaction was one of relief. They were glad to see this nuisance leave.
Rob,
Here's just one small clue:
(Note: The sentence in the article that starts, "But Moscow believed Oswald was a 'neurotic maniac' ..." would be much more accurate if it read, "But Moscow FALSELY CLAIMED IT believed Oswald was a 'neurotic maniac' ..." , or, on second thought, leave the sentence exactly as it is but emphasize the words "according to". LOL
https://www.rferl.org/a/soviets-claimed-us-right-wing-lyndon-johnson-behind-kennedy-assassination-files-show/28820677.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And here's an eye-opening article about even earlier (like an hour or two after the assassination) Ruskie disinfo / active measures operation regarding the assassination of JFK:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2007/10/lucky-stars-ion-mihai-pacepa/
-- Tommy :)
PS Based on my recent "epiphany" (which Bill Simpich gave his stamp of approval to in a private Facebook Message) that James Angleton's (mis-spelled by the court reporter/stenographer during Angleton's June 1975 Church Committee testimony) TRIPLE AGENT "Byetkov*?" must have been Ivan Obyedkov (look him up), and the fact that Hoover's beloved (triple-agent) FEDORA had indirectly suggested that Kostikov was Department 13 (by fingering U.N. "diplomat" Oleg Brykin as same), I now believe that it wasn't James Angleton who contrived to plant the "WW III virus" in Oswald's file, after all, but ... gasp ... the Ruskies.
But, but, but ... WHY would they have done that, you ask?
Well, so that CIA and FBI, fearing nuclear war, would cover up evidence of Khrushchev's and/or Castro's involvement in the assassination, and so that, ironically, James Angleton could himself be semi-plausibly blamed years down the road for having "covered up CIA's involvement" -- blamed by the likes of Oliver Stone, John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, et al.
LOL
Since Ruth Paine helped Oswald get that job, and since CIA Counterintelligence Staff analyst Edward Clare Petty told Richard Russell around 1974 (as recounted in TMWKTM) that Oswald's buddy George DeMohrenschildt was probably a long-term KGB "illegal," it's reasonable to assume that the person DeMohrenschildt handed Oswald off to a couple months before the assassination, Russophile Ruth Paine, was KGB, too.
And it was Ruth Paine who called Roy Truly to set up the interview.
Okay, so how did the bad guys CIA get Linnie Mae Randle to suggest to Ruth Paine that Oswald could probably get a job at the TSBD
"But, JFK had a good relationship with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev so why would the KGB want him dead?"
Rob,
That's what I thought, too, until I read Bagley's "Spy Wars" and "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," got a handle (so-to-speak) on 90-plus years of KGB (and CHEKA, and OGPU, and NKVD, and FSB, and SVR, and ... etc, etc) ACTIVE MEASURES COUNTERINTELLIGENCE OPS (since 1959 artfully interwoven with Strategic/Operational Deception Counterintelligence Operations), and then read Chapter 10 ("Sinister Implications") of Mark Riebling's "Wedge: The Secret War Between The FBI and CIA", ... specifically from the last sentence on page 207 through the first sentence on page 209 in the 1994 book (pages 391 - 392 on my android).
The sentence that begins, "But what would the Soviets possibly gain from Kennedy's death ..."
https://archive.org/details/WedgeFromPearlHarborTo911HowTheSecretWarBetweenTheFBIAndCIAHasEndangeredNationalSecurity/page/n1
-- Tommy :)
I assume that you, like most members of JFK Assassination Blog Forums, are a believer that the CIA killed JFK and scapegoated Oswald for it.
If so, do you believe the evil, evil, evil CIA didn't care where Oswald was working on 11/22/63?
Have you ever considered that they didn't?
How long was LHO employed at the TSBD before the planning of JFK's parade route commenced let alone finalised?
You are barking up the wrong tree.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/chapter-2.html#intro
The plan to visit Texas had been under consideration for about a year prior to the event. The basic decision on the November trip to Texas was made at a meeting of President Kennedy, Vice President Johnson, and Governor Connally on June 5, 1963 (See link above)
Oswald was hired on October 15
Have you ever considered that they didn't?
How long was LHO employed at the TSBD before the planning of JFK's parade route commenced let alone finalised?
You are barking up the wrong tree.
I assume that you, like most members of JFK Assassination Blog Forums, are a believer that the CIA killed JFK and scapegoated Oswald for it.
If so, do you believe the evil, evil, evil CIA didn't care where Oswald was working on 11/22/63?
Rob,
What did the Kremlin gain by assassinating JFK?
You mean other than the deleterious effects the hordes of Mark Lane and Oliver Stone, et al.-inspired CTers have had on our country over the years through their unwitting spreading of what boils down to anti-CIA, anti-FBI, anti-Military, and anti-Federal government Ruskie propaganda for fifty years now, all of which unfortunately prepared the way for KGB-boy Putin and his lackey-agent Assange to install, through yet another "active measures" campaign, Russian Mafia mobbed-up, "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president?
Or do you mean the things Mark Riebling writes about in his 1994 book, "Wedge"?
If the latter, then why don't you just read the two pages of that book that I suggested to you?
LOL
-- Tommy :)
Caprio condescendingly wrote:
So you really have no idea what they (the Soviets) would have gained by having JFK removed. Got it. JFK had a good relationship with Khrushchev so you need to do better than Oliver Stone and Mark Lane(,) Tommy.
...
...
...
My reply:
Rob,
Are you really too lazy to read that page (plus a smidgen) in the digital version of the book that I posted for you?
Can't find it?
-- Tommy :)
PS Here's the link, again, and below it -- the original post with the chapter title and the page numbers listed (slightly edited to make it easier for you to understand).
https://archive.org/details/WedgeFromPearlHarborTo911HowTheSecretWarBetweenTheFBIAndCIAHasEndangeredNationalSecurity/page/n1
...
...
...
(Caprio had written ...)
"But, JFK had a good relationship with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev so why would the KGB want him dead?"
(I had replied ...)
Rob,
That's what I thought, too, until I read Bagley's "Spy Wars" and "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," got a handle (so-to-speak) on 90-plus years of KGB (and CHEKA, and OGPU, and NKVD, and FSB, and SVR, and ... etc, etc) Active Measures Counterintelligence Ops (since 1959 artfully interwoven with Strategic/Operational Deception Counterintelligence Operations), and then read Chapter 10 ("Sinister Implications") of Mark Riebling's "Wedge: The Secret War Between The FBI and CIA."
What really caught my attention was the equivalent of one page of text that starts in the middle of page 391 on my laptop/android, and ends at the bottom of 392.
Here's how it begins: "But what would the Soviets possibly gain from Kennedy's death that would be worth the risk of retaliation?"
Hopefully you can find it. If not, then maybe someday I'll laboriously type out that one page of text for you, here.
https://archive.org/details/WedgeFromPearlHarborTo911HowTheSecretWarBetweenTheFBIAndCIAHasEndangeredNationalSecurity/page/n1
-- Tommy :)
Rob,
Why should I make things super-easy for you by trying to paraphrase, in fifty-words-or-less, what Mark Riebling and true-defector Pyotr Deryabin (ever heard of him?) say were excellent reasons for Nikita Krushchev's assassinating President Kennedy (with or without the help of Fidel Castro)?
Click on the link I provided, read the book (or at least the one page I pointed out to you), and then try to rebut what Riebling says.
It'll be good for you, and you might even learn something!
Or, if you prefer, avoid that information and that "take," and continue right along in ... well, ignorance ..., and continue to unwittingly spread the injurious products of "KGB" "active measures" and "operational deception" ops.
(Tommy, do you have any Publix sooper markets in your neck of the woods? If not, consider you are attempting
to talk some sense and point in the right direction, a guy who is paid (about 1/3 wages & benefits of a similarly employed Safeway associate) to ask, "did you find everything alright?" skatey-eight times each shift!)
(You'll have to read Bagley's book "Spy Wars" (for free on the Internet) if you want to understand what those two forms of Russian counterintelligence operations are all about, and how the former has been so effective against our country and our allies for eighty-plus years, and especially after it was augmented -- by a kind of feedback system -- by the latter in 1959.)
-- Tommy :)
PS As to just two of the things the Kremlin got out of "it", I give you fifty years of dumbing-down and paranoia-inducing Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theories ("scoops" and "intel" gleefully provided over the years by the Ruskies; mostly revolving around the evil, evil, evil CIA, of course; on all SORTS of subjects), and the concomitant eventual installing of Russian Mobbed-Up "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president by "former" KGB Counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin, and his lackey-agent, Julian Assange.
Christmas
And Tommy doesn't know what day it is
He doesn't know who Jesus was
Or what praying is
How can he be saved?
"Good to see you posting again, Tommy! Salud! Actually, I would appreciate discussing and reading your insight related
to Jim Garrison's motives and sincerity, based on the evidence of his conflicts of interests, secrecy, and behavior,
if you have the time and the interest!"
...
Tom,
Jim Garrison?
Who's he?
-- Tommy :)
PS Ever heard of Angleton's KGB triple-agent which the June 19, 1975, Church Committee stenographer/court/transcriber mis-wrote as "Byetkov*?", and whom Angleton referred to only as "another hangnail" in five pages of his February 9. 1976, testimony?
CIA opens the book on a shady past - politics | NBC News....after I found that Ober grew up less than a mile from James Kelsey Cogswell III and their attendance at Exeter prep
www.nbcnews.com/id/19438161/ns/politics/t/cia-opens-book-shady-past/
Jun 26, 2007 - Much of the redacted material appears in sections relating to Richard Ober, head of the Special Operations Group and deputy to James Jesus Angleton, ... Ober directed Operation CHAOS, a highly secretive covert operation ...
Thomas Boyd: Lost Author of the "lost Generation"
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1931968330
Brian Bruce - 2006 - Biography & Autobiography
the months passed Boyd contributed more material, but he would not ... Cornelius Van Ness, a young, wealthy St. Paul businessman who had an interest in .QuoteKilmarnock Books | MNopedia
www.mnopedia.org/place/kilmarnock-books
Aug 5, 2015 - The Kilmarnock Bookstore in downtown St. Paul brought writers and artists ... Its young owner was Cornelius Van Ness, a Harvard graduate who wanted to ... Van Ness arranged for Thomas Boyd, the young literary editor for the St. Paul ... F. Scott Fitzgerald, Carl Sandburg, Willa Cather, and Sinclair Lewis.
James Cogswell Engaged to Wed Nancy Van Ness ? Scarsdale ...
https://news.hrvh.org/veridian/cgi-bin/senylrc?a=d&d=scarsdaleinquire19430813.2.101
James Cogswell Engaged to Wed Nancy Van Ness. Mr. and Mrs. Cornelius W. Van Ness of New Canaan, Connecticut, and Prospect Harbor. Maine, have ...
Lt. Jas. K. Cogswell And Miss Van Ness Married Saturday ...
https://news.hrvh.org/veridian/cgi-bin/senylrc?a=d&d=scarsdaleinquire19450309.2.126
K. Cogswell And Miss Van Ness Married Saturday [ARTICLE] ... to Miss Nancy Van Ness of the Spars, daughter 1 of Mr and Mrs. Cornelius W. Van Ness of New ...
http://jfkforum.com/2017/10/
OCTOBER 1, 2017
Are we there yet? Part II
......
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-SEtYKeBqxoM/UzyLJ-FlgII/AAAAAAAABpk/vpz_Qy1cRzY/s640/MellenDryer.jpg)
......
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=84&relPageId=64&search=cogswell_aunt%20dryer
1. HSCA Report, Volume XII, pg 60
Found in: HSCA Appendix Volumes
Jack Cogswell of Palm Beach. According to Cogswell, he ran into Joseph Dryer, who is a stockbroker with Loeb & Rhodes & Co. in Palm Beach and Dryer offered
offered informa- tion about George de Mohrenschildt.(172) Dryer told Cogswell that when he knew de Mohrenshchildt in Haiti, de Mohrenschildt's behav- ior
ior was "strange" and included following people in his car. (173) Dryer related that de Mohrenschildt was associated with a man named Charles who was the
http://jfkfacts.org/mellen-defends-jim-garrison/#comment-122126
Tom Scully
October 20, 2013 at 4:43 am
Joan Mellen has been ahead of the curve. In January, 2007, despite not knowing that George Bush?s oil exploration partner, foreign affairs and political advisor, Thomas J. Devine was a schoolmate of Joseph and Peter Dryer at a small private Rochester K-12 school prior to the Dryer brothers spending their final three prep school years at Choate Academy, and also not knowing that Devine was one of 16 Sigma Chi fraternity housemates from 1944 to 1948, along with Priscilla Johnson?s CIA contact, Garry Coit, Joan Mellen gave a presentation including this.:
http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,9126.msg268265.html#msg268265
???There are powerful reasons why George H. W. Bush was motivated to invoke the Warren Report, even, amazingly, to refer to a ?conspiracy theorist,? as if that designation would at once banish some truths he does not want available. Only two degrees of separation separate George H. W. Bush from Oswald himself??This CIA document reveals that Thomas Devine had informed George Bush of a CIA project with the cryptonym WUBRINY/LPDICTUM. It involved CIA proprietary commercial operations in foreign countries.?
Tom,
So I take it that you don't want to read Tennent H. Bagley's works (although John M. Newman has, and has been sufficiently convinced by them to conclude that Golitsyn was a true defector after all, and Nosenko a false one) for the simple reason that he (Bagley) mighta been kinda maybe almost tangentially virtually involved in some really, really, really ... gasp ... evil, evil, evil program of the CIA?
If that's the case, then it certainly must be okay if I don't lend Mark Lane much credence, since he, according to The Mitrokhin Archive, was partially subsidized by the CPUSA to cast aspersions on the Warren Commission Report, and especially since his sugar-daddy CPUSA was, in turn, subsidized by the Soviet Union.
Or do you think The Mitrokhin Archive was an elaborate deception by the evil, evil, evil CIA?
LOL
Tom Scully reply: YUP
-- Tommy :)
PS.. I tried to paste this EF thread here, but to no avail.
LINK DELETED: Links To websites which contain materials or links to materials which are unsuitable for viewing by minors is forbidden/topic/24661-why-does-the-mitrokhin-archive-claim-kgb-paid-mark-lane-6000-in-todays-money-to-debunk-the-warren-report/
PPS.. Funny, I thought i asked you about "Byetkov*?".
Oh, well.
Rob,
Why should I make things super-easy for you by trying to paraphrase, in fifty-words-or-less, what Mark Riebling and true-defector Pyotr Deryabin (ever heard of him?) say were excellent reasons for Nikita Krushchev's assassinating President Kennedy (with or without the help of Fidel Castro)?
Click on the link I provided, read the book (or at least the one page I pointed out to you), and then try to rebut what Riebling says.
It'll be good for you, and you might even learn something!
Or, if you prefer, avoid that information and that "take," and continue right along in ... well, ignorance ..., and continue to unwittingly spread the injurious products of "KGB" "active measures" and "operational deception" ops.
(You'll have to read Bagley's book "Spy Wars" (for free on the Internet) if you want to understand what those two forms of Russian counterintelligence operations are all about, and how the former has been so effective against our country and our allies for eighty-plus years, and especially after it was augmented -- by a kind of feedback system -- by the latter in 1959.)
-- Tommy :)
PS As to just two of the things the Kremlin got out of "it", I give you fifty years of dumbing-down and paranoia-inducing Tinfoil Hat Conspiracy Theories ("scoops" and "intel" gleefully provided over the years by the Ruskies; mostly revolving around the evil, evil, evil CIA, of course; on all SORTS of subjects), and the concomitant eventual installing of Russian Mobbed-Up "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president by "former" KGB Counterintelligence officer Vladimir Putin, and his lackey-agent, Julian Assange.
Rob,
"JFK was killed by the evil, evil, evil CIA because he was threatening to pull U.S. forces out of South Vietnam, and was secretly improving relations with Fidel Castro, etc, etc, etc."
Fact or opinion?
Regardless, how many uncontested, established facts about the assassination can you offer us?
LOL
-- Tommy
JFK was killed by the evil, evil, evil CIA because he was threatening to pull U.S. forces out of South Vietnam, and was secretly improving relations with Fidel Castro, etc, etc, etc.
Rob,
"JFK was killed by the evil, evil, evil CIA because he was threatening to pull U.S. forces out of South Vietnam, and was secretly improving relations with Fidel Castro, etc, etc, etc."
Fact or opinion?
Regardless, how many uncontested, established facts about the assassination can you offer us?
LOL
-- Tommy
...
Caprio wrote:
Why are you attributing this to me? Either quote me saying this or admit that you are using dishonest tactics.
Typical LNer tactic. *You* claimed that the Russians and the KGB were involved in the murder of JFK, but instead of supporting that you are trying to but the burden on me. That is very dishonest.
It is clear that you are just offering an opinion.
Rob,
1) Why are you so defensive? Did I attribute that "statement" to you, or is it more of a general-but-concise caricature of the typical "The CIA Killed JFK" conspiracy theorist's mind set?
2) Which part of the Military Industrial Intelligence Community Complex do you believe killed Kennedy? (LOL)
3) Got any ... uhh ... informed, fact-based opinions, like I do?
4) Read that page in Riebling's "Wedge," yet? How about this nifty 35-page pdf by Tennent H. Bagley for some background as to ... well, ... as to how the "KGB" really did win the Cold War, as evidenced by KGB-boy Putin's recent installation (with help from his lackey-agent Assange) of "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president, thereby bringing to fruition decades of highly successful "active measures" and "operational deception" counterintelligence operations (the JFK assassination very probably being one of them) against our now highly gullible and "dumbed-down" and ... gasp ... brainwashed body politic.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08850607.2014.962362
-- Tommy :)
Rob,
And yet you want me to post my "opinions" here so that you can ... uhhh ........ READ them?
How ironic.
I'm running away from my "opinion" that Khrushchev and / or Castro killed JFK, with or without a programmed-in-Minsk Oswald?
LOL!
My new book, I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak, is now available for purchase.
Fred Litwin recounts how he became a JFK conspiracy freak at eighteen, and then slowly moved to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. This book demonstrates how the left and the right have used the JFK assassination to drive home myths about power in America. There is also the horrible persecution of a gay man prosecuted for conspiring to kill Kennedy, the ugly story of Oliver Stone?s homophobic film JFK, an expos? of conspiracy nonsense on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a look at how the Soviets tried to influence American public opinion into believing the CIA was behind the assassination, and the incredible secret why some JFK assassination documents must remain locked up forever. And a whole lot more.
PRAISE for I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak
?As a young man growing up in the heyday of Kennedy assassination theorizing, Fred Litwin believed a conspiracy killed JFK. And then he grew, and he studied and he researched. The result is this volume, a thorough, cogent and meticulously argued case for a lone assassin. A seasoned conspiracy skeptic will learn new things here, and a conspiracy believer open to looking at the other side could do no better than this volume.?
John McAdams, Associate Professor of Political Science at Marquette University and author of JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy
?This is a great book for conspiracy buffs?and, more important, for those who debunk such theories. Fred Litwin does a terrific job in blowing up the myriad JFK assassination scenarios, not least in completely demolishing The Fifth Estate?s decades-long efforts to ?uncover? the truth. The CBC?s lead investigative show is revealed here to be more than slightly unhinged.?
J. L. Granatstein, Author of Who Killed Canadian History?
?Who killed John F. Kennedy has become the conspiracy theory of conspiracy theories. Despite the many recent books debunking all of them, scores of people still believe Lee Harvey Oswald was not involved or had accomplices, and was directed by either Moscow, the CIA, the FBI, Lyndon Johnson, Fidel Castro, or whomever one chooses to accuse.
In Fred Litwin?s marvelous book, he charts how he went from becoming one of the earlier skeptics to someone dedicated to dissecting their arguments and carefully tearing them apart. The penultimate chapter is the one in which Litwin takes a scalpel to the vehicle that has unfortunately convinced many Americans there was a real conspiracy. That source is the famous Oliver Stone movie, JFK, in which Litwin shows the director created a nonexistent homosexual cabal planning to assassinate Kennedy, which was also in cahoots with the CIA. The agency, according to Stone, wanted Kennedy dead because he was about to pull U.S. troops out of Vietnam! Exposing Stone?s lies after lies, the director won?t know what hit him if he dares to read Litwin?s book.
Litwin continues to update the many books and new theories that keep coming to prove conspiracy, up to the present. What he has accomplished is to put the final nail in the coffin of all the conspiracy theorists, who develop new ones as old theories are proven wrong. He has given us a beautifully written and compelling book, one in which Litwin tells the bold, unvarnished truth. How anyone reading this can still conclude that JFK was killed by various conspirators, rather than the lone gunman Lee Harvey Oswald, is beyond my comprehension. Everyone still concerned with JFK?s death and thinks it?s a mystery, must read Fred Litwin?s I Was a Teenage JFK Conspiracy Freak. They will be glad they did.?
Ronald Radosh, Professor Emeritus of History at CUNY, opinion columnist for The Daily Beast and co-author of A Safe Haven: Harry S. Truman and the Founding of Israel.
?Mr. Litwin?s book is the best in many, many years in dealing with the truth about this horrendous piece of history?and exposing the fakirs, cons and opportunists who often call themselves ?historians.? A fine presentation!?
Hugh Aynesworth, Author of November 22, 1963: Witness to History and JFK: Breaking the News
A critique of Litwin's "book" by James D.
https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/jim-garrison-vs-fred-litwin-the-beat-goes-on-part-2
Ray,
James DiEugenio?
You mean the high school history teacher who as recently as March 21st of this year stated on the EF that Alger Hiss was not a spy for the Kremlin?
The guy who idolizes intellectually-dishonest Jefferson Morley (see my 1-star review of Morley's "The Ghost" on Amazon, under the name dumptrumpputin)?
The guy who refused to applaud at the conclusion of John Newman's "Spy Wars" presentation in San Francisco in March because Newman, having read Tennent H. Bagley's excellent book by the same name, is now convinced that Yuri Nosenko was a false defector, and Anatoliy Golitsyn a true one?
That James DiEugenio?
LOL
-- Tommy :)
Thomas,
You missed the James DiNobrainio, who at one time in the distant past was a huge fan of the late William Cooper, and who was an open supporter of "The Driver Shot JFK" lunatic theory.
Duncan,
That sounds about right.
Thanks,
-- Tommy :)
PS I just now did a little "research" and came up with this article, in which Cooper is mentioned, and Jumbo Duh is actually quoted for his "expert opinion."
LOL
How ironic!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-really-killed-jfk-experts-pick-the-wildest-conspiracy-theories
Ray Mitcham Old Bean,
You say "James D" has reviewed Litwin's book?
James DiEugenio?
You mean the high school history teacher who as recently as March 21st of this year stated on the EF that Alger Hiss was not a spy for the Kremlin?
The guy who idolizes intellectually-dishonest Jefferson Morley (see my 1-star review of Morley's "The Ghost" on Amazon, under the name dumptrumputin)?
The guy who refused to applaud at the conclusion of John Newman's "Spy Wars" presentation in San Francisco in March because Newman, having read Tennent H. Bagley's excellent book by the same name, is now convinced that Yuri Nosenko was a false defector, and Anatoliy Golitsyn a true one?
The guy who was sad that the Communist candidate Gennady Zyuganov, lost the 1996 presidential election to Boris Yeltsin?
The guy whom Bill Kelley told me over the phone was a "cracker"?
The guy who is idolized on RT?
The guy who bemoans the demise of Alex Jones?
That James DiEugenio?
LOL
-- Tommy :)
Yes, the same old James De Eugenio who knows more about the assassination than you will ever know, old bean. IMO.
Now try to refute his di-section of Fred Nitwit's book.
Yes, the same old James De Eugenio who knows more about the assassination than you will ever know, old bean. IMO.
Now try to refute his di-section of Fred Nitwit's book.
Dr Mr. Mitcham: I don't know you at all. And you do not know me. I don't think you have read my book. And yet
you call me Fred Nitwit. I have no problem if you read my book and disagree with it and write a review. But, why
insult my name?
Fred
Fred,
Ray can't help it.
He's a protege of James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio .....
LOL
-- Tommy :)
Ouch! Don't ya'll hate it when that happens?
Ray,
Do you promise to read what I post about that, and to try to rebut it point-by-point, with citations and sources (because that's what I will have, "in spades"), if I do?
-- Tommy :)
Ray,
My preliminary observation is that in his article, James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio reviews basically only sixteen pages of Litwin's 272-page book.
What's up with that?
-- Tommy :)
DiEugenio also read my short excerpt on Quillette.com.
He said on Black Op radio that he would not buy by book because of moral reasons.
Bill Kelly is worse - he has reviewed two reviews of my book, and the two excerpts on the web. He also
has not read my book.
fred
"Y'all"?
You mean all of us, and all of our in-laws, and all of their business associates going back five generations, and all of their wedding guests, too?
Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1510708936 (https://books.google.com/books?id=9TjlDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT368&lpg=PT368&dq=I+later+learned,+written+by+a+DiEugenio+protege+whose+name+I+discovered,+was+Tom+Scully,&source=bl&ots=Oxreb_WQJv&sig=L4EhPuzMslqta83LQ4Gqv-Jqiww&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwix2MnmgcTfAhVIMt8KHXQ8AMEQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=I%20later%20learned%2C%20written%20by%20a%20DiEugenio%20protege%20whose%20name%20I%20discovered%2C%20was%20Tom%20Scully%2C&f=false)
Peter Janney - 2016 - History
....Posted on Amazon in early August, the review was, I later learned, written by a DiEugenio prot?g? whose name, I discovered, was Tom Scully, but he would ...
Thomas H. Purvis Posted November 11, 2005
....Unfortunately for Clay Shaw, Vice-President of the "Mississippi Valley World Trade Council" was one William T. Walshe.
Mr. Walshe, in addition to being "Old Louisiana" descendent of Civil War veterans, was also a member of the upper--elete. IE: Boston Club; REX; etc.
In addition, Mr. Walshe was also one of the founding members of the "CRUSADE TO FREE CUBA".
Therefore, with his prior "OSS" service and continued "informant status" to the CIA, there was little difficulty in making it appear that Clay Shaw was some sort of "SPOOK" who was engaged in "something".
Not unlike "FBI" status; "CIA" status; etc; etc; etc;, everyone automatically thinks only of those things which they see on TV.
The OSS had literally hundreds of persons who worked in the "War Recovery" section, attempting to track down all of the gold; art; monies; jewelry; national treasures; etc; etc; etc;, which NAZI Germany had captured.
This was the extent of Clay Shaw's OSS assignment/work.....Quotehttp://obits.nola.com/obituaries/nola/obituary.aspx?pid=146314918
Mary Ellis Tack Carr?re ? 1917 ? 2010
...Her mother Mary Ellis Leake of New Orleans was the daughter of Hunter Collins Leake, chief counsel for Standard Oil and Illinois Central, prominent & beloved in the community, a former King of Carnival, Rex 1910; and Katherine Donelson Ellis of Magnolia Plantation....
July 3, 1936:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-M0I4QoQBnuk/V3GlGnNY9FI/AAAAAAAAEsI/EqhrHJkmngQkSbX-dXQ9uv5A-oXmPGffACCo/s353/HunterCLeakeWed071336CRP.jpg)Quotehttps://www.maryferrell.org/search.html?q=lemann%20and%20stephen&types=M&from=1
Found in: Mary Ferrell?s Database
William P. Burke, Jr.; Hunter C. Leake, III; Stephen B. Lemann (resident CIA Chief in New Orleans ? with Law Firm: Monroe & Lemann); Mrs. Dorothy BrandaoQuote(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-VPdW3e5KjtI/V5nSAYeOjLI/AAAAAAAAFA0/YLdjiw39UFw6ls-lVaXz9U1AkyJmqlfSACCo/s487/WBSpencerBurkeBuffet.jpg)
http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=100520469
Constance Ivy Burke Fedoroff
Queen MKC 1950.
.....Parents:
William P. Burke (____ - 1980)
Frances Ivy Kittredge Burke (1907 - 1985)
Both the obituaries of CIA officers Burke and Ray managed to include the detail of their membership in the New Orleans country club long managed
by Ernest Gossom.:
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DOl7Hj2_kv0/V3l5lXuXZgI/AAAAAAAAE0A/D-dPDfhFjwYNhtUNIPbBJlGjpjDbTkOpACCo/s489/WillardErnestGossomVP.jpg)
EDITOR DIES IN LEAP FROM 5TH AV. HOME; Body of Parker Lloyd ...
https://www.nytimes.com/1931/09/17/archives/editor-dies-in-leap-from-5th-av-home-body-of-parker-lloydsmith-of.html
HOME; SEPT. 17, 1931
Body of Parker Lloyd-Smith of Fortune Found on Extension After ... Parker Lloyd-Smith, 29 years old, managing editor and one of the founders of Fortune, ...
I Never Knew My Grandfather, Only What He Pretended to Be | Tor.com
https://www.tor.com/2013/08/09/toby-barlow-cia-agent-babayaga/
Aug 9, 2013 - His name is Philip Strong and he has boarded here in the Hamburg ... Leko will strike up an acquaintance with a fellow name Otto Fuerbringer....Quotehttps://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q="phil+strong+is+off+on+a+two-year*"+
Princeton Alumni Weekly ? Volume 37 ? Page 607
1936 ? (April 16, 1937)
Phil Strong is off on a two-year walking trip through Germany and Russia. If he doesn?t write a book about Russia, it will certainly be news?.Quotehttps://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-OSS/USMC-OSS-8.html
?.In October 1943, it was proposed that OSS create a unit of psychologist and psychiatrists to evaluate the mental and emotional fitness of incoming personnel?..
?.. In August 1940, Strong was promoted to Major and ordered to active duty as Assistant to the Director of the marine Corps Reserve. By December he had a new job: Marine Corps Representative to the Strategic Information Section of the Navy?s Foreign Intelligence Branch.9
?109?
It was in this job that Major Strong caught the eye of William J. Donovan?..
Gen. Philip Strong, Expert on U‐2, Dies - The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/1971/11/25/archives/gen-philip-strong-expert-on-u2-dies.html
Nov 25, 1971 - Strong, Philip G (Brig Gen) ... Philip Strong, Expert on U‐2, Dies ... years during World War II, General Strong was chief intelligence officer for ...
Somebody's gotta do it, because it is doable.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-blHLPkcFMf0/V4qSbK0PFcI/AAAAAAAAE4U/rVBhpLGEl_QZPhsIPrWf3u5eXBTJNEU8QCCo/s576/BurkeBrainardSpencerBestMan.jpg)
https://books.google.com/books?id=sRFbAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA3-PA27&dq=hill+school+brainard+roomed+phil+strong&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB6LiE4PjNAhUIcj4KHTgkBawQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=hill%20school%20brainard%20roomed%20phil%20strong&f=true (https://books.google.com/books?id=sRFbAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA3-PA27&dq=hill+school+brainard+roomed+phil+strong&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB6LiE4PjNAhUIcj4KHTgkBawQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=hill%20school%20brainard%20roomed%20phil%20strong&f=true)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-9jzor0k6S4M/V4qSJq1lA-I/AAAAAAAAE4E/adH9rs0T-CwP5zROs43y4CelzqTEFwFOwCCo/s512/BrainerdSpencerObitPhilStrongU2Burke.jpg)
Coincidentally, I am sure (in keeping with the spirit of the topic and the book author...) CD Jackson and his best
friend who threw himself out of an upper story window in NYC just weeks after serving in Jackson's wedding party...
....Jackson assumed the position of his late friend with Time, Inc., after his sudden death, were schoolmates at
Hill School, Pottstown, with Walker Brainerd Spencer and his roommate, Phil Strong.
In an oral history available at the JFK Library, Pierre Salinger shared that JFK hated Fuerbringer....
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonBurkeFuerbringer1122A.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonBurkeFuerbringer1122B.jpg)
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000621349.pdf
Approved for release 09/23/2009
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-jTE8fZ4kcVQ/V4qdx_8veGI/AAAAAAAAE4g/GLSxz5Q3rRIUrnn8mfL_ltJKAgq6pRP7gCCo/s640/PhilStrongU2DullesBurke.jpg)
Tom,
.......
A question for the moderator(s):
Are we permitted to make insane asylum-based jokes here?
https://www.tor.com/2013/08/09/toby-barlow-cia-agent-babayaga/
I Never Knew My Grandfather, Only What He Pretended to Be
Toby Barlow
Fri Aug 9, 2013 11:15am Post a comment Favorite This
Toby Barlow?s Babayaga is out this week from Farrar, Straus and Giroux, and follows the travels of a CIA agent posing as an ad executive CIA agent in Europe in the 1950s. What begins as a relatively straightforward operation quickly becomes something bigger, and weirder. Read an excerpt from the novel and see for yourself.
What you might not know are the life events that inspired Barlow?s story. Read on as the author tells us a tale about his grandfather, waiting on a German train in 1937?.
My grandfather sits on a train, waiting. It is early spring, 1937. His name is Philip Strong and he has boarded here in the Hamburg station, preparing to head to Berlin. Although I possess a volume of his letters from this trip, letters I have read many times, I am still not exactly sure why he is here.
He is 36 years old, a U.S. Marine Reserve Captain. But as a reserve officer, he is not travelling in uniform, instead he?s wearing an old tweed jacket. He has a bulky backpack stashed on the overhead rack. In his pocket is tucked his smoking pipe along with a small pouch of his treasured Dunhill tobacco.
Beside him sits a much younger man named Leko. They are on this sightseeing trip together. By all appearances, it is nothing more than that. They stay in youth hostels and ride on many trains such as this one, sitting back in the third class smokers.
It doesn?t make actually make sense that my grandfather would be here in any official capacity. He does not speak German or Russian, only a little French and only the most rudimentary Spanish. If the army had wanted someone to observe the European situation, they probably would have sent an agent who understood at least one of the various languages.
But it also seems too odd for him to be embarking on a journey with an itinerary that will take him through such a large number of the looming conflicts? many theaters. He will travel from Germany on to Poland, the Balkans, Russia, then down to Kabul and Tehran, driving from there over to Baghdad and Beruit before shipping off to the already jittery East.
Also, there?s the fact that he doesn?t know this young man sitting beside him very well at all. ?Leko and I are getting on well together ? we have likes in common with are being mutually discovered and so far have developed none which grate on each other,? he writes to his sister. It seems they are only socially connected, but not relatives and, until this trip, not friends. They do not agree politically, Leko, my grandfather reports, is pro-fascist, though my grandfather himself is not.
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.?)
Five years later, my grandfather will no longer be in the reserve, he will be very active. ....
....All of the other Volkswagen regional distributors were, to say the least, a cut above Robertson, both in wealth and in imported automobile marketing and servicing.
Charles Urschel, Jr. was step-brother of Tom and Earl F Slick. Willard E Robertson, Jr. was the employee of failing Steelcraft Boats of West Haven, CT in 1952. He is buried in New Hampshire.QuotePhilip Robertson and Patricia Anne Robertson Miller v. Willard E ...
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/477982/philip-robertson-and-patricia-anne-robertson-miller-v-willard-e/
Oct 22, 1986 - Willard E. Robertson, Jr., and Marlin Head, 803 F.2d 136. ... Willard Robertson, Sr. married Sally Moss Robertson in 1935 and lived with her in Connecticut. ... In 1947, the family moved to New Orleans, Louisiana, where ...
I did not write this, the insane (your wording) grandson of Phil Strong wrote it. It was spring, 1937, USMC Reserve
Captain Philip G Strong was beginning a two year walking tour of Germany and Russia. His guide in Berlin was
future Time magazine editor in chief, Otto Fuerbringer....
Is not insane, the acceptance of the premise that Willard Robertson arrived in NOLA from New Haven, CT as middle aged
sales rep. for soon to fail Steelcraft Boats, soon left his wife and two kids, promptly marrying the 23 year old secretary
of the NOLA Steelcraft office, was driving the car in 1959 his young wife was killed in, and just happened to stay in business eight more years with his deceased wife's father, Ernest Gossom despite remarrying in 1962 and starting a
new family, founding and funding both INCA and Truth or Consequences and sponsoring Gordon Novel, on the way
to becoming, literally from scratch as the insane or incurious simply accept, to rise to multi-millionaire king maker of
both the McKeithen and Garrison political careers? Tooth Fairy probably has an authorative explanation...is he a member
here?
http://www.thehill.org/RelId/1162055/ISvars/default/Early_history_of_The_Hill_School_(1851-2012).htm(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonPhilStrongCDjackson.jpg)
.....
Rev. Meigs' son, John Meigs, became headmaster in 1876 at the age of 24. In the 35 years that followed, the School grew from an institution with two teachers and 20 boys to a school of 40 masters and 375 young men. From 1911 to 1914, Alfred G. Rolfe served as headmaster, succeeded by Dwight R. Meigs, from 1914 to 1922. In 1920, ownership of the School was transferred from the Meigs family to Hill alumni, marking the beginning of a new era of alumni loyalty and service.
I doubt the headmaster of the Hill School of Pottstown was the player moving these "chess pieces" around.
Merely the "doin's" of a blessed trinity with a perverse sense of humor?
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonPhilStrongCDjackson.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/GarrisonPhilStrongCDJackson1918.jpg)
NOLA CIA DomCon Office Chief Wm Burke was in the book...
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BurkeNolaCityDir1949crp.jpg)
(http://jfkforum.com/images/BurkeSpencerHillSchool1918.jpg)
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-blHLPkcFMf0/V4qSbK0PFcI/AAAAAAAAE4U/rVBhpLGEl_QZPhsIPrWf3u5eXBTJNEU8QCCo/s576/BurkeBrainardSpencerBestMan.jpg)
QuoteQuotehttps://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/07/peter-janney/the-autodaf-of-lisa-pease-and-jamesdieugenio-tomas-de-torquemada-and-the-spanish-inquisition-return-in-a-new-era-of-suppression-of-freedom-of-thought-and-adherence-to-a-rigid-dogma-namely-thei/ (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/07/peter-janney/the-autodaf-of-lisa-pease-and-jamesdieugenio-tomas-de-torquemada-and-the-spanish-inquisition-return-in-a-new-era-of-suppression-of-freedom-of-thought-and-adherence-to-a-rigid-dogma-namely-thei/)
The Autodaf of Lisa Pease and James DiEugenio Tomas de Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition return in a new era of suppression of freedom of thought and adherence to a rigid dogma - namely their own prejudices!
By Peter Janney
July 6, 2012
...It doesn't seem to matter to Pease that "Mitchell" has never been able to be located since the trial,..
Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, Mary ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1510708936 (https://books.google.com/books?id=9TjlDAAAQBAJ&pg=PT368&lpg=PT368&dq=janney+discovered+dieugenio+scully&source=bl&ots=OxredVXRIA&sig=-mvO2EaBdDULUit4qPdNtgCpebo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC56HWtMjfAhXJUt8KHZ9GApYQ6AEwBXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=janney%20discovered%20dieugenio%20scully&f=false)
Peter Janney - 2016 - History
... written by a DiEugenio prot?g? whose name, I discovered, was Tom Scully, but ...
......I haven?t missed the point, Evan; I believe you may have missed mine.
There is much evidence open to debate, because it can be construed more than one way. That?s fair game. It?s a difference of opinion that makes a horse race, they say.
However, just as a recent example, Paul Trejo asserted that there were 20 witnesses to Oswald?s abuse of his wife Marina. Were he merely ignorant of the actual facts - which is a recurring pattern with him, as I?ve demonstrated - that doesn?t make him a xxxx; it merely means he?s wrong and needs to be corrected.
In order to correct his blatant misrepresentation of the facts, I meticulously searched through the testimony and demonstrated beyond doubt that most of the people Paul Trejo included in his ?20" figure had no such direct first-hand knowledge and did not testify as he said they did.
Nevertheless, and despite acknowledging the "20" figure was overstated, Paul Trejo thereafter still contended there were twenty witnesses. At this point, it is no longer a mistake - because he?s been shown and admitted the error of his ways - and is an outright falsehood. Fairly clear instance, wouldn?t you think? I raise the point because I think there is a parallel with the Janney episode.
A few observations which I?ll try to keep brief.
From the little bit of correspondence we?ve had during the eight years I?ve been a member here, I believe John Simkin to be a liberal egalitarian who felt he could construct the single best and most effective JFK site by inviting the best researchers and authors. A laudable goal, and one he achieved I think. (It is a measure of his liberalism that he has granted membership to persons such as Jim DiEugenio, who had written some unflattering things about John prior to joining here.)
Because authors were invited by John, he no doubt hoped that they?d be treated with civility by the Forum membership. Contrary to the analogy offered, I don?t think this is John?s living room, but his classroom. He has invited visiting lecturers, through whom we might benefit by learning more, and they might benefit by selling some books.
Unfortunately for some of those authors, the membership here proved to be as well versed - or more so - than the authors who presume to educate us. Fireworks is predictably inevitable, particularly if authors expected deference rather than civility. Haughtiness ensues, due to wounded pride. But whom should we fault for this? The authors, whose case has not been made beyond a reasonable doubt? Or the members who point out that failing on the authors? part?
This is multiply true in the case of Peter Janney?s book. John Simkin not only invited Peter here, but I believe provided him with some material aid in preparing his book (please correct me if I?m wrong on this), and subscribes to the book?s central premise that CIA murdered Mary Pinchot Meyer. (As it happens, I am inclined to concur with that assertion. That does not require me - or anyone - to accept Janney?s scenario for the crime if compelling evidence is not presented.)
Both the ousted members found reasonable fault with Janney?s book and demonstrated that some of the evidence presented was underwhelming at best, incorrect at worst. In fact, ex-moderator Tom Scully seemed to have located the man Janney accused of being Mary Meyer?s murderer, a man whom Janney himself claimed he was unable to find. Most of the comments made by the ousted members seemed fair game to me. But then, I don?t have a personal relationship with Peter Janney.
I believe that John has inadvertently admitted that he put his thumb on the scale in Janney?s favour:
?The main reason I did not act on this was because I was part of the argument. If I had tried to restrain these attacks I would have been accused of being biased and interfering with free speech. Even so, it was no real excuse for not protecting a friend.?
If a friend has been proved wrong, as I believe Janney had been by the ousted members, he doesn?t need protection; he needs correction. If he is unwilling to be corrected when shown persuasive evidence by forum members, a true friend shares some harsh truth with him. The alternative is to allow said friend to flail fruitlessly with a demonstrably flawed scenario, an allowance that does no favor to the friend, or the truth. Those who persist in pushing data they know to be wrong are no longer merely mistaken; they are trafficking in falsehoods. It is a disservice to this Forum?s raison d?etre to remain silent in such a case, irrespective of who the trafficker may be.
Those who refused to remain silent were the ones made to pay the price of excommunication, well after Janney ceased to post here.
I have written the foregoing to respond to something directed specifically to me. If DiEugenio and Scully are not re-instated as members, it will be my last post here, for reasons I think I have made sufficiently clear.
Edited June 16, 2013 by Robert Charles-Dunne
So you may be presenting at Lancer next year? Bully! Try not to be so haughty when you go--you'll do a better job.The "Bully" meaning here is the same meaning Teddy R. gave to it. I wasn't calling you a bully. :D However, it was said sarcastically.
I couldn't figure out where I had called you a bully, so I reread my post:The "Bully" meaning here is the same meaning Teddy R. gave to it. I wasn't calling you a bully. :D However, it was said sarcastically.
Agreed, Kathy, as in "bully for you."
"A way of saying "Good for you!" or "Kudos." Also see bully.
It wasn't always used in a sarcastic tone, but considering how it's changed over time, people do use it in that way.
"In older times, the word 'bully' also had a couple of positive meanings, the only trace of which is left in the expression 'bully for you,' which is still occasionally used in British English - I can't comment on US English. I've mostly heard it used in a derisive or sarcastic way, along the lines of 'Well then, aren't *YOU* the clever one?'" "
Ray,
James DiEugenio?
You mean the high school history teacher who as recently as March 21st of this year stated on the EF that Alger Hiss was not a spy for the Kremlin?
The guy who idolizes intellectually-dishonest Jefferson Morley (see my 1-star review of Morley's "The Ghost" on Amazon, under the name dumptrumputin)?
The guy who refused to applaud at the conclusion of John Newman's "Spy Wars" presentation in San Francisco in March because Newman, having read Tennent H. Bagley's excellent book by the same name, is now convinced that Yuri Nosenko was a false defector, and Anatoliy Golitsyn a true one?
The guy who was sad that the Communist candidate lost the election to Yeltsin?
The guy whom Bill Kelley told me over the phone was a "cracker"?
The guy who is idolized on RT?
The guy who bemoans the demise of Alex Jones?
That James DiEugenio?
LOL
-- Tommy :)
Duncan,
That sounds about right.
Thanks,
-- Tommy :)
PS I just now did a little "research" and came up with this article, in which Cooper is mentioned, and Jumbo Duh is actually quoted for his "expert opinion."
LOL
How ironic!
https://www.thedailybeast.com/who-really-killed-jfk-experts-pick-the-wildest-conspiracy-theories
My earlier post, with the promised footnote added (my laptop ran out of juice).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caprio wrote:
Telling people to read something is a copout. Five people can read something and come away with a different conclusion. *You* claimed on this board that the KGB and Russians killed JFK and still have NOT offered one piece of evidence for this claim.
Your opinion is duly noted.
...
...
Rob,
1) You're afraid to read one page in a well-sourced book I posted for you because somehow what's written on that page (paraphrasing here, Rob) "is open to five different interpretations by any five different people" (that's life, Rob), and yet you want me to post my (fact-based) opinions here (identical to what Bagley wrote in Spy Wars and Ghosts of the Spy Wars, and what Riebling wrote in Wedge (*with one exception so far; see below) so that you can .......... READ them?
How ironic.
2) I'm running away from my "opinion" that Khrushchev and / or Castro were responsible for the death of JFK, with or without a programmed-in-Minsk Oswald?
LOL!
-- Tommy :)
PS Whom do you believe killed JFK, Rob?
Got any uncontroverted "evidence" to back up your ....... opinion?
Did you form your opinions about the assassination by reading books, watching videos?
Are there any you think I should read / watch to bring me around to your way of thinking (whatever it is), or did your current "opinions" somehow spring automatically / mystically ... into your ..... mind?
LOL
* EDIT: On page 126 of the 1994 edition of Wedge, Riebling says Bedell Smith was U.S. ambassador to the Soviet Union when CIA officer Edward Ellis Smith (look him up) became the first CIA officer recruited by the KGB (in Moscow in late 1956), when in fact Charles Bohlen was ambassador at the time.
In case you're interested, Edward Ellis Smith (or someone HE helped KGB to recruit in the U.S.) was that great JFK researcher Peter Dale Scott's "Popov's Mole," the never-uncovered-during-his-lifetime traitor whom Angleton may have sent Oswald to Moscow to try to "dangle out," and whom false defector Yuri Nosenko successfully protected by giving false information to Tennent H. Bagley and George Kisevalter in Geneva in 1962. You know, Yuri Nosenko, the KGB officer who "defected" to the U.S. six weeks after the assassination and swore up and down that the KGB hadn't even interviewed Odwald during the 2.5 years the Marine Corps radar operator lived in The Workers' Paradise?
LOL
-------------------------------------
-- Tommy :)
Dr Mr. Mitcham: I don't know you at all. And you do not know me. I don't think you have read my book. And yet
you call me Fred Nitwit. I have no problem if you read my book and disagree with it and write a review. But, why
insult my name?
Fred
Fred,
Ray can't help it.
He's a protege of James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio at the so-called JFK Assassination Debate-Education Forum.
LOL
-- Tommy :)
Hilarious. So you are saying that someone else can't help themself as you do the SAME thing. What's your excuse?
Why do LNers always mock instead of deal with the evidence?
Thanks for expressing your opinion and other peoples' opinions. Give me a reason why the Russians would want JFK dead.
You've offered nothing but empty claims. If the paraffin test was "worthless" as you claimed then there was NO need to administer it or announce that LHO's hands tested positive to the media. And yet, that is what happened. End of story.
That's right, Rob.
I can't help it when I say you're full of beans.
(Because you are, Rob.)
-- Tommy :)
Rob,
How is my pointing out just a few of James "Jumbo Duh" DiEugenio's shortcomings "mocking" him?
Do you believe what I've written about him is untrue?
-- Tommy :)
Rob,
In addition to your own opinions, do you express others peoples' statements that can actually stand up to fact-checking/verification?
As to why KHRUSHCHEV wanted JFK dead, read the page in Riebling's book that I laboriously typed out for you and posted on this forum, Rob.
Then try to refute the points that Riebling and one of his soruces, Deryabin, make therein.
-- Tommy :)
Nonsense. And did you ever go to my link and find out why the investigators did the paraffin test on Oswald, even though they knew such tests were too erratic to be used as evidence?* No of course you didn't.
Hint: What would you brainiacs do if the investigators hadn't done any paraffin tests at all re Oswald?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
*I asked you that in late November, btw.. what's the holdup, RoboCall?
So you still have nothing. For if you did, you would have no problem citing it. [...]
Typical LNer ploy. You made the claim, not me. The authorities acted as if the paraffin test was reliable at first. In fact, they called it the "conerstone" of their case.
They wouldn't have administered it if they thought that it was worthless as you claimed.
So again, why was it administered? And, why was the result of his hand test told to the media if it was useless?
... the James DiNobrainio, who at one time in the distant past was a huge fan of the late William Cooper, and who was an open supporter of "The Driver Shot JFK" lunatic theory.
Tracy,
On my personal evolution chart, I've gone from believing that the "evil, evil, evil" CIA killed JFK, to entertaining the idea that Oswald did it by himself, to my current position that Nikita Khrushchev and/or Fidel Castro did the foul deed.
Or maybe, as Ion Pacepa says, Oswald was programmed to be an assassin during his 2.5 year sojourn in the USSR, and was sent back to the U.S. in June 1962 to kill JFK.
(Pacepa says Khruschev got "cold feet" and tried to call the mission off, but was unable to do so, and Oswald, like the Energizer Rabbit, just kept right on a-goin'...)
I started moving in the general direction that the Ruskies and/or The Bearded One may have done it while reading Tennent H. Bagley's 2007 book "Spy Wars," his 2014 pdf "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," and Mark Riebling's 1994 book "Wedge: The Secret War Between the FBI and CIA" a couple of years ago, and my suspicions were reinforced by recollecting the 2014 Russian invasion of Ukraine, and witnesing the "active measures counterintelligence" operations that installed "useful idiot" Donald Trump as our president.
But my real epiphany came a few months ago when it dawned on me that the KGB triple-agent that recently-fired head of CIA counterintelligence James Angleton referred to as "Byetkov*?" in his June, 1975, Church Committee testimony, and as "another hangnail" in his February, 1976, testimony, respectively, must have been the (mysteriously well-paid) Soviet Embassy security guard, Ivan Obyedkov (pronounced "ah-bee-ED-cough"), who "volunteered" the WW III Virus-inducing name "Kostikov" to Oswald (or, more likely, to a KGB impersonator -- Nikolai Leonov?) over the phone on 10/01/63. (Which "virus" caused Armegeddon-fearing and egg-on-face-fearing FBI to coverup, after 11/22/63, all of the evidence implicating the Soviets and/or the Cubans in the assassination.)
That, plus the fact that another KGB triple-agent, Aleksei Kulak (Hoover's "Fedora") had already implicated (with witting or unwitting help from KGB agent Oleg Brykin and FBI double-agent Guenter Schulz) KGB officer Valeriy Kostikov as a Department 13 "wet affairs" officer.
-- Tommy
PS In a recent Facebook private message conversation I had with Bill Simpich, he agreed with my assessment that Angleton's triple-agent "Byetkov*?" must have been Ivan Obyedkov .
Dear Baby Dolan,
Nope, it took me about twenty years to wade through all that other garbage and finally see the light, so now I'm goin' all the way with Khruschev and Castro.
Three questions:
1) Did you ever figure out who Duran's and Azcue's "Blond Oswald" was?
(Sandy Larsen thinks the evil, evil, evil CIA sent a short, blond, blue-eyed, skinny, suit-wearing, very thin-faced, 35 year-old Nikolai Leonov look-alike down there to make it look as though the Kremlin was behind the assassination. LOL!)
2) Have you always been borderline inarticulate?
3) Have you always hated the CIA? Did Oliver Stone's JFK do that to you? Jumbo Duh's propaganda?
-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy :)
'borderline inarticulate'
You mean like Trump?
I hear the Lunatic Left baying at the moon again. Howl away loonies.
Dear Steve,
Are you another Trump and Putin supporter?
-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy :)
One is a businessman and one is a rat xxxxxx communist.
The lefties in this country are akin to one more than the other.
I didn't vote for either one of them.
The electoral college nullifies republican votes for president in Moonbat enclave states like the one I live in.
One is a businessman and one is a rat xxxxxx communist.
The lefties in this country are akin to one more than the other.
I didn't vote for either one of them.
The electoral college nullifies republican votes for president in Moonbat enclave states like the one I live in.
Dear Steve,
Putin used to be a mobbed-up KGB communist, but now he's a mobbed up FSB/SVR/GRU fascist.
Not unlike your buddy, Donald Trump.
D'oh
-- Mudd Wrassler Tommy :)
PS -- The Electoral College failed to do its Constitution-required duty -- to prevent a scumbag traitor like Trump from assuming the Office of the President.