Recent Posts
How often have You been in bumper-to-bumper traffic, and jumped out of your car after sitting for Under :20 seconds? Does Not happen.
Realized I'd had a brain fart and said HSCA in several places where I meant AARB in my original post, so I corrected that.
You will note that there was an unexplained 18-month gap between the time Burkley's daughter Nancy Danlea told Horne "sure, no problem" about granting the AARB access to the materials in Illig's office and the time she told Horne "no way." She had been intrigued by what Horne told her in their first conversation - Burkley had never said anything to anyone in the family about a conspiracy (or anything else JFKA-related), and Nancy made the Sprague memo part of the price for granting access. Since Horne really didn't have much to send her, it was surely all sent during the 18-month period. The Sprague memo must have made her eyes pop out. Since she could grant access to the Illig materials, she obviously had access to them herself as the executor of Burkley's estate. My guess is, she looked at the materials and saw something there that likewise made her eyes pop out. She either decided on her own, with the other family members and/or with legal advice that "You do NOT want to get involved in this." That's the only explanation for her complete about-face that makes sense to me. Alas, she died in 2002: https://www.legacy.com/us/obituaries/latimes/name/nancy-denlea-obituary?id=28129080.
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mary_s_Mosaic/OGOCDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=mary%27s+mosaic+scully+dieugenio+protege&pg=PT348&printsec=frontcover
Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John F. Kennedy, ...
books.google.com › books
Peter Janney · 2016
Found inside
... DiEugenio protégé whose name, I discovered, was Tom Scully, but he would identify himself on Amazon only as “Rational Voice.” Discussing his critical post of Mary's Mosaic in an email to a University of Georgia law professor, Scully ...
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/20259-the-future-of-the-jfk-forum/page/9/
Robert Charles-Dunne Posted June 16, 2013 (edited)
...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.
Dear Stormtrooper Storing,
Paranoiac much?
-- Tom
Seems like an oversight on the part of the HSCA, a body that usually did good work.
Yes. Her account provides very strong evidence that JFK was hit by the first shot.
You, on the other hand, insist on attributing more weight to impressions that are hazy which are contradicted by the clear observations she made: 1. where JFK was when the first shot sounded and 2. her clear statement that the last two shots were more rapid.
Her evidence that the first shot was after the President passed by her at z190 and the second shot was closer to the last shot at z313. That puts the second shot after the midpoint, which is after z257. Since JFK is obviously hit well before z257, her observations are evidence that JFK was hit on the first shot.
[Truly's not moving towards the steps in Darnell] is why I continue to question these accepted timelines. If you look at the Sixth Floor/Darnell Film opening frames, the driver for camera car #2 is already standing outside of the car. Not in the process of getting out of the car but standing flatfooted on the ground. Those cars were stopped for an extended period of time. The WC did all they could to quickly get Officer Baker inside the TSBD in order for him to quickly confront Oswald inside the 2ND floor lunchroom. The longer it might take for Baker to confront Oswald, the more it would look like Oswald was casually sitting inside the Lunchroom drinking a soda pop, etc. Also, Wiegman filmed the JFK Limo going under the Triple Underpass. And Wiegman was inside Camera Car #1. Wiegman jumped out of that car because it was moving far too slow. The longer it takes for the JFK Limo to go under the Triple Underpass, the more it looks like there was a JFK Limo STOP. I believe the :20 second time stamp applied to Officer Baker crossing the Island and then his :30 second time stamp of entering the TSBD, was orchestrated with the possible JFK Limo STOP and the Oswald/Baker 2nd Floor confrontation in mind.
No but you certainly implied that by insisting that JFK was looking at Woodward and her friends when the first shot was fired. You have constantly cited her account as evidence JFK was hit by the first shot.Yes. Her account provides very strong evidence that JFK was hit by the first shot.
Look at Truly's starting position.
Does it look like he's moving toward the TSBD front door?
How do you reconcile this?