Jump to content
The Education Forum

Stuart Wexler

Members
  • Content Count

    76
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Stuart Wexler

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

7,470 profile views
  1. David: It is not a matter of intelligence-- it is a matter of maturity. To the extent that the lack of college education reinforces that-- to the would-be employers (often themselves Ivy League elites)-- I think it is a factor. If I had a bunch of examples of 19 year old deep cover agents, I would sign on. I am more inclined to what Larry is describing, a situation where Oswald is "managed" by people from afar, possibly monitored and approached by outside agents. I anxiously await what you have in terms of solid evidence. Is it coming soon? -Stu
  2. David: Do you have rock-solid, new evidence for the assertion that Oswald was "definitely" CIA operative in October 1959. I have gone back and forth over this for 20 years. The problem I always come to is Oswald's age and education. I can't imagine they would send a deep cover operative into the USSR who is 19 w/o a college education. I teach some very bright high school seniors, and I wouldn't have faith they could pull it off for two years. I am much more inclined to believe they became aware of Oswald's desire to defect (for whatever reason) and monitored him to guage Soviet interest. I do
  3. I use to be privvy to arguments about this ad nauseum over at the alt. forums. We should credit the best arguments against our side, not the weakest ones or the ones that confirm our biases. So let me make the case for the lapel flip (A) The jacket shows a low exit, but the shirt shows it to be higher-- the more likely bet is that the jacket rode up. That said, it is still not directly over the lapel, however... ( The argument is that there was as much as a jacket bulge as a lapel flip. I think anyone who looks at high quality versions of the relevant frames can see it is not the swift motio
  4. Hi James, I did read your work and just wanted clarification. This last post goes a long way. I guess there are a few things still confusing to me, that I think would shore up what you are saying. My understanding is that Myers and co. simply play connect the dots between the initial entry and exit wounds. What I am trying to understand is how they could be wrong about where the bullet went if we assume (a) the location of entry and exit are correct and ( the position of the men in the limo is correct. I am not clear on that from reading the piece. If you are saying that their problem is th
  5. (1) To go a step further, are you saying that Myers is wrong because he does not rotate JBC's torso enough? (2) Side note, what sources are you using for your 3d recreation and what is your margin of error? (3) A comment really... I think you are really going to have to account for what this bullet is supposed to have done when it exited JBC's torso. That is clearly going to be the area you are attacked on. If even a medium velocity round exited JBC without significant deceleration, and even with a dose of it, I imagine it would have done noticeable damage inside the limo. -Stu
  6. This is interesting stuff, James. Can I ask some points of clarfication. (1) Are you saying that Dale Myers misplaced the actual, initial entry wound in JBC (and/or exit wound) or are you saying the only problem is the path he implies through the body? (2) If we *did* go to 223-224 for a JBC hit... where does that trace back given your analysis? The Dal Tex still? (3) I always thought the report of a 2.5cm entry wound in JBC was a reflection of surgery that Shaw performed, not the actual original size. Am I wrong on that? (4) Relatedly, isn't a 2.5cm wound awfully long relative to just
  7. Efforts to release files on the King case will be met with a host of political and legal obstacles that are too complicated to explain-- I have been down that path for years now and it may well be a dead end. But adding MLK, Jr's murder to the Justice Department's already-existing Civil Rights Cold Case Initiative should not be controversial. Indeed, the inventory of evidence in the King murder includes dozen of suspect fingerprints never matched to James Earl Ray or anyone else, fingerprints that could be "run" through the FBI's Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS)
  8. There is a simple way to find almost all the "Postponed in Full" documents on the NARA database... search for "referred" in restrictions. Beyond that it is important to note that this database is out-of-date. My experience, even a few years ago at NARA, was that many of these files have been released in part or in full. I would suggest to many here to simply ask for the docs they are posting. Many are indeed intriguing. -Stu
  9. There are a host of problems with all sorts of forensic techniques, not the least of which is confirmation bias, which potentially undermines all of them. That is to say, if an analyst is given any clue as to a desired outcome, it can often, even subconsciously, skew their conclusions. Even forensic sciences with firmer grounding than CABL, such as fingerprints, can suffer from the implications of confirmation bias. http://www.psmag.com/legal-affairs/bias-and-the-big-fingerprint-dust-up-3629/ I would argue that Ken Rahn is an example of confirmation bias writ large, or perhaps becoming the
  10. The problem here is that Bill Miller, in my mind, has come awfully close to debunking the "bullet in the windshield" argument with actual photos. Perhaps he will chime in here if he is around. Much of the argument was on Lancer's forum.
  11. Let me add to some of this here. In terms of the Canadian connections, the HSCA were keenly interested in NSRP members in Canada. One of them was clealry disconnected from NSRP activities at the time, but the other was not. The unfortunate thing is: we don't know *why* the HSCA was turned onto to these individuals. That is probably in the HSCA files, that need to be released by the Clerk of the House of Representatives. In terms of Tarrants, his picture was shown on the first day the FBI visited the Aeromarine Supply store-- it was the only file from FBI files, and the only non-local, a
  12. That is fair enough. And I appreciate the response. I await the review then.
  13. It galls me that someone who telegraphs his (negative) review to someone who slammed our book before it came out could find such tame posts "appalling." Let me be less tame. You are someone who has been given a voice to express his opinions on books. Those books have audiences. It is highly convenient for you that you can do that and no one is allowed to make a response. We put in several years of work on this and have commanded the respect of people who have literally taught courses on the subject. So let me be clear: if you are going to embrace the kind of "mother-of-my-own-theory" reasoni
  14. I anxiously await to see if the "whole lot of people" who lied about Ray include, for instance, Annie Estelle Peters, the piedmont laundry desk clerk who confirmed Ray's presence in Atlanta when Ray claimed he was in Memphis post-gun purchase. The receipt from the laundry corroborates Peters. Nothing corroborates Ray. For instance no one has ever been able to find any record of Ray staying anywhere in Memphis at the relevant time. The normal approach to such an issue would be to see Peters, who has no known reason to lie, and has a receipt to prove her point, as reliable, and to treat Ray-- w
  15. I have been late to join this discussion, but I wanted to ask Martin something as he is writing his review. Can you list the specific examples where an author said something that Ray himself said was fundamentally at odds with what Ray said? Not where Ray said he opposed the conclusions or direction taken by the author. Not where Ray's attorneys made insinuations about said author. But actual examples, in his many books, many interviews, and actual testimony, where Ray said: "Author X said A, but I said Z." Given that you say this is the focus on your upcoming review, I want to make sure we
×
×
  • Create New...