Robert Charles-Dunne

Members
  • Content count

    745
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Robert Charles-Dunne

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Recent Profile Visitors

13,043 profile views
  1. You should reserve your high dudgeon for those who invent an alternate universe of transparently fraudulent details. Such as fools who claim 19 witnesses testified that LHO beat his wife, while populating that list with people who hadn’t even met the Oswalds, hadn’t seen any evidence for the assertions, or had heard third hand gossip which those allegedly responsible for spreading then denied having said. Or, in the case of the one alleged eye-witness, he wasn’t called to testify. If one good witness exists, there is no need to invent a massive list of those who are incapable of providing any first hand evidence, let alone proof. One need only quote his testimony. But, of course, the one purportedly genuine eye witness didn’t testify. Seems to be a surprising lack of curiosity about that anomaly. Why would the WC call upon numerous people who knew nothing, or little, yet refrain from calling the one ostensible eyeball witness who could tell them precisely what they wanted to hear? His affidavit makes plain he was available to be called when witness testimony was taken. For reasons yet unclear, perhaps, the WC deliberately avoided calling the single person who could make the case. The fact that Trejo has the lowest standards for veracity, and lacks even the most basic of analytical skills in these matters, is plain to those who read his guff and twaddle. But some people are easily trolled, because so long as the bullxxxx being spewed comports with their own personal bias, they see nothing wrong with it. Embrace it, in fact. As we see here. To wit, Trump and his supporters. They think they need only repeat falsehoods often enough and they become true because..... *magic.* It won’t work for them, and it certainly won’t work here. Paul Trejo demonstrates that with his every post. For example, Trejo’s post in this very thread where he stipulates that he only claimed 7 eye-witnesses, and that I procured more, lesser valid witnesses to fraudulently deceive. To wit: “Instead of listing the seven actual witnesses to Lee's violence against Marina Oswald, the famous Robert Charles Dunne goes into great detail itemizing more than a dozen witnesses who never claimed to have seen such violence.” Yet at the very beginning of the post that has Trejo so agitated is the stipulation, which Trejo had and has no basis to deny: “Just to bring this thread back to the topic on which it started, Paul Trejo has now had some days to provide what he claims to have in abundance, the witness testimony that Lee Oswald beat his wife. With nineteen people cited, he should have had little difficulty in doing so, yet his streak of failing to provide compelling evidence for his contentions continues unblemished. In fact, he now seems to deny that the onus of providing proof for his contentions resides with him. It is now our job to do his homework for him. Instead, Paul has given us a list of people who presumably testified to that effect, and the Commission volume in which it could be located, but not the testimony itself. This is akin to a lawyer standing up in court, naming the nineteen witnesses who have critical information, listing their addresses, yet then failing to call any one of them to the stand. When something so bizarre as this takes place, one knows there’s fraud afoot. To wit, the following list of nineteen people provided by Paul Trejo and what we should find in furtherance of his contentions, but do not.” So, first Trejo posts 19 names of “witnesses,” only to later disavow a dozen of them as fraudulent. And then mis-attributes his own attempted fraud onto me. But the fraud is his, not mine, as the above clearly demonstrates. “...the famous Robert Charles Dunne goes into great detail itemizing more than a dozen witnesses who never claimed to have seen such violence.” Yet these dozen people who who never claimed to have seen such violence are the very people Trejo used to pad his witness list into something so large, it MUST be undeniably true. In other words, Trejo named a dozen people as witnesses whom he then denounced as know-nothings. How does such a fraud artist still manage to xxxxx members here? I should also point out to Paul Trejo, who has repeatedly crowed that he somehow bested me in this debate some years: people who win debates don’t usually feel compelled to say so. They are comfortable in the knowledge that they won, and allow other posters to draw their own conclusions. I am that comfortable. Trejo clearly is not. Anyone who paid the slightest attention to the original thread in question would vehemently disagree with Trejo’s false assertions of triumph. And have. Perhaps Tom Scully’s wayback machine needs to be dusted off again.
  2. Paul Trejo is either illiterate, a fool or a xxxx, or perhaps all three. To wit, we now have a desperate gambit by Trejo in which he claims I picked a dozen irrelevant witnesses, and ignored the seven witnesses he thinks germane. Had he read the beginning of the post that has him so rankled, he would have seen: “To wit, the following list of nineteen people provided by Paul Trejo and what we should find in furtherance of his contentions, but do not:” Illiterate, fool or xxxx? I’ll let readers here decide.
  3. 14-6
  4. 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 for typo)
  5. No need, John. It's already been done, several times. One of the JFK sewing circles even published an online directory in which members self-identified their areas of interest, so that the most problematic ones could be surveilled, to determine the extent of their progress. Purging members of the EF who advocate CIA involvement in the assassination won't do much to dispel such notions of your Agency sponsorship, however. You and I know they're not connected, but it helps keep such canards vibrantly alive in fevered imaginations.
  6. Martin: I thought it was incumbent upon moderators to post an explanation of their actions in the "Moderator actions and guide for mods" section whenever a member has been "free speeched" into the ether. I, for one, would like to know what member Norman George has to say, and if denied that opportunity, I'd like to know why. It was hidden by a moderator for an ad hominen on David von Pein. Gary: Thanks for the explanation. Such transparency on your part is vital if the EF is to retain its reputation. Were it not for Martin's post, I'd have never known Norman posted something, and were it not for yours, I would not have known why it disappeared. There is no informed consent from those who are not properly informed. Thanks again. I do join Martin Hay, however, in requesting details as to precisely what infraction(s) led to the expulsion of two worthy members. Failing that, an explanation of why other members are allowed to remain despite having committed the same infractions or worse.
  7. Martin: I thought it was incumbent upon moderators to post an explanation of their actions in the "Moderator actions and guide for mods" section whenever a member has been "free speeched" into the ether. I, for one, would like to know what member Norman George has to say, and if denied that opportunity, I'd like to know why.
  8. If a lie posted here cannot be called a lie here, irrespective of who posts it, then the Forum has outlived its usefulness anyway. Rather than forbidding the posting of outright lies, what is forbidden is calling a lie a lie. Orwell is spinning. There is much outright crap posted here by dilettantes, agenda-driven shills and the historically-challenged - all considered fair game by moderators who fail to act - yet those who draw attention to the fact that it is outright crap are the ones “moderated.” The imbalance of moderation - letting David Lifton question the mental health of other members, but acing his victims when they respond in kind - is not “moderation;” it is sucking up and fawning of the most egregious sort. Those too faint of heart to man up when their hokum is rightly labeled as hokum should be shown the door. They waste everyone’s time, moderators included. That they are published authors means nothing; we've all read books that contribute nothing to the debate, but distract attention from the exploration of the most fruitful areas, even if they top the New York Times' bestsellers list. Such authors should and must be challenged, irrespective of who they are. I agree with John Simkin - for whom I have great respect - that this Forum has been on a downhill slide for some time. The moderators have done nothing to slow the decline, but actually contributed to it with their one-sided punishments. If it continues, the loss of one’s membership will be a badge of honour, rather than a slight. In closing, despite my occasional confrontations with him over evidence and how it is to be interpreted, I won't stay anywhere Jim DiEugenio is unwelcome.
  9. That there was no cross-examination is simple to check. None of the lawyers cited as cousel to represent Oswald's interests ever rose to ask a single question. The game is given away by the status accorded by the Commission to these lawyers. When any of them was in attendance, which was sporadically at best, they were decribed for the record as "present" or as "observers." Not "defense counsel" or even particpants, mind - which one would be had one asked a single question - but mere observers of what transpired during the hearings. Here's the rigorous level of "cross examinaton" that Paul Trejo compares to a court proceeding, as explained by one of the fill-ins for Craig, et al, who were rarely present. Lewis E. Powell, Jr Vol. II - Page 294 Mr. Powell. Mr. Chairman, I think I might say just this: I am here representing Mr. Walter Craig, as I think the Commission understands. I have been here the last two days. In a conversation with Mr. Rankin yesterday morning we agreed that rather than my asking questions directly of witnesses, I would make suggestions to Mr. Ball or to one of his associates, and I have been following that practice yesterday and today, after consulting with Mr. Murray who is also here for Mr. Craig, and Mr. Ball and his associates have followed up these suggestions that we have made. Representative Ford. The suggestions you have made have been transmitted to Mr. Ball or his associates and have been asked of the various witnesses? Mr. Powell. That is correct. Representative Ford. Any other questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Whaley. So, the fact is that the so-called defense "cross-examination" was conducted by the prosecution, should Oswald's "appointed" "counsel" bother itself to "suggest" a question. Evidence of which is conspicuous by its absence. It is time-consuming to impart information to Paul Trejo given that there is so much he does not know, a process made all the more painful by his evasive alibis and repeated refusal to acknowledge how little he actually knows and understands about these things. Can we just start a thread called "Things That Paul Trejo Should Know, But Doesn't?" And disallow Paul Trejo to post in that thread? That way, we can just dump our explanations there without having to endure all the speculative conjecture - invariably incorrect - that arises in response.
  10. Sorry, but that’s not even close to being true. Dulles was the fifth DCI, not the first, and was installed by Eisenhower, not Truman. The list from the CIA, itself: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/directors-of-central-intelligence-as-leaders-of-the-u-s-intelligence-community/chronology.htm Rear Adm. Sidney W. Souers, USNR Jan. 23, 1946–June 10, 1946 Lt. Gen. Hoyt S. Vandenberg, USA June 10, 1946–May 1, 1947 Rear Adm. Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, USN May 1, 1947–Oct. 7, 1950 Gen. Walter Bedell Smith, USA Oct. 7, 1950–Feb. 9, 1953 Allen W. Dulles Feb. 26, 1953–Nov. 29, 1961 That such an easily-detected falsehood is offered as fact renders suspect all other contentions, such as a few of the following examples: As for the purported abhorrence Dulles had for the Nazis, this did not prevent his law firm from representing Nazi-era German corporate interests, or US interests doing business with the Nazis, nor did it preclude him from using the salutation "Heil Hitler" in his correspondence with those German corporate interests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sullivan_%26_Cromwell Anyone wishing to know more about the extent of the Dulles brothers’ collusion with Nazis and the nexus between it and the US corporate sector need only Google the words Dulles and Prescott Bush. Also recommended are two highly underrated books by Charles Higham, "American Swastika" and "Trading With the Enemy." Immediately after the war, Nazis who should have faced the gallows via Nuremberg were covertly exfiltrated to the United States, given military commissions and government jobs, and allowed to escape justice, courtesy of "Operation Paperclip." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip Despite President’s Truman’s explicit stipulation that Nazis were not to be brought Stateside, OSS and CIA nevertheless did an end run around that command. Apologists for this practice often state the necessity of keeping Nazi scientific advances out of Soviet hands required this disobedience of a Presidential order. Perhaps so. But the practice of shielding Nazis from the gallows also included more than mere scientists. To wit, the likes of Reinhard Gehlen, Alois Brunner and Otto Von Bolshwing, among many others, who were used by OSS/CIA until long after the war’s end. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhard_Gehlen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alois_Brunner http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bolschwing Dulles’ opinion of utilizing Nazis during the post-war period is perhaps found in his pithy patrician characterization of Gehlen: "I don't know if he's a rascal. There are few archbishops in espionage.... Besides, one needn't ask him to one's club." Yes, those pesky Nazis were possibly such "rascals," eh, wot? Hardly the sort with whom an Ivy League gentleman would wish to be seen breaking bread at the gentlemen’s club. More to the point of this Forum, Dulles was fully witting of CIA plots to assassinate foreign leaders, most pertinently Castro. In that Cuban escapade, the murder plots were undertaken not merely without the knowledge of Eisenhower (and then Kennedy), but against the expressed order by Kennedy forbidding it, once he became witting of it. Does that constitute a "great American?" What makes Dulles singular among Warren Commissioners was his knowledge of such CIA executive action attempts, and the implications they may have held for the solution of the Kennedy assassination mystery. Subsequently, the Rockefeller, Church, HSCA and Pike panels - all plumbing to some extent the JFK morass - thought those implications worthy of further probing. An honest broker would have disclosed this, in camera, to his fellow commissioners in 1963. Based on the extant record, Dulles did not.                            
  11. I have never fully understood why two researchers whom I both like and admire have such antipathy toward each other. They are welcome to it, I suppose, but it seems a damned shame that so much of their time and attention is now being squandered on bickering over personal slights when both could be contributing far more substantive posts that show their best attributes. I assume it is far too late to ask for cooler heads to prevail. But, likely foolishly, I will beg you both to reconsider what a furious food fight like this contributes to the poisoning notion that all of us are a little light in the head. Ironic that this exchange takes place in a thread titled The Danger Of Conspiracy Theories. You are two good men. Please, please, please consider that any man can argue endlessly, but the bigger man walks away. I intrude here solely because of my admiration for you both. End of Howdy Doody sermon.
  12. Good questions, Greg. I assume it was Groden who captioned the photos. Perhaps his new book will expand upon that. As for the provenance of the photos, I assume they were taken on 11/22/63 because the traffic looks quite snarled. I likewise assume they were taken at the same time, because they both show that type of traffic, and because we see a white square-box truck in proximity to the bus in each. Taking John Dolva's sage advice about discerning time of day from shadows, it seems to my uninformed eye they were taken mid-day, showing the same type of shadow pattern as photos taken in Dealey Plaza at the same time of day. As for whether it was McWatters' bus, I would have to re-read extensively to determine whether: * McWatters was the only one to drive that route on that or any other day; * If another bus, covering another route, also travelled westward along Elm as part of its route. If no other Dallas transit buses ever travelled westward on that portion of Elm, then we know with some certainty it was the bus usually driven by McWatters, assuming no other driver ever covered his route on a day shift. I am assuming the Commission determined the bus photos were not "relevant" to the assassination for fear that somebody would raise the same questions I have. What are the odds that somebody unconnected to the case would taken photos of the TSBD after the assasination, plus the getaway bus that nobody knew the purported assassin was riding (twice!), plus the arrest of that purported assassin across town?
  13. Hi Greg: I got that from Robert Groden's The Search For Lee Harvey Oswald, pages 120 and 121. Two previously unpublished photos, credited to Reed, show what the captions say are the McWatters bus. The first caption includes: "He was aboard the bus when this previously unpublished photograph was taken." The second photo's caption includes: "McWatters's bus was stuck in traffic on Elm Street." I would post them again, because they are good vivid colour shots, but my scanner is pooched. Reed photographed the TSBD after the assassination, and Oswald's capture at the Texas Theater. Some will say that the photos of the bus are irrelevant because Oswald wasn't on it. I would contend that, to the contrary, the fact that he photographed at least twice a bus that would only later be identified as Oswald's means of escape still tells us something about Reed's presence and purpose in Dallas. Think: of all the mundane traffic photos he might have taken, of all the buses in Dallas, he for no apparent reason squeezes off several shots of the McWatters bus. What was so fascinating about that particular bus that Reed felt compelled to capture it in photos more than once? I would like to see the totality of Reed's photography that day, in order to see how many photos were not in some way related to Oswald. In the first photo, when Oswald is allegedly already aboard, you can see the Rio Grande Building perhaps a block or so behind the bus. If it seems counterintuitive for an escaping assassin to walk many blocks east in order to catch a westbound bus, the fact that he allegedly caught it almost directly in front of the building housing 112th US Military Intelligence may be illuminating. It is also where purported Umbrella Man Stephen Louis Witt was employed. Small world, Dallas. Quick photographer, Reed.
  14. The new movie "Argo" highlights Canada's contribution to spiriting US diplomatic staff out of Iran. There's plenty of historical precedent for such action. Here, from Canada's equivalent to the New York Times: In a little-known chapter of the Cold War, Canadian diplomats spied for the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency in Cuba in the aftermath of the 1962 missile crisis – and for years afterward. A major part of that story is told in a forthcoming memoir by retired Canadian envoy John Graham. Mr. Graham was one of a series of Canadian diplomats recruited to spy for the CIA in Havana. The missions went on for at least seven years, during the 1960s. “We didn’t have a military attaché in the Canadian embassy,” explained Mr. Graham, who worked under the cover of Political Officer. “And to send one at the time might have raised questions. So it was decided to make our purpose less visible.” Mr. Graham said he worked as a spy for two years, between 1962 and 1964. His mandate was to visit Soviet bases, identify weapons and electronic equipment and monitor troop movements. The espionage missions began after President John Kennedy asked Prime Minister Lester Pearson – at their May, 1963, summit in Hyannis Port, Mass. – whether Canada would abet American intelligence-gathering efforts in Cuba. For more, see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/canadian-diplomats-spied-on-cuba-for-cia-in-aftermath-of-missile-crisis-envoy/article4614595/