Jump to content
The Education Forum

Glenn Viklund

Members
  • Posts

    472
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Sweden
  • Interests
    JFK

Recent Profile Visitors

8,608 profile views

Glenn Viklund's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Week One Done
  • One Month Later
  • One Year In

Recent Badges

  1. Indeed, Greg. Bugliosi said it very well and I completely agree with that statement.
  2. Sorry to hear that David Lifton has passed. I haven't been active in the JFK debate for years now, but I do have a few words to say about David Lifton. Despite me being - totally unknown as far as JFK research - and an LN, David always treated me with due respect, mostly as a result of my work on Judyth Vary Baker, more than ten years ago. As can be seen in the "exile thread" in this forum, started by Jim Fetzer, myself and DL had similar experiences of JVB. After those discussions, I was in contact with David for many years, sometimes about JFK, sometimes regarding other matters. In this regard I came to realize that even though we had these basic differences about what happened in Dallas in 1963, there are quite a few CTs who are very reasonable and prepared to discuss issues related to the assassination, with due respect. I'm still following the debate, here and there in the Internet forums, and factually I see nothing new over these past ten years, and the debate is much like it was ten or twenty years ago. Unfortunately, the tone in these discussions still leaves, as has always been the case, much to wish for. And much can be said about David Lifton, but I will always regard him has a serious researcher, with an impressive knowledge about the JFK case. My condoleances to David Liftons relatives. / Glenn Viklund
  3. Greg, You are missing the point. It is a monumental difference as to whether they knew, or did not know, that they were covering up something? Do I have to ask whether you understand this? I have studied this question extensively and had in mind to bring forward a whole range of alternative reasons for the WCs behavior and their from the outset flawed mission. What they should have done, or did not do is an entirely different question. That's not what I wanted this thread to be about. Start another thread about this question if you find it interesting. However, it is not possible for me to discuss any issue - some members here are more interested in bullying me than discuss the questions I raise, which is why I will no longer be a member of this site. The bullying is of no concern, the fact that I cannot raise questions is. Best to you, //GV
  4. It is apparently easier said than done to exit this site. I've renewed my quest according to what should be the correct way. Meanwhile, it is astonishing. Jim DiEugenio succeeds with what he always does as a response to any posting I make: divert from the issue at hand. How difficult is it, really, to discuss the question I raised when I started this thread: Did the Warren Commission knowingly cover up a conspiracy?
  5. To Pat Speer: If you find the time; please have a look at my positions about the WC as I've expressed them (part of them, I hope this goes way further) in this thread. I'd like your input on my views.
  6. Glenn is not another McAdams. He's wrong about the Kennedys, however. And Jim is right. Although Specter told the doctors Bobby didn't want them to look at the autopsy photos, Katzenbach told the HSCA he spoke to Bobby about them, and Bobby told him they should do whatever was needed. Specter, in fact. wrote a memo to Rankin in which he said the SS told him Bobby would do nothing to prevent them from looking at the photos. Or something to that extent. Warren then looked at them himself, and forbade anyone else from looking at them. One look at the back wound photo should have proved to him the Rydberg drawings were inaccurate, and that the SBT was questionable. It follows then that Warren and Specter (who saw the back wound photo on the day of the re-enactment) were the two men working for the commission most likely to have doubts about its conclusions. And yet they were two of its biggest defenders. Go figure. If anyone working for the commission secretly thought it was a conspiracy, and played along to help fool the others, my money would be on one of those two. I stand corrected, Again, thanks Pat.
  7. To Jim Di Eugenio: Another thing, and this is a little bit more serious: Quit lumping me in with DVP, McAdams, Reitzes or anybody else that has floored you..right? Please do those people the favor of recognizing the fact that I am not in their league - I haven't spent, I believe, half as much time on the JFK assassination. By no means does that prevent me from nail you once in a while. And even though that's not the issue it's quite a lot of fun...
  8. Mark, The WC - as an entity - wanted to see those photos. Earl Warren himself though, made an agreement with the Kennedys that he was gone be the only one to see them. This was just another peculiarity of those times (I believe) ; nothing of this was based in law, constitution or such. It was all about the Royal Family of the US.
  9. Jim DiEugenio: "And so Hoover, Dulles, McCloy, and Ford wrote the obituary for JFK. And Ford changed the writing of it, among other things, raising the back wound to a neck wound, since he knew it was BS anyway. " This is something that you made up yourself - as we economists say - out of thin air? Right? No proof, no documentation, not phone calls, no witnesses etc. No nothing, right? I noticed your claim a couple of days ago. And still you are avoiding Fetzer and his outrageous positions? Jim, go back to the drawing board and think again - this will do you a huge favor, I believe.
  10. "I knew you knew all this Glenn. No need to thank me for enlightening you." Hehe, Jim that's very good, indeed humorous - now, unfortunatelaty I am far less sure you view it as such. :-) Now: "He told them the circumstances under which he accepted the job. Warren admitted he had declined the position on grounds the Supreme Court should not be involved in such things. Johnson then called him in. Johnson then said "rumors of the most exaggerated kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the GOvernment wishing to see the Presidency assumed by President Johnson. [if LBJ told him this, it was left out of other renditions by LBJ and Warren.] Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which could cost 40 million lives. NO one could refuse to do something which might help to prevent such a possibility. The President convinced him that his was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles." (italics added.)" Well, I can't vouch for the authenticity of all of that However - I've read, studied and heard similar stories. Fair enough. You see JIm, it's the interpretation of those stories where I suspect you and I are making vastly different conclusions. On your part it seems they all knew there was a conspiracy." And: ""The Chief Justice then discussed the role of the Commission. He placed emphasis on the importance of quenching rumors, and precluding future speculation such as that which has surrounded the death of Lincoln. He emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth whatever that might be." Tell me Jim, just exactly what conclusions do you make of this? Please be specific? BTW, it is not true that the Commission did not have the medical evidence. This is another canard used by WC apologists in order to sometimes deflect blame onto the Kennedys. Agreed. The important thing is what conclusions are to be made of this? For Rankin refers to seeing a picture of the back wound, coming in too low to exit the neck. He actually uses those words to that effect. At this meeting, McCloy asked about these exhibits, and Rankin said they had them in a special room. So this is part of the conscious cover up of a cover up. And, accordingly - the one and only conclusion - again - is that Rankin was lying and part of The Cover Up of the Century? Knowing that LHO was innocent and that the whole bunch of lawyers, top dogs and the the rest were "lying in the know" of a conspiracy? That's what you're saying here Jim? "Finally, what could be more compelling than the fraud perpetrated on RIchard Russell at the last meeting? Knowing he was going to lead a dissent against the SBT for the Southern Wing, Rankin hired a stand in to pose as the stenographer, when in fact, they deliberately did not record this debate! This is what I mean about the WC not being a monolith. It was so bad that Russell actually wrote a letter of resignation since he understood he was being marginalized since they knew he was not buying the cover up. This is why he commissioned his own investigation .Yes, I agree that was a shame. Again - what does it prove?? You are speculating about the interpretations of this. That's all. And you are - in my view - and as usual - far out in the terrain with those speculations of yours. Or else, prove it JIm! Etc, Etc. It's just more blather and speculation on your part.
  11. You will not get away with these weak arguments, period. Heck Jim, you are just making up arguments as you go along, are you not??
  12. It is a mountain of difference dependant of these answers, in my opinion, here. Thanks Pat, for your input here.
  13. Jim, For someone being not worthy or you attention, it is amazing how you repeatedly cannot stay out of my views. (You are making straw man after straw man but that's an issue for another day). And since you are blathering, let me raise the question once again: Did the WC knowingly cover up a conspiracy? One simple question, Jim?
  14. Edit: spelling errors. Let's see where this discussion takes us, and thanks for your views.
×
×
  • Create New...