Jump to content


Spartacus

Eugene Thane Cesar: Did he do it?


58 replies to this topic

#16 Mel Ayton

Mel Ayton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 11 April 2006 - 10:43 AM

Are you sure? Without having my books handy, I thought that it was a newsman standing behind Cesar who said Cesar had pulled his gun.

It was newsman Don Schulman who was standing behind Cesar.

BRENT:I’m talking to Don Schulman.Don can you give us a half-way decent report of what happened within all this chaos?
SCHULMAN;OK I was ..a…standing behind…a…Kennedy as he was taking his assigned route into the kitchen.A Caucasian gentleman stepped out and fired three times….the security guard…hit Kennedy all three times.Mr Kennedy slumped to the floor…they carried him away…the security guards fired back…As I saw…they shot the ….a…man who shot Kennedy…in the leg….he…a before they could get him he shot a ….it looked to me…he shot a woman…and he shot two other men.They then proceeded to carry Kennedy into the kitchen and …I don’t know how his condition is now.
BRENT: Was he grazed or did it appear to be a direct hit?Was it very serious from what you saw?
SCHULMAN:Well…from what I saw…it looked…fairly serious.He had …he was definitely hit three times.Things happened so quickly that…that…there was another eyewitness standing next to me and she is in shock now and very fuzzy…as I am…because it happened so quickly.
BRENT:Right.I was about six people behind the Senator, I heard six or seven shots in succession…Now…is this the security guard firing back?
SCHULMAN:Yes…a…the man who stepped out fired three times at Kennedy..hit him all three times….and the security guard then fired back….hitting…
BRENT: Right.
SCHULMAN:Hitting him, and he is in apprehension.

Minutes later Schulman was then interviewed by KNXT’s Ruth Ashton Taylor.and said ,”Well, I was standing behind him, directly behind him (RFK).I saw a man pull out a gun.It looked like he pulled it out from his pocket and shot three times.I saw all three shots hit the Senator.Then I saw the Senator fall and he was picked up and carried away.I saw the –also saw the security men pull out their weapons.After then it was very very fuzzy.”

In 1971 Schulman said he did not see Sirhan shoot Kennedy but he insisted that he saw the ‘security guard’ fire his gun and he also saw wounds erupting on Kennedy’s body but refused to make any connection to the two events.In subsequent years Schulman never again said he saw a security guard fire his weapon.

In the mid-70s Schulman was questioned by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Special Counsel Thomas Kranz, who had been appointed to independently investigate the assassination of RFK.Schulman told Kranz that immediately following the shooting he was ‘tremendously confused’ and that the words, he used to describe the shooting to reporters in 1968 were the result of ‘confusion’.Schulman reported that he meant to tell reporters that “Kennedy had been hit three times, he had seen an arm fire, he had seen the security guards with guns, but he had never seen a security guard fire and hit Robert Kennedy.”

From Schulman’s original reports conspiracy advocates began to construct a second-gun scenario, a scenario built on the confused statements made in the chaos that enveloped the pantry area the night of the shooting.It became plausible because film-maker Ted Charach had said that Cesar had pulled his gun before he fell to the ground during the shooting thus giving Schulman’s original statement that a guard had fired his gun some credibility.Yet Thane Cesar never said he had pulled his gun at that time .Cesar had drawn his pistol only after he had gotten off the ground.And there had been another guard who had drawn his gun in the pantry thus adding to Schulman’s confusion.Ace Security guard Jack Merritt entered the pantry after the shooting.He had been in the hall outside the Embassy Room when the shooting began and when he entered the pantry he could see Sirhan on a metal table being apprehended by Kennedy aides and RFK was lying on the floor.

To further add suspicion to Schulman’s ‘sightings’, Robert Blair Kaiser stated that Schulman had not even been in the pantry area at the time of the shooting.Kaiser quoted KNXT-TV employees, Frank Raciti and Dick Gaither, as saying that Schulman had been standing with them, inside the Embassy Room.

#17 John Geraghty

John Geraghty

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland

Posted 11 April 2006 - 05:20 PM

Hi Mel,
Nice to see you here again.
Did you by any chance see a programme made by the discovery channel titled 'Unsolved history'? Don Moldea and others attempt to recreate the assassination using actors that fit Ueckers, Sirhans and Kennedys measurements. They use a red beam on top of a gun to depict at what angle either Cesar or Sirhan would have had to have been standing at in order to make all the wounds to Kennedy.

The kitchen was remade in a studio, with exact measurements. It was excellently made.
They also conducted an experiment whereby they let actors walk into the Kitchen (they were unaware of the scenario about to unfold) and stand in the exact spot the actual witnesses were and played out 2 scenarios, 1. The Sirhan firing alone scenario, 2. Sirhan and Cesar both firing. The purpose of the experiment was to test peoples on the spot reactions with regards to the origin and number of the shots.

Most heard only three or four shots in both scenarios. Nobody noticed the actor playing Cesar taking three shots at kennedy as he was right beside him and there was a considerable amount of people who did not realise that there was a security guard or policeman in the room!
If you can I suggest that you try to obtain a copy. It is an excellent piece of recreationist History.

Alas they come away with no definite answer, they rule that either scenario was possible depending on Kennedys positioning, though Cesar looking the liklier option, having factored in witness, balistics and forensics evidence.

All the best
John Geraghty

#18 Mel Ayton

Mel Ayton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 13 April 2006 - 10:25 AM

Hi Mel,
Nice to see you here again.
Did you by any chance see a programme made by the discovery channel titled 'Unsolved history'? Don Moldea and others attempt to recreate the assassination using actors that fit Ueckers, Sirhans and Kennedys measurements. They use a red beam on top of a gun to depict at what angle either Cesar or Sirhan would have had to have been standing at in order to make all the wounds to Kennedy.

The kitchen was remade in a studio, with exact measurements. It was excellently made.
They also conducted an experiment whereby they let actors walk into the Kitchen (they were unaware of the scenario about to unfold) and stand in the exact spot the actual witnesses were and played out 2 scenarios, 1. The Sirhan firing alone scenario, 2. Sirhan and Cesar both firing. The purpose of the experiment was to test peoples on the spot reactions with regards to the origin and number of the shots.

Most heard only three or four shots in both scenarios. Nobody noticed the actor playing Cesar taking three shots at kennedy as he was right beside him and there was a considerable amount of people who did not realise that there was a security guard or policeman in the room!
If you can I suggest that you try to obtain a copy. It is an excellent piece of recreationist History.

Alas they come away with no definite answer, they rule that either scenario was possible depending on Kennedys positioning, though Cesar looking the liklier option, having factored in witness, balistics and forensics evidence.

All the best
John Geraghty


Thank you John,
I recall we had a pleasant exchange of views about the MLK case. If only posters could adopt a civil attitude like yours forums like this would be able to operate effectively - without the invective that puts a lot of people off.

I haven't seen the History special but I correspond regularly with Dan Moldea.None of the scenarios was satisfying to him and will not likely satisfy me. Recreating the scene inside the pantry was, I believe, an exercise in futility, a little bit like asking historians to account for everyone's movement on the Titanic before it sank.However, there is something to be said for those who try.

Here's my take on the pantry scene and the dynamics of the shooting:

The LAPD re-enacted the crime on film – two reconstructions in 1968 and a third in 1977.Investigators concluded that Sirhan could have gotten his gun to within 1 to 3 inches from Kennedy’s head and fire 4 bullets at an upward-leftward angle.

However, their reports were dismissed by many researchers who provided a contradictory conclusion.They argued that witnesses provided information that indicated Sirhan’s position in the pantry made it impossible for him to shoot the Senator in the back of the head from a distance of an inch or so.No witness testified that the assailant had been less than a few feet away from Kennedy.Criminalist, William H. Harper, a critic of the LAPD investigation, concluded there had to be at least two firing positions to account for all the bullets and all the wounds.According to conspiracy writer Lisa Pease, “As you will recall five people were shot besides Kennedy, one of whom was shot twice; Kennedy himself was shot four times.Doesn’t that add up to ten bullets? Not if the LAPD could come up with some magic ones.The bullet that pierced Kennedy’s coat without entering him took a path of roughly 80 degrees upwards.The bullet was moving upwards in a back to front path (as were all of Kennedy’s wound paths).But the LAPD figures this must be the bullet that hit Paul Schrade.Had Schrade been facing Kennedy, he would still not be tall enough to receive a bullet near the top of his head from that angle.But he was not standing in front of Kennedy.He was behind him by all eyewitness accounts, and,as shown by the relative positions where the two fell after being hit.”

However, there are a number of possibilities that can be used to explain the trajectories of the shots without resorting to the possibility of a second gun.

Thomas Noguchi and Dan Moldea said 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 his chest.
3. The bullet that struck the ceiling and exited through one of the ceiling tiles.
4. The bullet that was supposedly lost in the ceiling interspace.

In its official inventory of the bullets fired by Sirhan the LAPD claimed that Schrade was wounded by the bullet that went harmlessly through the shoulder pad of RFK’s suit. Moldea maintains this is wrong. Moldea believes the first shot hit Paul Schrade. Moldea also believes that the shoulder pad bullet probably struck one of the four shooting victims and this is consistent with the fact that Sirhan’s revolver could only fire 8 shots.

The following scenario is entirely plausible, although 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 Evans. Evans was bending down at the time of the shooting – the bullet could have ricocheted off the pantry floor then struck Evans in the head.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 Goldstein’s left pant leg without striking him – this bullet could have hit Stroll – the bullet was recovered during surgery.
BULLET 6 – The bullet that hit Weisal in the abdomen and which 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 which was recovered.

Three ceiling tile holes are accounted for in the above ‘scenario’. The alleged bullet holes in the pantry door divider were too small to be made by .22 caliber bullets.In fact they were not made by bullets at all as Moldea ably demonstrates.

As Kennedy was led through the pantry by Ambassador hotel maitre’d , Karl Uecker, ‘Ace’ security guard Thane Cesar was waiting at the double swing doors.Uecker led Kennedy by the right wrist through the crowd which filled the pantry passageway.Cesar held RFK’s upper right arm.Kennedy moved through the pantry shaking hands with excited supporters and hotel workers occasionally breaking loose from his guides.Uecker said, “I took the Senator behind the stage.I was going to turn left to go to the Ambassador Ballroom and somebody said, ‘No.We’re going that way.We’re going to the press room (Colonial Room)’.I said, ‘This way, Senator….’ It was a last-minute decision.I don’t know who made it…The Senator was really happy, and he stopped again and again to shake hands…I got his hand, his right hand and I said ‘Senator. Let’s go now’. (A split second later I) felt something, somebody, moving in…the next thing I heard was a shot.It sounded like a firecracker.Then I heard a second shot.Senator Kennedy’s right arm flew up and he was TURNING (emphasis added)…it looked like the Senator saw what had happened.” The shot that killed Kennedy was fired from a distance of approximately one inch.

In front of Kennedy there were about 20 people in the pantry.Kennedy was in the midst of about 50 people.As Cesar approached Kennedy when he came through the pantry doors people began pushing and shoving towards the Senator.Cesar began to push them away as Kennedy had difficulty moving forward.
Just before Uecker, Cesar and Kennedy reached the ice machine a couple of metres from the swinging doors.Cesar took Kennedy’s right arm at the elbow as Uecker kept hold of Kennedy’s right hand.Cesar let go as Kennedy began to shake hands with kitchen workers who were standing behind the serving tables.Cesar’s account is crucial because he was certain about how Kennedy was standing at the moments shots rang out. Cesar told Dan Moldea, “A lot of people testified that (Sirhan) was standing this way (with Kennedy facing his assailant).I know for a fact (that’s wrong), because I saw him (Kennedy) reach out there (to shake hands with a busboy) and which way he turned.And I told police about that.”

Although Cesar did not see Kennedy hit or fall he knew the Senator’s head had been turned away from Sirhan’s gun exposing the right rear of his head, the part of his body hit by the fatal bullet .Cesar did not draw his gun until both he and Kennedy had fallen to the floor (Cesar dropped to the floor to avoid being hit by bullets).Cesar’s gun was only out of his holster for about 30 seconds and was not drawn until he began to stand up.

Cesar was in shock.He also had powder burns in his eyes.He immediately ran out of the pantry when he saw Sirhan had been struggling with Kennedy’s aides and returned immediately with other Ace guards, Jack Merrit and Albert Stowers, who had been in the Embassy Room.Merrit entered the pantry with his gun drawn.

As Moldea explained, “All twelve of the eyewitness’ statements about muzzle distance is based on – and only on – their view of Sirhan’s first shot.After the first shot, their eyes were diverted as panic swept through the densely populated kitchen pantry.The seventy-seven people in the crowd began to run, duck for cover, and crash into each other.”

One of the most reliable witnesses, 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, “….came as Kennedy had recoiled after the first shot; he was then accidently bumped forward, toward the steam table and into Sirhan’s gun where he was hit at point blank range.”

Dan Moldea believes the first shot hit Paul Schrade because the Kennedy aide’s last memory was of the Senator smiling and turning toward the steam table.Furthermore, in support of his thesis that the first shot hit Schrade, Moldea quotes ‘key witness’ Edward Minasian as saying, “I saw the fellow (Schrade) behind the Senator fall, then the Senator fell.” Kennedy probably saw Schrade hit because when he himself lay dying on the floor he asked, “Is Paul alright?” If Kennedy had indeed been hit by the first shot he would not have been standing, observing Schrade.The injury to Kennedy’s head was so severe he would not have been able to observe anything once the bullet struck.

Moldea’s thesis is supported by eyewitness Vincent DiPierro who told investigators, “….I stuck my hand out and he shook my hand and I tapped him on the shoulder and said, ‘Congratulations Mr Kennedy’. And I walked with him as far as I could…I stayed as close as I could to him…into what is the kitchen more or less …..and this guy,…he was in a kind of a funny position because he was kind of down…like if he were trying to protect himself from something…he tried to push the people away from his hand…and then he…swung round and he went up on his…tiptoes…and…he shot…and the first shot I don’t know where it went, but I know it was EITHER HIS SECOND OR THIRD ONE THAT HIT MR KENNEDY (emphasis added) and after that I had blood all over my face from where it hit his head, because my glasses…(Martin Patrusky) saw the blood all over my face.”

Moldea’s thesis is also supported by a statement I found by one of the key witnesses, Frank Burns, some years after the assassination.Burns was identified as one of the five in the group (the others were Karl Uecker, Juan Romero, Jesus Perez, Martin Patrusky) that was closest to the Senator.Although Burns insisted the gun was never less than a foot or a foot and a half from Kennedy he nevertheless described the dynamics of the shooting in such a way to make it entirely feasible that Sirhan’s gun moved to an area inches away from the Senator.Burn’s had suffered a burn on his face which he thought was caused by a bullet passing near his cheek.It was likely a ‘powder burn’ from Sirhan’s pistol.

Burns said:
“… I had just caught up with him (in the pantry), and he was a step or so past him.And I’d turned around facing the same way as he turned toward the busboys I was just off his right shoulder, a matter of inches behind him.” After Sirhan fired his gun Burns said, “The noise was like a string of firecrackers going off, it wasn’t in an even cadence.In the process, a bullet must have passed very close to my left cheek because I can remember the heat and a sort of burn.I remember an arm coming towards us, through the people, with a gun in it.I was putting together the burn across my cheek, the noise and the gun and I was thinking, ‘My God, it’s an assassination attempt’.I turned my head and saw the gun and quickly looked back to the Senator and realized he’d been shot because he’d thrown his hands up toward his head as if he was about to grab it at the line of his ears.He hadn’t quite done it.His arms were near his head and he was twisting to his left and falling back.And then I looked back at the gunman, and at that moment he was almost directly in front of me.He was still holding the gun and coming closer to the Senator, PURSUING THE BODY SO THAT THE ARC OF THE GUN WAS COMING DOWN TO THE FLOOR AS THE BODY WAS GOING DOWN.( Emphasis added)”

Burns’ description of the shooting may be the key to an understanding of how the angles of the bullet paths in Kennedy’s body were not consistent with the LAPD’s conclusions that Sirhan’s gun was extended horizontally.

Following the first shot, which hit Schrade, Kennedy was struck by bullets entering his shoulder pad as he was raising his arm to defend himself.Then two shots hit his right armpit – one bullet lodged in the back of his neck.Finally, according to coroner Thomas Noguchi in an interview with Dan Moldea, the fatal head shot occurred.Noguchi said he based part of his explanation on the fact that had Kennedy been hit in the head on the first shot he would not have been able to stand.The head shot would have taken him off his feet immediately. Noguchi told Dan Moldea, “So I believe there were four shots fired at (RFK) at least. The sequence? The shoulder pad shot as he was raising his arm, the two shots to his right armpit, in which one of the bullets lodged in the back of his neck, and , lastly, the shot to the mastoid. This was the shot that was fatal.”

Moldea places a lot of misunderstanding about the shooting on the general lack of knowledge about how crowds react during violent incidents.Both conspiracy advocates and official investigators did not understand the dynamics of crowd movement and of how crowds can rapidly change direction and positioning in an instant.This would have been especially true in the Kennedy case, 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.In such circumstances it is easy to see how only a few witnesses placed Sirhan’s gun within a foot or two of Kennedy’s head.It should be remembered that none of the LAPD ‘most credible’ witnesses actually saw Kennedy shot.

Furthermore, as Dan Moldea points out, the estimates for the distance of the gun were based on when the first shot was fired.The estimates ranged from 1 ½ feet to 8 or 9 feet.In an instant, following the first shot, the whole dynamics of the crowd changed.As one LAPD detective told Dan Moldea, “…Eyewitness testimony? You talk about 77 people in a room and 12 actual eyewitnesses to the shooting.These are people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.You’re expecting accuracy in their statements? 12 different eyewitnesses will generally give you 12 different versions of a story…eyewitnesses are not trained or experienced or qualified to make judgements about what they see in such situations.” As Thomas Noguchi observed, “…I believe that the Kennedy assassination must go down in the history of forensic science as a classic example of ‘crowd psychology’, where none of the eyewitnesses saw what actually happened.”

It is unlikely that second-shooters in an elaborate conspiracy would have remained undetected.In addition, conspirators could not have known which route Kennedy was to take when he left the Embassy ballroom stage and entered the kitchen pantry.He was directed along that route by an aide.(Bill Barry had checked the route out with Fred Dutton before RFK finished his speech.) A number of other routes could have been taken.Conspiracy advocates find this fact irrelevant.They believe that multiple assassins may have been waiting at various locations on the possibility that RFK chose another route.However, there is a central weakness in their thesis.There has simply been no evidence which would have supported it.

#19 John Geraghty

John Geraghty

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland

Posted 13 April 2006 - 11:20 AM

Hi mel,
I find it a pity that i am not well versed enough in the RFK assassination, nor the MLK assassination to engage you in any real debate.
With regard to your statements about eyewitness testimony, i fully agree that in a scenario such as the one that played out in the Ambassador it would prove difficult to find very accurate testimony from witnesses in a very crowded and condensed area. This plays badly for all witnesses, both those used as examples of conspiracy and for Sirhans guilt.

Yesterday i listened to a speech larry teeter gave in 2003, giving a reasonable overview of his case for conspiracy, given that he only had an hour to do so. I don't know whether you have covered the hypnosis element of the case or not, but what do you make of the fact that psychologists and hypnosis experts deemed Sirhan programmable. There were instances where Sirhan was under hypnosis and was asked to write about RFK and he simply reproduced what was written in his diary 'RFK must die etc', in another instance he was told to climb the bars of his cell like a monkey, in both instances he had no recollection of who had told him what to do and had no memory of doing it.

Teeter also raised the point of people trying to railroad his investigation by opening him up to perjury and trying to set him up. In one instance he details how two men arranged to meet him so that they might give him information on an FBI agent in return for the film rights to Sirhans life.

I apologise for my lack of specific information, I have only articles, soundbites and a small Melanson book at my disposal at this moment in time.

I just bought William Bradford Huie's book on the King case, any reviews? Post it in the MLK section if you like and i can read it there.

All the best
John

#20 Mel Ayton

Mel Ayton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 14 April 2006 - 07:35 AM

Hi mel,
I find it a pity that i am not well versed enough in the RFK assassination, nor the MLK assassination to engage you in any real debate.
With regard to your statements about eyewitness testimony, i fully agree that in a scenario such as the one that played out in the Ambassador it would prove difficult to find very accurate testimony from witnesses in a very crowded and condensed area. This plays badly for all witnesses, both those used as examples of conspiracy and for Sirhans guilt.

Yesterday i listened to a speech larry teeter gave in 2003, giving a reasonable overview of his case for conspiracy, given that he only had an hour to do so. I don't know whether you have covered the hypnosis element of the case or not, but what do you make of the fact that psychologists and hypnosis experts deemed Sirhan programmable. There were instances where Sirhan was under hypnosis and was asked to write about RFK and he simply reproduced what was written in his diary 'RFK must die etc', in another instance he was told to climb the bars of his cell like a monkey, in both instances he had no recollection of who had told him what to do and had no memory of doing it.

Teeter also raised the point of people trying to railroad his investigation by opening him up to perjury and trying to set him up. In one instance he details how two men arranged to meet him so that they might give him information on an FBI agent in return for the film rights to Sirhans life.

I apologise for my lack of specific information, I have only articles, soundbites and a small Melanson book at my disposal at this moment in time.

I just bought William Bradford Huie's book on the King case, any reviews? Post it in the MLK section if you like and i can read it there.

All the best
John

Thanks John,
One of the reasons I researched the RFK case was to cover the controversies about Sirhan and hypnosis - Dan Moldea glossed over this issue, even though his work will probably remain the definitive book on the RFK assassination.I have interviewed a number of famous psychiatrists and psychologists in the UK and US and have thoroughly researched the CIA/Hypnosis material.I'm afraid I can't say more as my publishers will probably get rather antsy that I have given away too much already! My book will be published in the US, Spring 2007.
William Bradford Huie's book was, of course, excellent which is one of the reasons why some conspiracy advocates tried to brand him and smear him as a 'government tool'.
I am presently completing my book about the Bermuda Murders circa 72/73 so I don't think I will be able to afford much time on this forum - I have enjoyed our exchanges with you and others who give intelligent and civil replies - unlike others who aren't worth replying to.

#21 John Geraghty

John Geraghty

    Super Member

  • JFK
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,177 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Dublin, Ireland

Posted 14 April 2006 - 11:48 AM

Thanks Mel,
I will be able to get your book on the JFK assassination as it is in the library of Dealey Plaza Uk of which I am proud to say I am a member, so I hope to read that some time soon and give you my critique!
All the best,
John

#22 William Turner

William Turner

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 55 posts

Posted 18 April 2006 - 04:47 PM

Are you sure? Without having my books handy, I thought that it was a newsman standing behind Cesar who said Cesar had pulled his gun.

It was newsman Don Schulman who was standing behind Cesar.

BRENT:I’m talking to Don Schulman.Don can you give us a half-way decent report of what happened within all this chaos?
SCHULMAN;OK I was ..a…standing behind…a…Kennedy as he was taking his assigned route into the kitchen.A Caucasian gentleman stepped out and fired three times….the security guard…hit Kennedy all three times.Mr Kennedy slumped to the floor…they carried him away…the security guards fired back…As I saw…they shot the ….a…man who shot Kennedy…in the leg….he…a before they could get him he shot a ….it looked to me…he shot a woman…and he shot two other men.They then proceeded to carry Kennedy into the kitchen and …I don’t know how his condition is now.
BRENT: Was he grazed or did it appear to be a direct hit?Was it very serious from what you saw?
SCHULMAN:Well…from what I saw…it looked…fairly serious.He had …he was definitely hit three times.Things happened so quickly that…that…there was another eyewitness standing next to me and she is in shock now and very fuzzy…as I am…because it happened so quickly.
BRENT:Right.I was about six people behind the Senator, I heard six or seven shots in succession…Now…is this the security guard firing back?
SCHULMAN:Yes…a…the man who stepped out fired three times at Kennedy..hit him all three times….and the security guard then fired back….hitting…
BRENT: Right.
SCHULMAN:Hitting him, and he is in apprehension.

Minutes later Schulman was then interviewed by KNXT’s Ruth Ashton Taylor.and said ,”Well, I was standing behind him, directly behind him (RFK).I saw a man pull out a gun.It looked like he pulled it out from his pocket and shot three times.I saw all three shots hit the Senator.Then I saw the Senator fall and he was picked up and carried away.I saw the –also saw the security men pull out their weapons.After then it was very very fuzzy.”

In 1971 Schulman said he did not see Sirhan shoot Kennedy but he insisted that he saw the ‘security guard’ fire his gun and he also saw wounds erupting on Kennedy’s body but refused to make any connection to the two events.In subsequent years Schulman never again said he saw a security guard fire his weapon.

In the mid-70s Schulman was questioned by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Special Counsel Thomas Kranz, who had been appointed to independently investigate the assassination of RFK.Schulman told Kranz that immediately following the shooting he was ‘tremendously confused’ and that the words, he used to describe the shooting to reporters in 1968 were the result of ‘confusion’.Schulman reported that he meant to tell reporters that “Kennedy had been hit three times, he had seen an arm fire, he had seen the security guards with guns, but he had never seen a security guard fire and hit Robert Kennedy.”

From Schulman’s original reports conspiracy advocates began to construct a second-gun scenario, a scenario built on the confused statements made in the chaos that enveloped the pantry area the night of the shooting.It became plausible because film-maker Ted Charach had said that Cesar had pulled his gun before he fell to the ground during the shooting thus giving Schulman’s original statement that a guard had fired his gun some credibility.Yet Thane Cesar never said he had pulled his gun at that time .Cesar had drawn his pistol only after he had gotten off the ground.And there had been another guard who had drawn his gun in the pantry thus adding to Schulman’s confusion.Ace Security guard Jack Merritt entered the pantry after the shooting.He had been in the hall outside the Embassy Room when the shooting began and when he entered the pantry he could see Sirhan on a metal table being apprehended by Kennedy aides and RFK was lying on the floor.

To further add suspicion to Schulman’s ‘sightings’, Robert Blair Kaiser stated that Schulman had not even been in the pantry area at the time of the shooting.Kaiser quoted KNXT-TV employees, Frank Raciti and Dick Gaither, as saying that Schulman had been standing with them, inside the Embassy Room.


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.

#23 Mel Ayton

Mel Ayton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 01 May 2006 - 09:42 PM


Are you sure? Without having my books handy, I thought that it was a newsman standing behind Cesar who said Cesar had pulled his gun.

It was newsman Don Schulman who was standing behind Cesar.

BRENT:I’m talking to Don Schulman.Don can you give us a half-way decent report of what happened within all this chaos?
SCHULMAN;OK I was ..a…standing behind…a…Kennedy as he was taking his assigned route into the kitchen.A Caucasian gentleman stepped out and fired three times….the security guard…hit Kennedy all three times.Mr Kennedy slumped to the floor…they carried him away…the security guards fired back…As I saw…they shot the ….a…man who shot Kennedy…in the leg….he…a before they could get him he shot a ….it looked to me…he shot a woman…and he shot two other men.They then proceeded to carry Kennedy into the kitchen and …I don’t know how his condition is now.
BRENT: Was he grazed or did it appear to be a direct hit?Was it very serious from what you saw?
SCHULMAN:Well…from what I saw…it looked…fairly serious.He had …he was definitely hit three times.Things happened so quickly that…that…there was another eyewitness standing next to me and she is in shock now and very fuzzy…as I am…because it happened so quickly.
BRENT:Right.I was about six people behind the Senator, I heard six or seven shots in succession…Now…is this the security guard firing back?
SCHULMAN:Yes…a…the man who stepped out fired three times at Kennedy..hit him all three times….and the security guard then fired back….hitting…
BRENT: Right.
SCHULMAN:Hitting him, and he is in apprehension.

Minutes later Schulman was then interviewed by KNXT’s Ruth Ashton Taylor.and said ,”Well, I was standing behind him, directly behind him (RFK).I saw a man pull out a gun.It looked like he pulled it out from his pocket and shot three times.I saw all three shots hit the Senator.Then I saw the Senator fall and he was picked up and carried away.I saw the –also saw the security men pull out their weapons.After then it was very very fuzzy.”

In 1971 Schulman said he did not see Sirhan shoot Kennedy but he insisted that he saw the ‘security guard’ fire his gun and he also saw wounds erupting on Kennedy’s body but refused to make any connection to the two events.In subsequent years Schulman never again said he saw a security guard fire his weapon.

In the mid-70s Schulman was questioned by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Special Counsel Thomas Kranz, who had been appointed to independently investigate the assassination of RFK.Schulman told Kranz that immediately following the shooting he was ‘tremendously confused’ and that the words, he used to describe the shooting to reporters in 1968 were the result of ‘confusion’.Schulman reported that he meant to tell reporters that “Kennedy had been hit three times, he had seen an arm fire, he had seen the security guards with guns, but he had never seen a security guard fire and hit Robert Kennedy.”

From Schulman’s original reports conspiracy advocates began to construct a second-gun scenario, a scenario built on the confused statements made in the chaos that enveloped the pantry area the night of the shooting.It became plausible because film-maker Ted Charach had said that Cesar had pulled his gun before he fell to the ground during the shooting thus giving Schulman’s original statement that a guard had fired his gun some credibility.Yet Thane Cesar never said he had pulled his gun at that time .Cesar had drawn his pistol only after he had gotten off the ground.And there had been another guard who had drawn his gun in the pantry thus adding to Schulman’s confusion.Ace Security guard Jack Merritt entered the pantry after the shooting.He had been in the hall outside the Embassy Room when the shooting began and when he entered the pantry he could see Sirhan on a metal table being apprehended by Kennedy aides and RFK was lying on the floor.

To further add suspicion to Schulman’s ‘sightings’, Robert Blair Kaiser stated that Schulman had not even been in the pantry area at the time of the shooting.Kaiser quoted KNXT-TV employees, Frank Raciti and Dick Gaither, as saying that Schulman had been standing with them, inside the Embassy Room.


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!

#24 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,059 posts

Posted 02 May 2006 - 11:19 AM

SIMKIN: ‘Someone suggested that Kennedy should take a short cut through the kitchen’
AYTON:John, You are obviously unaware that both Fred Dutton and Bill Barry chose the route but did not inform RFK’s other aides.I thought I had informed you of that in a previous post – have you simply chosen to ignore it?


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.

SIMKIN:‘An eyewitness, Donald Schulman, went on CBS News to say that Sirhan stepped out and fired three times; the security guard hit Kennedy three times.
AYTON:Don Schulman retracted his story. In 1971 Schulman said he did not see Sirhan shoot Kennedy but he insisted that he saw the ‘security guard’ fire his gun and he also saw wounds erupting on Kennedy’s body but refused to make any connection to the two events. In subsequent years Schulman never again said he saw a security guard fire his weapon.

In the mid-70s Schulman was questioned by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Special Counsel Thomas Kranz, who had been appointed to independently investigate the assassination of RFK. Schulman told Kranz that immediately following the shooting he was ‘tremendously confused’ and that the words he used to describe the shooting to reporters in 1968 were the result of ‘confusion’. Schulman reported that he MEANT to tell reporters that, “Kennedy had been hit three times, he had seen an arm fire, he had seen the security guards with guns, but he had never seen a security guard fire and hit Robert Kennedy.”

From Schulman’s original reports conspiracy advocates began to construct a second-gun scenario; a scenario built on the confused statements made in the chaos that enveloped the pantry area at the time of the shooting.It became plausible because film-maker Ted Charach had said that Cesar had pulled his gun before he fell to the ground during the shooting thus giving Schulman’s original statement that a guard had fired his gun some credibility.Yet Thane Cesar never said he had pulled his gun at that time .Cesar had drawn his pistol only after he had gotten off the ground. And there had been another guard who had drawn his gun in the pantry thus adding to Schulman’s confusion. Ace Security guard Jack Merritt entered the pantry after the shooting. He had been in the hall outside the Embassy Room when the shooting began and when he entered the pantry he could see Sirhan on a metal table being apprehended by Kennedy aides and RFK was lying on the floor.

To further add suspicion to Schulman’s ‘sightings’, Robert Blair Kaiser stated that Schulman had not even been in the pantry area at the time of the shooting. Kaiser quoted KNXT-TV employees, Frank Raciti and Dick Gaither, as saying that Schulman had been standing with them, inside the Embassy Room.


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)

On the basis of this testimony Enyart was indeed ‘lying’ so your accusation that I am ‘spreading lies’ is not only wrong but also insulting. Furthermore, I’m sure the rational members of this forum will agree that Black Op radio never presents objective views or any views which are opposed to their myriad of ridiculous conspiracy theories.


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://educationforu...?showtopic=6187

#25 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,059 posts

Posted 03 May 2006 - 07:55 AM


Running on memory here but didn't Muldea promise to crack the case in a year? I feel that with his deadline approaching he plumped for the easy option, ie Sirhan did it...


That's consistent with my recollection that Moldea pretty well proved in his book that Sirhan couldn't have done it, then on the last page he concluded that Sirhan did it. What an intellectual feat!


Dan E. Moldea’s, The Killing of Robert F. Kennedy (1995), is indeed an amazing book. The first 29 chapters provide a comprehensive, logical account of the assassination. However, in the last chapter he completely changes his mind and accepts the official version of events. He even admits that this might surprise his readers as he first entered the case in 1987 with an article arguing that RFK had been the victim of a conspiracy.

Moldea claims that the reason for this change of mind was Gene Cesar’s polygraph test. According to the test, Cesar was telling the truth and therefore Sirhan was the lone gunman. Moldea explains the ballistic evidence by suggesting that the witnesses were mistaken and that Sirhan must have been pushed into RFK allowing his to fire at point-blank range.

If one reads between the lines of the last chapter you can work out why Moldea appears to change his mind about the case. He admits that for many years he believed passionately that there had been a conspiracy. However, he argues he could not afford to spend as much time as he liked researching and writing the book because of financial constraints. He was unable to persuade a publisher to fund this book. It was not until he “received the backing of a major publisher, W. W. Norton & Company” that he could complete the book. In other words, write the last chapter.

Now we know from the testimony of people like Cord Meyer, Tom Braden and William Sullivan that both the CIA and the FBI could arrange with certain companies to get certain books published. They could also make sure other books were not published by major publishers. E. Howard Hunt has also testified that the CIA was able to arrange the “right” reviews for books about certain subjects. (See also Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial for how this system worked).

Another example of this process at work concerns the author Michael Eddowes. He gained a reputation for investigative research in the UK with the publication in 1955 of The Man on Your Conscience, an investigation into the murder trial and execution of Timothy Evans. The book caused renewed interest in the case and eventually Evans received a posthumous pardon by the Queen. This case played an important role in the subsequent abolition of capital punishment in Britain.

In his book, Khrushchev Killed Kennedy (1975), Eddowes argued that President John F. Kennedy was killed by a Soviet agent impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald. It was later revealed that the book had been financed by the Texas oil billionaire, Haroldson L. Hunt. I wonder why Hunt wanted to blame the Soviets for the assassination?

Put yourself in the position of the agency under attack for covering up a conspiracy. What is your ideal scenario? My one would be for a leading conspiracy theorist, with a reputation for integrity, to publish a book where he admits that after studying all the evidence he comes to the conclusion that the official version of the case was right. That is not difficult to achieve as long as you have the means to pay them a lot of money (a generous publisher's advance) and can guarantee them good reviews from the subservient press. I think this explains the work of both Gus Russo and Dan Moldea.

#26 John Hunt

John Hunt

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 03 May 2006 - 06:58 PM



Are you sure? Without having my books handy, I thought that it was a newsman standing behind Cesar who said Cesar had pulled his gun.

It was newsman Don Schulman who was standing behind Cesar.

BRENT:I’m talking to Don Schulman.Don can you give us a half-way decent report of what happened within all this chaos?
SCHULMAN;OK I was ..a…standing behind…a…Kennedy as he was taking his assigned route into the kitchen.A Caucasian gentleman stepped out and fired three times….the security guard…hit Kennedy all three times.Mr Kennedy slumped to the floor…they carried him away…the security guards fired back…As I saw…they shot the ….a…man who shot Kennedy…in the leg….he…a before they could get him he shot a ….it looked to me…he shot a woman…and he shot two other men.They then proceeded to carry Kennedy into the kitchen and …I don’t know how his condition is now.
BRENT: Was he grazed or did it appear to be a direct hit?Was it very serious from what you saw?
SCHULMAN:Well…from what I saw…it looked…fairly serious.He had …he was definitely hit three times.Things happened so quickly that…that…there was another eyewitness standing next to me and she is in shock now and very fuzzy…as I am…because it happened so quickly.
BRENT:Right.I was about six people behind the Senator, I heard six or seven shots in succession…Now…is this the security guard firing back?
SCHULMAN:Yes…a…the man who stepped out fired three times at Kennedy..hit him all three times….and the security guard then fired back….hitting…
BRENT: Right.
SCHULMAN:Hitting him, and he is in apprehension.

Minutes later Schulman was then interviewed by KNXT’s Ruth Ashton Taylor.and said ,”Well, I was standing behind him, directly behind him (RFK).I saw a man pull out a gun.It looked like he pulled it out from his pocket and shot three times.I saw all three shots hit the Senator.Then I saw the Senator fall and he was picked up and carried away.I saw the –also saw the security men pull out their weapons.After then it was very very fuzzy.”

In 1971 Schulman said he did not see Sirhan shoot Kennedy but he insisted that he saw the ‘security guard’ fire his gun and he also saw wounds erupting on Kennedy’s body but refused to make any connection to the two events.In subsequent years Schulman never again said he saw a security guard fire his weapon.

In the mid-70s Schulman was questioned by Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Special Counsel Thomas Kranz, who had been appointed to independently investigate the assassination of RFK.Schulman told Kranz that immediately following the shooting he was ‘tremendously confused’ and that the words, he used to describe the shooting to reporters in 1968 were the result of ‘confusion’.Schulman reported that he meant to tell reporters that “Kennedy had been hit three times, he had seen an arm fire, he had seen the security guards with guns, but he had never seen a security guard fire and hit Robert Kennedy.”

From Schulman’s original reports conspiracy advocates began to construct a second-gun scenario, a scenario built on the confused statements made in the chaos that enveloped the pantry area the night of the shooting.It became plausible because film-maker Ted Charach had said that Cesar had pulled his gun before he fell to the ground during the shooting thus giving Schulman’s original statement that a guard had fired his gun some credibility.Yet Thane Cesar never said he had pulled his gun at that time .Cesar had drawn his pistol only after he had gotten off the ground.And there had been another guard who had drawn his gun in the pantry thus adding to Schulman’s confusion.Ace Security guard Jack Merritt entered the pantry after the shooting.He had been in the hall outside the Embassy Room when the shooting began and when he entered the pantry he could see Sirhan on a metal table being apprehended by Kennedy aides and RFK was lying on the floor.

To further add suspicion to Schulman’s ‘sightings’, Robert Blair Kaiser stated that Schulman had not even been in the pantry area at the time of the shooting.Kaiser quoted KNXT-TV employees, Frank Raciti and Dick Gaither, as saying that Schulman had been standing with them, inside the Embassy Room.


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!




Sturdivan, expert that he is, made serious errors which I have already pointed out to you. Bring it on, Melvyn.


Joh Hunt

#27 Mel Ayton

Mel Ayton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 04 May 2006 - 07:51 AM




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!


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

#28 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,059 posts

Posted 04 May 2006 - 08:42 AM

I posted - it wa staken off within the hour - ask John Simkin
Mel


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.

#29 Mel Ayton

Mel Ayton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 04 May 2006 - 11:01 AM


I posted - it wa staken off within the hour - ask John Simkin
Mel


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.

#30 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,059 posts

Posted 04 May 2006 - 11:29 AM



I posted - it wa staken off within the hour - ask John Simkin
Mel


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?


I have no idea. Did you check to make sure that it actually appeared on the Forum? Andy Walker and I are the only ones who have the power to delete other peoples’ postings. Unless you said anything racist, I can’t understand why Andy would have deleted your comments. I will ask him as you are obviously making a very serious charge against the administrators of the Forum.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users