Jump to content


Spartacus

Eugene Thane Cesar: Did he do it?


58 replies to this topic

#31 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,119 posts

Posted 04 May 2006 - 12:03 PM

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.


I am sure your work has been praised by Max Holland and John McAdams. That is like Hitler saying that Mein Kampf was praised by Hermann Goering and Joseph Goebbels.

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.


It is true that most of my work has been published by two small publishers (Tressell and Spartacus). Despite the problems of competing with the multinational corporations, they still managed to sell over 100,000 copies of my books.

The reason why I chose to go with small publishers is because they gave me the freedom to write what I wanted. 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.

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?

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.

Except for the odd favour, I no longer write for the print media. All my work goes on my website. It currently gets over 6 million page impressions a month. That of course does not make it “good” or “right” but it does suggest that a lot of people want to read my work.

Mel & John,

I read Mel's response, posted on the same 3-4 threads, and it is indeed gone. There was nothing so objectionable to warrant deletion, in my opinion, though it was feisty and seemed to be saying that Mel didn't intend to suffer further insult and referred readers to his own website for further info on his views. I would strongly defend Mel's right to speak his mind on this subject, including that posting. I think any such deletion would be unwarranted and hardly defensible not to mention being totally unnecessary. (On the other hand, if we delete our own posts in their entirety does this show up as "post deleted" without our adding that notice?)


As I have explained I have not deleted Mel's posting? Why would I do that? The whole idea of this Forum is to have open debate.

Why does Mel not post it again if he is so proud of his work? John Hunt, a leading expert on the RFK assassination has offered to discuss this issue with him. I am looking forward to seeing this discussion. The new thread is here:

http://educationforu...?showtopic=6718

#32 Andy Walker

Andy Walker

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,989 posts

Posted 04 May 2006 - 03:37 PM

I can confirm that no posts or threads have been deleted in the time span outlined in this thread.
The deletion of posts is in fact extremely rare on this forum as both John and I are very committed to a free exchange of views and opinions.

#33 Mel Ayton

Mel Ayton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 04 May 2006 - 08:05 PM

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.

#34 Owen Parsons

Owen Parsons

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 406 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 May 2006 - 08:26 PM

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!


What temerity! Challenging Larry Sturdivan, a ballistics expert! Surely, his credentials make up for any faults in his work.

#35 John Geraghty

John Geraghty

    Super Member

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

Posted 05 May 2006 - 01:22 AM

Dan,
I agree, a debate would benefit myself and many others in learning about and developing an opinion on the Robert Kennedy assassination and of course the Martin Luther King assassination should we have enough time. Perhaps Mel could invite a person of his choosing who shares his views so that there might be an even playing field?

John

#36 Mel Ayton

Mel Ayton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 05 May 2006 - 09:04 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

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.

#37 Mel Ayton

Mel Ayton

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 05 May 2006 - 09:28 AM

Dan,
I agree, a debate would benefit myself and many others in learning about and developing an opinion on the Robert Kennedy assassination and of course the Martin Luther King assassination should we have enough time. Perhaps Mel could invite a person of his choosing who shares his views so that there might be an even playing field?

John


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/

#38 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,119 posts

Posted 05 May 2006 - 03:20 PM

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.


I never said that. What I did say is that authors have had difficulty getting their books published by the major corporations if they are too critical of the CIA or the FBI. For example, for the first three years after the assassination, authors who wanted to publish books that were critical of the Warren Commission had to go to Europe to get their books published. The CIA and FBI then put around stories that authors like Joachim Joesten and Thomas Buchanan were Soviet agents.

The situation changed briefly in 1966 when Rush to Judgement reached number one in the bestseller lists. For a short period publishers became interested in bringing out conspiracy books because it was good business to do so. However, it was not long before the intelligence agencies got it back under control (see my recent posting on the Jack Anderson thread).

See also accounts by Cord Meyer, E. Howard Hunt, Tom Braden and William Sullivan on how the publishing industry was kept under control. Even when books were published, the CIA often controlled the editing process (see my recent posting on Bradley Ayers) or the reviews they received (see Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial for an account of how this worked).

And yes, the post was REMOVED - Dan put the lie to John's comments.


That is not true. As Dan pointed out in an email to me: "The post that is supposedly missing is still on the Scott Enyart thread, so I guess you can advise Mel that there's nothing to worry about in terms of censorship. He must've just hit the wrong button. The post on the Scott Enyart thread is exactly as he apparently tried posting on the others but it got lost. So there's no problem as far as I can see."





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.


As someone who has met John Hunt and watched his outstanding presentation on the case at the JFK Lancer conference, I do not recognize the man you have described here. The truth is that you are not willing to engage in debate with people who know anything about the RFK assassination. You prefer one-way communication. The same is true of your mate John McAdams. That is why he uses newsletters, websites and blogs to present his views on the case. It is not conspiracy theorists who are afraid of debate.


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.


One again you attack the brave small publisher who dares to take on media corporations. It is the "reputable media outlet" that have constantly lied to the public about the deaths of JFK, MLK and RFK.

What is wrong with JFK Lancer making profits out of their publications. Isn't the way the capitalist system works? Why is it acceptable for "reputable media outlet" to make profits but not alternative publishers?

Did you know that no "reputable media outlet" would publish Tom Paine's Rights of Man? He therefore published it himself in 1791 and then fled the country (it was a treasonable offence to publish the truth in the 18th century)? We still live in the same system where some truths are considered to be very dangerous. Thank goodness we have the internet to freely express our views.

#39 John Hunt

John Hunt

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 128 posts

Posted 05 May 2006 - 05:05 PM

AYTON : I will send you a copy of Larry Sturidvan's examination of Hunt's ridiculous claims he makes in his JFK Lancer article.

Daniel,

Melvyn (melvynayton@aol.com) posted redacted versions of Sturdivan's "take" on what I wrote on the aajfk newsgroup. I addressed what Sturdivan wrote in detail and Melvyn did not rebut a word of that. In fact, he never responded in any way. I will post my reply to Sturdivan later on tonight.

Melvyn is one of those types who believes the expert without looking at it in a critical fashion. Melvyn heard what we wanted and it was off to the races. Had Melvyn applied a little critical analysis, he might have recognized that Sturdivan's remarks are WAY off the mark. After I post the redacted quote posted by our own Melvyn, I will post my responses, which I sent to Sturdivan, with whom I am friendly. Sturdivan promised to address his misreading/mischaracterization of what I wrote. He never did.


John Hunt

#40 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,119 posts

Posted 27 July 2009 - 02:42 PM

I have had an email from Paul Schrade:

I am working to open a new investigation of the Robert Kennedy murder with Philip Van Praag and Dr. Robert Joling. Our hope is that appropriate local officials will consider and act on our new evidence. We are represented by a large and prestigious law firm Gibson Dunn and Crutcher.

Van Praag's discoveries from his tests on the only known recording of gunshots at the crime scene are compelling evidence that the second gunman was the one who fired the four pointblank shots into Robert Kennedy.

Many believe that Thane Eugene Cesar is the person of interest who fired those shots including the fatal one.

You have identified Cesar as a Cuban American. What is the basis for that?

We are drafting a list of all of the information that implicates him and would appreciate your help with this list.

Paul Schrade


Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I got this information from. Can any other member help with this?

#41 William Kelly

William Kelly

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9,161 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 July 2009 - 04:48 PM

I have had an email from Paul Schrade:

I am working to open a new investigation of the Robert Kennedy murder with Philip Van Praag and Dr. Robert Joling. Our hope is that appropriate local officials will consider and act on our new evidence. We are represented by a large and prestigious law firm Gibson Dunn and Crutcher.

Van Praag's discoveries from his tests on the only known recording of gunshots at the crime scene are compelling evidence that the second gunman was the one who fired the four pointblank shots into Robert Kennedy.

Many believe that Thane Eugene Cesar is the person of interest who fired those shots including the fatal one.

You have identified Cesar as a Cuban American. What is the basis for that?

We are drafting a list of all of the information that implicates him and would appreciate your help with this list.

Paul Schrade


Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I got this information from. Can any other member help with this?



Ask Dan Moldea,

He can answer the question.

He's Godfather to Cesar's kids.

BK

#42 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,119 posts

Posted 27 July 2009 - 09:16 PM

I have had an email from Paul Schrade:

I am working to open a new investigation of the Robert Kennedy murder with Philip Van Praag and Dr. Robert Joling. Our hope is that appropriate local officials will consider and act on our new evidence. We are represented by a large and prestigious law firm Gibson Dunn and Crutcher.

Van Praag's discoveries from his tests on the only known recording of gunshots at the crime scene are compelling evidence that the second gunman was the one who fired the four pointblank shots into Robert Kennedy.

Many believe that Thane Eugene Cesar is the person of interest who fired those shots including the fatal one.

You have identified Cesar as a Cuban American. What is the basis for that?

We are drafting a list of all of the information that implicates him and would appreciate your help with this list.

Paul Schrade


Unfortunately, I cannot remember where I got this information from. Can any other member help with this?

Apparently the source was page 244 of Bill Turner's Rearview Mirror

http://educationforu...amp;#entry59320

I'd assume it would also be in Bill Turner's book about the assassination as well, and maybe in Moldea's book but I don't recall it.


Thank you for that. The actual quote is: "Cesar, it turned out, was a Cuban American who registered to vote with George Wallace's arch-Conservative American Independent Party."

Moldea provides the most detailed account of Cesar's background. On page 200 of "the Killing of Robert F. Kennedy" he says: "Cesar was born on February 28, 1942, in Kansas City, Missouri. He is a mixture of English, French and German stock".

#43 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,119 posts

Posted 28 July 2009 - 06:52 AM

Email reply from Dan Moldea:

Just so you know, Gene Cesar is not Cuban-American--which is one of many pieces of disinformation that have followed him. In addition, Gene is an innocent man who has been falsely accused of murder for nearly forty years. Here is my personal view on this matter:

If good people--like Paul Schrade and Bob Joling--want to continue to embrace the theory that Gene was the actual assassin of Senator Kennedy, then they are doing nothing more than compounding an already disgraceful situation.

Also, with regard to Phil Van Praag's test--which concluded that thirteen shots had been fired at the crime scene--it is an experiment which has not and cannot be repeated by credible experts.

Please feel free to do anything you wish with this response to your inquiry--as long as you keep it in tact.


I contacted William Turner about it and I got this reply.

My recollection is that Dan Moldea was the source for Cesar being a Cuban ethnic.This was before he flipped. I was on radio shows with him. I don't recall anything about him being in with the Cuban exile anti-Castro crowd. I specificaally remember seeing a LA voter registration in which Cesar affiliated with George Wallace's AIP at one point.

#44 John Simkin

John Simkin

    Super Member

  • admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 16,119 posts

Posted 28 July 2009 - 12:33 PM

Email reply from Dan Moldea:

Bill Turner, whom I respect, is wrong. I never claimed that Gene Cesar was a Cuban American. I learned of Gene's ethnic background--English, French and German--during my first interview with him in 1987. And I made no public comments about him until after that interview--when I published my first article about the RFK case later that year.

Also, I noticed that William Kelly wrote that I am "Godfather to Cesar's kids." With regard to the “godfather” issue, Cesar was so grateful to me for clearing him in my 1995 book that he asked me to be the godfather of his youngest child in 1999. Knowing that I was never going to write another book about Senator Kennedy's murder, I accepted this honor from the Cesar family without any fear of a conflict of interest. To be sure, I have always been very candid about this relationship with Cesar--whom I believe, once again, is an innocent man who has been wrongly accused of murder for nearly forty years.

Thank you for allowing me to respond to these matters.


#45 David Andrews

David Andrews

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,649 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 August 2009 - 08:27 PM

I mentioned this on another page, but again - Who was it that loved this guy so much at birth as to name him (already a Cesar) a "Thane" out of the nobility in Macbeth, and Eugene ("beautifully created")?

Quite a destiny-charged name under the circumstances. Who says that little nobodies kill our leaders alone?



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users