Jump to content
The Education Forum

Mel Ayton

Members
  • Posts

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

4,939 profile views

Mel Ayton's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. see previous posts - stick to one so people don't have to jump around - and don't be so silly.
  2. Pat, Thank you for your sensible input. I have respected your views in the past and will continue to do so. I agree that the circumstances of the shooting should be investigated further by, perhaps, a distinguished panel of experts, even though I believe Sirhan killed RFK and acted alone. I have accumulated evidence that points to this conclusion but I would not be foolish enough to say ‘Case Closed’. In fact, as there are anomalies in most murders one can never be 100% positive about any murder case. I also believe the House Assassinations Committee should have re-investigated the RFK murder in the late 1970s. Neither you nor I really know the postures of the victims when the bullets hit or the angle of the gun when Sirhan fired. As soon as Sirhan reached RFK he was, of course, tackled by Karl Uecker who attempted to grab the gun – by this time Sirhan could have gotten off his first shot which hit Schrade. Sirhan then fired and hit RFK. Lisa Urso, who was able to see both Kennedy and Sirhan, saw Kennedy’s hand move to his head behind his right ear. As the distance from Kennedy to the gun after the first “pop” was three feet, it is likely he had been simply reacting defensively to the first shot fired. Urso described Kennedy’s movements as “… (jerking) a little bit, like backwards and then forwards.” Moldea believes the backwards and forwards jerking occurred when Kennedy recoiled at the explosion of the first shot. As RFK was turning, raising his arm and bending a little to protect himself, and reacting to the shot fired, he could then have been hit in the right armpit and the bullet lodged in his neck. RFK may then have been hit in the back and the bullet exited through his chest, traveling upwards to the ceiling where it was lost in the interspace. The next Kennedy bullet went through his shoulder pad but did not harm him. Where did this bullet go? Nobody can be sure – it purportedly went in an upward angle but - ergo my statement about the positioning of the victims and the angle of Sirhan’s gun when it was fired - if RFK was bent over and turning it may have hit another victim - Weisal for example. In an instant RFK’s posture could have changed as he began to collapse after being hit twice. In the intense struggle with Uecker and others Sirhan’s gun could then have reached RFK’s head. Also, Sirhan’s gun was still firing as his hand was slammed on the serving table after having been grabbed by RFK’s friends, the gun was therefore positioned low. No witness saw RFK actually being shot. If you factor in these plausibilities then 8 shots are still accounted for. P.s. Let’s stick to the post ‘A Word From Melvyn’ – that way posters do not have to jump around.
  3. You are also still putting across your points in an angry and immature manner. Calm down and post sensibly, please. I assure you, your credibility will improve. You will recall that Dan Moldea and Thomas Noguchi believed that no one could determine, for sure, the paths of the bullets or the exact positioning or angle of Sirhan’s gun relative to the paths.The crowd was in motion before and after the first shot. In all your previous diagrams you have made ASSUMPTIONS in the form of 'stick figures' which does not do justice to the dynamics of the shooting and the positioning of Sirhan. You have all victims standing upright as if there is evidence that shows this. There isn’t. No one can reconstruct the location and posture of each person in the pantry at any given second. This is why I have only posited a ‘scenario’, one amongst many that can account for the victims’ wounds and the damage to the ceiling tiles. As Sirhan started firing the crowd was moving, people were jerking backwards and forwards, some pantry witnesses were even pushed out of the swinging doors. There is no one who can give a precise diagram showing the positioning and angle of Sirhan's gun for all 8 shots - it is therefore impossible to show in which direction Sirhan's gun had been pointing by reference to the angle of the bullet entries to the victims, including RFK. Remember Frank Burns’ statement in which he said Sirhan’s gun was ‘pursuing’ RFK as the Senator was going down? If Sirhan fired at this moment described by Burns angles of bullet paths gauged with reference to RFK’s clothes and wounds would be meaningless. For example, as Noguchi said, “The senator had three gunshot wounds - a head wound behind his right ear and two through the right armpit. To reconstruct a scenario of the shooting, the gunshot wound to the head wouldn't tell us much, except how close the assailant may have been. We must remember the body is constantly moving, with arms, especially, changing position”. A lot of the misunderstanding about the shooting rests on your general lack of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents. You do not factor in the dynamics of crowd movement and of how crowds can rapidly change direction and positioning in an instant (nor did the official investigators for that matter). This would have been especially true in the pantry shooting after the first shot when people reacted out of fear, shock and perhaps defensively. People in the pantry were also turning their heads to look for the source of the sounds; on realizing a gun had been fired some would have stumbled, fallen and crashed into objects around them and clashed with others in the crowd. The eyewitnesses and victims were busy covering up and falling all over each other. We only have Elizabeth Evans’ guesses about her positioning when the first shot was fired. We do not know if her head had been tilted or if she had been pushed backwards following the first shot.There are any number of ways in which she could have been positioned which allowed the bullet to go ‘upwards’ through her scalp. I could have added in my post: “….or as Sirhan was grabbed by Uecker his gun could have been in an area below the waist and if Evans had been standing up or moving upwards when she was wounded this could have accounted for the angle of the bullet wound.” You have, once more, engaged in a disingenuous ‘multiple postings routine’. I'm curious as to why the moderator would have allowed you to do that.Please stick to the original post so readers will not have to jump around.And please revise your stick figure diagrams – perhaps another diagram will show the victims in alternative positions to match the angles of the entry wounds.
  4. You are also still putting across your points in an angry and immature manner. Calm down and post sensibly, please. I assure you, your credibility will improve. You will recall that Dan Moldea and Thomas Noguchi believed that no one could determine, for sure, the paths of the bullets or the exact positioning or angle of Sirhan’s gun relative to the paths.The crowd was in motion before and after the first shot. In all your previous diagrams you have made ASSUMPTIONS in the form of 'stick figures' which does not do justice to the dynamics of the shooting and the positioning of Sirhan. You have all victims standing upright as if there is evidence that shows this. There isn’t. No one can reconstruct the location and posture of each person in the pantry at any given second. This is why I have only posited a ‘scenario’, one amongst many that can account for the victims’ wounds and the damage to the ceiling tiles. As Sirhan started firing the crowd was moving, people were jerking backwards and forwards, some pantry witnesses were even pushed out of the swinging doors. There is no one who can give a precise diagram showing the positioning and angle of Sirhan's gun for all 8 shots - it is therefore impossible to show in which direction Sirhan's gun had been pointing by reference to the angle of the bullet entries to the victims, including RFK. Remember Frank Burns’ statement in which he said Sirhan’s gun was ‘pursuing’ RFK as the Senator was going down? If Sirhan fired at this moment described by Burns angles of bullet paths gauged with reference to RFK’s clothes and wounds would be meaningless. For example, as Noguchi said, “The senator had three gunshot wounds - a head wound behind his right ear and two through the right armpit. To reconstruct a scenario of the shooting, the gunshot wound to the head wouldn't tell us much, except how close the assailant may have been. We must remember the body is constantly moving, with arms, especially, changing position”. A lot of the misunderstanding about the shooting rests on your general lack of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents. You do not factor in the dynamics of crowd movement and of how crowds can rapidly change direction and positioning in an instant (nor did the official investigators for that matter). This would have been especially true in the pantry shooting after the first shot when people reacted out of fear, shock and perhaps defensively. People in the pantry were also turning their heads to look for the source of the sounds; on realizing a gun had been fired some would have stumbled, fallen and crashed into objects around them and clashed with others in the crowd. The eyewitnesses and victims were busy covering up and falling all over each other. We only have Elizabeth Evans’ guesses about her positioning when the first shot was fired. We do not know if her head had been tilted or if she had been pushed backwards following the first shot.There are any number of ways in which she could have been positioned which allowed the bullet to go ‘upwards’ through her scalp. I could have added in my post: “….or as Sirhan was grabbed by Uecker his gun could have been in an area below the waist and if Evans had been standing up or moving upwards when she was wounded this could have accounted for the angle of the bullet wound.” You have, once more, engaged in a disingenuous ‘multiple postings routine’. I'm curious as to why the moderator would have allowed you to do that.Please stick to the original post so readers will not have to jump around.And please revise your stick figure diagrams – perhaps another diagram will show the victims in alternative positions to match the angles of the entry wounds.
  5. John Simkin still allows Hunt to call me 'Melvyn' without my permission - he apparently thinks this name is a little effete and that he is being 'witty' when it is really schoolyard taunting. Hunt, please use mature language - it will enhance your credibility. I have been called Mel professionally and privately for the last 50 odd years - in the same way that people choose to be called Tom, Steve, Dan etc. In future, please address me by this name and I ask the moderator John Simkin to ensure this happens. I'm sure he doesn't wish forum members to exchange insulting, personal remarks to one another. Start here, Mr Simkin. Readers beware - Hunt has constructed this scenario through one error I made in a previous post when I left out a short phrase. As you will see from the following 'scenario' 8 shots account for all wounds and bullet holes: There are a number of possibilities that can explain the trajectories of the shots without resorting to the possibility of a second gun. Thomas Noguchi and Dan Moldea concluded there was no one who could positively say to a 100% degree of certainty how the bullets travelled. A number of possible explanations, which are contrary to the official version, can account for the paths of the bullets. There were four stray bullets: 1. The bullet that passed through Kennedy’s jacket without striking him 2. The through-and-through bullet that exited from Kennedy’s chest. 3. The bullet that struck the pantry ceiling and exited through one of the ceiling tiles. 4. The bullet that was supposedly lost in the pantry ceiling interspace. There are other scenarios that could account for the 8 shots – as Vincent Bugliosi said, “If (Wolfer’s) report is in error, for whatever reason, then there might be an explanation for some of these things: ricochets, parts of bullets, fragments. This whole notion of a second gun is premised on the assumption (Wolfer’s) report is correct.” BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead. BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm – this bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is Elizabeth Evans. Evans believed she was bending down at the time of the shooting – the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor, then struck Evans in the head - or, she could have been standing upright when the bullet ricocheted a second time off the floor. This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit. BULLET 3 – The bullet that hit Kennedy in his right armpit and lodged in the back of his neck. This bullet was recovered. BULLET 4 - The bullet that hit RFK in the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal. Bullet fragments were recovered. BULLET 5 – The bullet that went through Ira Goldstein’s left pant leg without striking him – this bullet could have hit Irwin Stroll – the bullet was recovered during surgery. BULLET 6 – The bullet that hit William Weisel in the abdomen and was recovered during surgery. BULLET 7 – The bullet that was lost in the ceiling interspace. This may very well have been the bullet that entered then exited RFK’s chest and travelled upwards. BULLET 8 – The bullet that hit Goldstein in the thigh and was recovered. Three ceiling tile holes are accounted for in the above scenario. The alleged bullet holes in the pantry door were too small to be made by .22 caliber bullets. In fact they were not made by bullets at all as Moldea discovered.
  6. Do you dispute that any of these four points of damage existed?? As a matter of clarification, when you say “the bullet that was supposedly lost in the ceiling interspace,” are you saying you have doubts about whether or not that really was a bullet hole?? Nor I. Firstly, the shot through the shoulder pad went upward at a severe angle. In order for that shot to have struck another victim, the holes in RFK’s jacket would have to aligned along the horizontal. (See attached graphic.) If RFK was pushed up against the steam table as you concluded, that didn’t happen. And even if it did, that still leaves you with nine shots. To wit: Bullet # 1 – Paul Schrade (Forehead). Bullet # 2 – RFK (Through and through bullet hole in jacket, striking Goldstein (for instance)). Bullet # 3 – RFK (Headshot, non-transiting). Bullet # 4 – RFK (Armpit, non-transiting). Bullet # 5 – RFK (Armpit, transiting upward). Bullet # 6 – Goldstein pants (Transiting, ricocheting, and striking Stroll in the shin (non-transiting). Bullet # 7 – Evans (For the sake of the argument we will say that she was struck in the head by the bullet which entered a ceiling tile, ricocheted of the ceiling, and reentered thorough the ceiling tiles (non-transiting)) Bullet # 8 –. Weisel (Abdomen (non-transiting) Bullet # 9 – Hole in the ceiling tile, (Sharply upward, not recovered). Marrying the RFK shoulder pad shot to any victim does not negate the necessity of a ninth shot if you conclude (as you have) that Schrade was hit by a shot unto itself. Additionally, if we divorce the ceiling re-entry bullet from Elizabeth Evans’ headwound, that puts the bullet count at 10. Outline the plausible scenario for us. I understand what you are saying, but you haven’t yet given us a plausible explanation. If you are correct in this matter, then you should be able to come up with an eight shot scenario using this “Official” evidence: 1. RFK - Shot in the head, no exit. 2. RFK - Shot in the right rear armpit, with the bullet coming to rest in the flesh beneath the skin at the base of the back of the neck. The bullet was recovered at autopsy. 3. RFK - Shot in the right rear armpit one inch above shot No. 2. The bullet exited through right front chest below the clavicle. 4. RFK - Entry and exit of a bullet which passed through the rear right shoulder of RFK’s suit jacket. The entry and exit were both behind the yolk seam at the top of the shoulder, and penetrated only the outermost layer of fabric. 5. Paul Schrade - Shot in the forehead above hairline near the apex of the head. Bullet fragments remained in the head, with a majority exiting through an exit defect several centimeters behind the entry point. 6. Ira Goldstein - Shot in the left buttock/thigh. The bullet was recovered during surgery. 7. Ira Goldstein - Entry and exit of a bullet that passed cleanly through his left pant leg without striking him. 8. Irwin Stroll - Shot in the left shin. The bullet was recovered during surgery. 9. Elizabeth Evans - Shot in the center of the forehead one inch below the hairline. Fragments of a bullet recovered during surgery were too light to comprise a full .22 round. There was no exit point in the scalp. 10. William Weisel - Shot in the left abdomen. The bullet was recovered near the spine during surgery. 11. Ceiling Tile Hole #1 - A bullet penetrated an acoustic ceiling tile (A), proceeding into the drop-ceiling interspace. 12. Ceiling Tile Hole #2 - That bullet (No. 11) struck the concrete ceiling above the tiles, and ricocheted back down into the pantry through a second ceiling tile (. 13. Ceiling Tile Hole #3 - A bullet entered the same tile as No. 11 above (A), but, we are told, did not exit back down into pantry. That bullet was “lost in the ceiling interspace,” and apparently never recovered. John Hunt Readers beware - Hunt has constructed this scenario through one error I made in a previous post when I left out a short phrase. As you will see from the following 'scenario' 8 shots account for all wounds and bullet holes: There are a number of possibilities that can explain the trajectories of the shots without resorting to the possibility of a second gun. Thomas Noguchi and Dan Moldea concluded there was no one who could positively say to a 100% degree of certainty how the bullets travelled. A number of possible explanations, which are contrary to the official version, can account for the paths of the bullets. There were four stray bullets: 1. The bullet that passed through Kennedy’s jacket without striking him 2. The through-and-through bullet that exited from Kennedy’s chest. 3. The bullet that struck the pantry ceiling and exited through one of the ceiling tiles. 4. The bullet that was supposedly lost in the pantry ceiling interspace. There are other scenarios that could account for the 8 shots – as Vincent Bugliosi said, “If (Wolfer’s) report is in error, for whatever reason, then there might be an explanation for some of these things: ricochets, parts of bullets, fragments. This whole notion of a second gun is premised on the assumption (Wolfer’s) report is correct.” BULLET 1 - Missed Kennedy and struck Paul Schrade in the forehead. BULLET 2 - The shoulder pad shot as RFK was raising his arm – this bullet then possibly hit one of the other four victims after travelling upwards to the ceiling tiles and ricocheting. The main candidate for this shot is Elizabeth Evans. Evans believed she was bending down at the time of the shooting – the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor, then struck Evans in the head - or, she could have been standing upright when the bullet ricocheted a second time off the floor. This bullet could account for two of the ceiling tile holes, entry and exit. BULLET 3 – The bullet that hit Kennedy in his right armpit and lodged in the back of his neck. This bullet was recovered. BULLET 4 - The bullet that hit RFK in the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal. Bullet fragments were recovered. BULLET 5 – The bullet that went through Ira Goldstein’s left pant leg without striking him – this bullet could have hit Irwin Stroll – the bullet was recovered during surgery. BULLET 6 – The bullet that hit William Weisel in the abdomen and was recovered during surgery. BULLET 7 – The bullet that was lost in the ceiling interspace. This may very well have been the bullet that entered then exited RFK’s chest and travelled upwards. BULLET 8 – The bullet that hit Goldstein in the thigh and was recovered. Three ceiling tile holes are accounted for in the above scenario. The alleged bullet holes in the pantry door were too small to be made by .22 caliber bullets. In fact they were not made by bullets at all as Moldea discovered.
  7. This was private corresponence with Hunt after receiving a number of insulting emails from him. Your readers, of course will be unaware of this.This is what Damn Moldea had to say about Hunt in one of Hunt's disingenuous 'multiple postings': "With regard to the value of Hunt's work in the RFK case, I can't believe that any legitimate publisher would even consider publishing the garbage he's been peddling. There is no one I know and respect who takes anything he says or writes seriously. Believe me, I was very nice to this kid when he first contacted me several years ago. Then, in 2005, he responded with a shameless all-out attack on me over the Schrade-shot issue in some little-known online publication--without ever giving me the opportunity to respond to his screwball charges before publication. Then, after the release of his article, he trashed me in various Usernet forums for refusing to react to what he had already published. It was a cheap tactic, and I really objected to it. As you can see from Hunt's behavior on this main thread on which John Simkin asked me to respond to questions from your membership, as well as on the multiple threads that Hunt has created to divert attention away from my responses, his dirty tricks continue. "
  8. John, You are the kind of forum member I was writing about in an earlier post. I was pleased to offer my views about the MLK assassination to you and others and it was civil discourse. No, there won't be any of my colleagues participating in this forum - and for good reason they tell me. No matter how logical and rational the answers they give to people like Hunt and Simkins it will simply be twisted and distorted to the point where no rational debate can take place.In fact, acclaimed authors like Max Holland, Patricia Lambert and Dan Moldea believe what I have already contributed on this site and others is a futile exercise given the mind-set of many of the participants. There is no 'search for truth' - only a willingness to posit ridiculous theories based on 'suspicions'. On the one hand we have acclaimed scientists like Larry Sturdivan , Norman Ramsey, Luis Alveraz and Vince DiMaio giving their scholarly opinions and then we have the likes of Hunt who uses alleged 'scientists' - 'scientists' whose work has come far short of having any respectability in the scientific community. We also have paranoids like John Simkins who believes he can't get published because the CIA and FBI won't let him. It is impossible to address such nonsense.And yes, the post was REMOVED - Dan put the lie to John's comments. I offered Dan, another mature individual who refusee to engage in childish nitpicking. the opportunity to contact me via my website - you have done so in the past, John.The offer still stands.I think you will agree I have spent a considerable amount of my time posting on this site and at no benefit to myself, after all from what I see there are just a handful of committed conspiracists who participate, so seeking publicity for my work was never on the cards.I will send you a copy of Larry Sturidvan's examination of Hunt's ridiculous claims he makes in his JFK Lancer article. http://karws.gso.uri.edu/noncons/
  9. I'll get back to Daniel's points in the next few days - William Turner - I would have expected better from you- your statement about Schulman is ridiculous - an experienced reporter 'browbeaten' by the LAPD? Nonsense. I will also post my answers which address Hunt's analysis of the ballistics evidence. Hunt is not a medical expert nor is he a ballistics expert. Larry Sturdivan is - and he domolishes Hunt's thesis. Be patient! John, I have to admit I'm getting a little impatient myself. But in the meantime, it might be helpful for interested viewers to know that it's a little misleading to call Schulman "an experienced reporter"; he was a newsrunner, a messenger for a TV news crew (according to Kranz Report, Section II, p. 3). This does mean he was more than a guy who gets coffee and doughnuts but he can hardly be equated with "an experienced reporter," even if we concede the premise that hard-boiled newsmen are immune to being leaned on. I don't agree that they are, but it's beside the point since Schulman was not one. Dan I posted - it wa staken off within the hour - ask John Simkin Mel Mr. Ayton, Are you claiming that in your missing post you addressed the points I made, as well as "demolishing" John Hunt's thesis? If so, we both know better. Your missing post was entirely in response to John Simkin's post in your exchange which now continues in the vein of "who's got better publishers?" You took umbrage at John's insulting manner which you thought was unbecoming of a forum administrator/moderator and announced that you would be forwarding one of the most pathetic posts you'd ever read to the University of Sunderland and/or its Press. You seemed to argue that you did not intend to suffer further insult at the hands of rascals and that more reasonable forum members would agree with you and could decide for themselves by visiting your website for further elucidation of your views. I took this to mean that you did not intend to address the points I made or to demolish Mr. Hunt's thesis. I would much rather you stuck around and let's have a real discussion on this issue as there are many who would like to understand the issues better. Not least of which is the gentleman from Eire who started this thread in the first place. Sincerely, Dan Dan, I never said I had addressed Hunt's posts. Where did this come from - Simkin? I repeat - as far as John Hunt is concerned I have engaged with him in an exchange of views on the McAdams site - I spent some considerable time explaining things to him. Readers may wish to search that site for this exchange of views.I am certainly not going to spend hours repeating the previous exchange on that site. As I said in the post that disappeared/removed from your site - there are a number of people in this forum who have behaved like mature adults.They are civil, polite and are open to each others' views - not so John Hunt, a crass and immature man who is beneath contempt.Hunt, I repeat, has no credentials which anyone would find credible when discussing scientific issues like ballsitics and wounds ballistics. You have to read the McAdams site to understand how wrong Hunt is. He has failed miserably and this is why he is rather peeved. There may be some of you out there - all conspiracy advicates as far as I can tell- who like to engage in childish discourse. I refuse - but what I will do, Dan, is to answer your questions if you contact me via my website. I will also address Hunt's points - point by point- but not in this forum and not with a person I have absolutely no respect for. I am also busy completing the final draft of my book as well as writing articles for HNN , Frontpage magazine and Crime magazine. People like Hunt have only JFK lancer type articles to write. I challenge him to try and have his work published by a reputable media outlet - and, no, JFK Lancer is not one of them - they are in the business of promoting conspiracy theories which keeps their money-making enterprise afloat.
  10. John, You wrote: 'As you probably know, mainstream publishers are usually unwilling to publish controversial books.This is especially true when you want to be critical of organizations like the CIA and the FBI.' What absolute nonsense! I can't begin to list the numerous mainstream publishers who have been critical of the CIA/FBI - it would take forever. To name one or two - NYRB publications (Thomas Powers) and Shapolsky Publishers (David Scheim). JFK conspiracy books have been published by Carroll and Graf, Mainstream Publishing(Citadel Press),Cumberland House, the list is endless. Let's face it - the reason why you haven't been published is because your writing is infused with paranoia.If you believe you have merit why not try those small to medium publishers which have published all the other conspiracy books - remember Jim Marrs? He managed to shift 250,000 copies. What your responses tell us John is that you are building a smokesceen so your own shortcomings as an author(?) are overlooked. You wrote 'Just because companies are small does not mean they are not “respectable”. What do you know about Tressell and Spartacus to question their respectability? Or is this just a smear that you are unable to back up?'. Well, John, I looked Tressell and Spartacus up on google and came up with nil. Does the name Spartacus have anything to do with this website you run - did you self-publish? What are the titles of your books?Any small publisher that does not have a website should not even list itself in the small publishers index. You wrote 'Nor is it true that I have never been published by a large organization. When it suits me I have had work published in the Guardian, the TES, Teaching History, etc.' Published by a large organisation? This is indeed risible - you are talking about a magazine/newspaper! 'When it suits me'? How pompous! As far as John Hunt is concerned I have engaged with him in an exchange of views on the McAdams site - I spent some considerable time explaining things to him. Readers may wish to search that site for this exchange of views.I am certainly not going to spend hours repeating the previous exchange. As I said in the post that disappeared/removed from your site - there are a number of people in this forum who have behaved like mature adults.They are civil, polite and are open to each others' views - not so John Hunt, a crass and immature man who is beneath contempt. He thinks he can challenge ballistics experts like Larry Sturdivan (The JFK Myths). What a fool! This recent exchange could have been avoided had you been a little civil in your replies to my posts.I suggest forum members who participate in this debate access the recent (2005) MLK assassination exchanges of views to see how civil discourse works.
  11. This is a lie. I have never deleted any of Mel's postings. Why should I? They are so deeply flawed that they only add to the argument that JFK, MLK and RFK were killed as part of a conspiracy. John, I posted my response yesterday - it appeared on the forum site - within an hour it was gone - I was responding to your insulting remarks. Why did the post disappear? As to your comments that my work is deeply flawed - it has been praised by Dan Moldea, Max Holland, Larry Sneed, Ron Rosenbaum (New Yorker), Anthony Summers, Patricia Lambert, HNN editor and presidential historian Richard Shenkman, Professor John McAdams, Professor Lonnie Athens, and JFK researcher and psychologist, Professor Martin J Kelly amongst many. Yet you, John, who as far as I can tell has never been published by any respectable publisher or university have the gall to make these remarks. I believe the only people you are capable of persuading are the likes of JFK Lancer who dismiss anything that spoils their money-making enterprise.
  12. I'll get back to Daniel's points in the next few days - William Turner - I would have expected better from you- your statement about Schulman is ridiculous - an experienced reporter 'browbeaten' by the LAPD? Nonsense. I will also post my answers which address Hunt's analysis of the ballistics evidence. Hunt is not a medical expert nor is he a ballistics expert. Larry Sturdivan is - and he domolishes Hunt's thesis. Be patient! John, I have to admit I'm getting a little impatient myself. But in the meantime, it might be helpful for interested viewers to know that it's a little misleading to call Schulman "an experienced reporter"; he was a newsrunner, a messenger for a TV news crew (according to Kranz Report, Section II, p. 3). This does mean he was more than a guy who gets coffee and doughnuts but he can hardly be equated with "an experienced reporter," even if we concede the premise that hard-boiled newsmen are immune to being leaned on. I don't agree that they are, but it's beside the point since Schulman was not one. Dan I posted - it wa staken off within the hour - ask John Simkin Mel
  13. Of course, Thane Eugene Cesar knew that he was taking a short cut through the kitchen. It is true that Sirhan apparently did not know about this “new” route. However, that is a problem for the lone gunman as well as the conspiracy theorists. Schulman gave several interviews on what he saw in the kitchen. The first interview he gave to Jeff Bent of Continental News Service straight after the shooting he clearly said that he saw “a security guard standing in back of the senator daw his gun and fire it.” (1) He did not say that Cesar shot Robert Kennedy. Only that he fired back at Shiran. This was accepted as being correct at the time. After all, why should he lie about this event? The problem was that Los Angeles County coroner Thomas Noguchi, who performed the autopsy, claimed that all three bullets striking Kennedy entered from the rear, in a flight path from down to up, right to left. “Moreover, powder burns around the entry wound indicated that the fatal bullet was fired at less than one inch from the head and no more than two or three inches behind the right ear.” (2) This was a problem for the LAPD. They now had two gunman involved in the killing (everybody agrees that Shiran had fired his gun). You now had a conspiracy as Shiran could not be portrayed like Lee Harvey Oswald and James Earl Ray as a lone nut. It was therefore necessary to get Schulman and Noguchi to change their testimony. Noguchi refused and so was not called to testify at Shiran’s trial. (Don’t you think that is a bit suspicious?) Schulman was taking into custody and had to endure lengthy questioning. It was suggested that he was part of the conspiracy to kill Robert Kennedy. Finally, on 9th August, 1968, he told Paul E. O’Steen of the LAPD that he was outside the kitchen when the firing took place and when he rushed to the scene of the crime he might have been mistaken about which security guard had drawn his weapon. As a result of this he was released as the LAPD went with the lone gunman theory. Schulman was no longer a suspect. In 1971 the LAPD interviewed Schulman again. No longer under threat of arrest, he returned to his original story of Cesar firing his weapon. The transcript of this interview has been published (it goes on for 87 pages) and however much they try, the LAPD are unable to intimidate Schulman into withdrawing this statement. The other problem you have your lone-gunman theory is that Thomas Noguchi’s views about the position of the gunman was backed up by other experts such as William W. Harper. He showed that not only was RFK shot from behind but that bullets removed from RFK and newsman William Weisel, were fired from two different guns. (3) Schulman’s views were supported by Karl Uecker, who struggled with Sirhan when he was firing his gun, provided a written statement in 1975 about what he saw: “There was a distance of at least one and one-half feet between the muzzle of Sirhan’s gun and Senator Kennedy’s head. The revolver was directly in front of my nose. After Sirhan’s second shot, I pushed the hand that held the revolver down, and pushed him onto the steam table. There is no way that the shots described in the autopsy could have come from Sirhan’s gun. When I told this to the authorities, they told me that I was wrong. But I repeat now what I told them then: Sirhan never got close enough for a point-blank shot.” (4) Another witness, Booker Griffin, also claimed that he saw two men firing guns at RFK. (5) He also saw Sirhan with a woman three times during that evening. (6) There were other witnesses who provided information that suggested that Cesar lied about the time he drew his gun. Television producer Richard Lubic, saw Cesar with his “weapon in his hand and was pointing it down in Kennedy’s general direction”. Lubic gave this information to the police after the shooting, but he was never asked about it during his testimony in court. Kennedy’s official bodyguard, former FBI agent Bill Barry, also saw Cesar with his gun in his hand and told him to put it back in his holster. (7) 1. Dan E. Moldea, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, 1995 (page 146) 2. William Turner and Jonn Christian, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy: The Conspiracy and Coverup, 1993 (page 162) 3. William Turner, Rearview Mirror, 2001 (page 244) 4. Karl Uecker, written statement given to Allard K. Lowenstein in Dusseldorf, Germany (20th February, 1975) 5. Dan E. Moldea, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, 1995 (page 147) 6. William Klaber and Philip H. Melanson, Shadow Play: The Untold Story of the Robert F. Kennedy Assassination, 1997 (page 147) 7. Dan E. Moldea, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy, 1995 (page 146) I have listened to the interview and I am convinced that Scott Enyart is telling the truth. Your claim that he is obviously lying because his interview appeared on Black Op radio is daft. It is like saying that everything that appears in the New York Times is always true or always untrue. You have to apply a bit more intellectual discipline to dealing with the evidence that that? By the way, what is your academic background? Mel you are very much like a poor man’s Gerald Posner. I don’t know why you have spent your time trying to convince the public that John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were killed by lone gunmen. Unlike Posner who has some sort of reputation to lose, I think it is highly unlikely that you have persuaded the FBI/CIA to pay you for this work. Nor would Sunderland Polytechnic Press (sorry University of Sunderland Press) have made much profit from your books. However, I suppose it helps to have someone arguing for the lone gunman theory. Even if it is you. By the way, if John Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy were killed by lone gunman, why is it so important to keep classified so many documents relating to the case? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6187 Simkin:"Your claim that he is obviously lying because his interview appeared on Black Op radio is daft." Ayton: Another attempt to twist my words (Are you realy allowed to teach?) There were no opposing views in the programme. You say you have listened to the interview and believe Enyart - not so much objectivity in that is there? Black Op radio is an organisation dedicated to 'exposing' conspiracies and does not consider other viewpoints - as happened in this case.I accuse Enyart of lying because two people gave testimony in a court of law that this is indeed what he was doing. Yet you choose to believe Enyart.Amazing! You are supposed to be a forum moderator - where is the objectivity in your attempts to ridicule me or in your comments that I may have attempted to gain financial reward from the FBI/CIA? Have you no shame in using these disingenuous smear tactics? And please don't reply that you said the opposite - reasonable forum members will know what you have been up to. Have you ever questioned the motives - or indeed, the qualifications - of other members - particularly the ones who agree with your views?I sincerely doubt it. I will pass on your remarks about the University of Sunderland Press to the Chairman, the Deputy Vice Chancellor Jeff Brown. This is indeed one of the most immature and rather pathetic posts I have ever read. I suggest you attempt to have your own research published, especially by a University press who pass on the manuscripts they select, as Sunderland University does, to experts who teach at Universities around the country and abroad.The University of Sunderland Press pass on their manuscripts to experts at Edinburgh University, Leeds University and Nottingham University.Perhaps you would now like to ridicule these institutions? John, you are very good at presenting facts but cannot remove yourself from your self-imposed conspiracy mind-set; a mind -set that is an intellectual trap. All you really do is posit questions - Isn't this suspicious?, isn't that suspicious? I told you that Don Schulman retracted his original story yet you still harp on about it. You have command of the facts but are unable to use them for any rational discourse.It is because ytou are a convinced 'conspiracist' which, we all know, is a kind of 'religion'. I knew I took a risk in joining this forum to express my views about the MLK, JFK and RFK assassinations - I knew I would be outnumbered. Yet, despite this, I have spent some considerable time posting my comments which have not ridiculed other forum members and I have treat everyone with respect.There may be some brave forum members out there who will confirm these facts. Those forum members who wish to continue to read my research can access my website - my book about the assassination of RFK, (which has received favourable reviews from Dan Moldea and Anthony Summers who have read the pre-publication manuscript) will be published later this year or early 2007. My book includes photographic evidence which explains why Sirhan had been seen with a girl in a Polka dot dress in the Embassy Ballroom and provides CONCLUSIVE acoustics evidence that only 8 shots were fired in the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel.
  14. Schulman declined to repeat his contemporaneous account that he had seen the security guard fire because h was browbeaten by the LAPD like Sandy Serrano. I'll get back to Daniel's points in the next few days - William Turner - I would have expected better from you- your statement about Schulman is ridiculous - an experienced reporter 'browbeaten' by the LAPD? Nonsense. I will also post my answers which address Hunt's analysis of the ballistics evidence. Hunt is not a medical expert nor is he a ballistics expert. Larry Sturdivan is - and he domolishes Hunt's thesis. Be patient!
×
×
  • Create New...