Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ron Ecker

Members
  • Content Count

    5,662
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Ron Ecker

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://arequipa.byethost7.com/ronecker.html
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

28,361 profile views
  1. MacNeil is turned to look at Jack Ruby walking up. "Hey, Jack, what's going on?"
  2. I'll never forget when Rather was a guest on one of the talk shows (I forget which one) and was asked about Juanita Broaddrick, who had accused Bill Clinton of raping her. Rather said, "Who is Juanita Broaddrick?" Either newsman Rather wanted us to believe that he didn't know, or else he was saying that it's okay for Bill Clinton to rape you if you're a nobody.
  3. I remember seeing Rather as a guest on the Letterman show right after 9/11. He broke down and cried twice (or pretended to) about the attacks. He did it the second twice while reciting lyrics of "America the Beautiful." It was weird. I mean, 9/11 was an immense tragedy, but I don't recall seeing anyone except victims' family members and Dan Rather break down and cry days later. I guess he's an emotional guy. But I wonder if he may suffer from a guilty conscience about another American tragedy back around 1963.
  4. I always felt that CBS's Roger Mudd got the shaft when they chose Rather instead as Uncle Walter's evening news successor. But I guess Rather "earned" it. Roger was laid back, Dan always seemed uptight to me. (But who wouldn't be after getting attacked on a New York City street by a man shouting, "Kenneth, what is the frequency?")
  5. As I recall, MacNeil claimed to have spoken with Oswald after the shooting. He asked a guy where he could find a telephone, the guy told him, and MacNeil later recognized him on TV. We'll never know what Oswald would have said if MacNeil had asked him, "Do you know who shot the President?"
  6. I saw one of the officially recognized "presidential historians" on TV yesterday (talking about the impeachment trial, what else). I wondered if there is a single one of these "presidential historians" who questions the official story of the assassination. I certainly don't know of one. And I imagine if any of them do question it, they would never do so publicly, lest they be defrocked, of course, as presidential historians.
  7. Yes, although by then truthers will likely be more concerned with the question of who blew up the world. Old apocalyptic movies like "On the Beach" (the best theory expressed there was "Someone pushed a button") won't do much good.
  8. I understand. My only point is that more enlightened U.S. leaders will have no control over less enlightened world leaders/dictators all packing nuclear weapons. It's like smoking a cigarette while pumping gas and hoping nothing happens.The truth about JFK, 9/11, etc. won't matter if there's no one around to know it.
  9. I guess this is off topic, but I don't see how the world can possibly be saved, and knowing or not knowing truth has nothing to do with it. With evil regimes like North Korea, Iran (soon), and who knows who's next having nuclear weapons, how in the world is the world going to be saved? Oh, and don't forget us too (especially with Trump), the only country that has actually dropped nuclear bombs on people.
  10. Did a web search on Lee. According to this article, he has been "accused of botching evidence in multiple trials." This includes helping send two apparently innocent men to prison for murder based especially on Lee saying there was blood on a towel when in fact there was no blood there at all. The article doesn't mention the Foster case, but based on the numerous cases it does mention involving Lee, I wouldn't put any stock in anything Lee says about Foster. https://www.thedailybeast.com/henry-lee-how-many-murder-cases-did-the-celebrity-forensic-scientist-botch?ref=scroll
  11. Jim, thanks for the info. You've certainly done a thorough job on the case. What I still question about the official story (well, the briefcase business doesn't sound all that convincing - I have to assume that the guy who searched it and found no torn-up note did look down into it) is the search of Foster's pockets. You say that any objective reviewer would understand that the Park Police's Rolla did not do a thorough search. It seems to me that any objective reviewer might justifiably conclude there were no keys there because no keys were found. Rolla stated in a deposition that "I searched his pants pockets. I couldn't find a wallet or nothing in his pants pockets." Two other Park Policemen told the FBI that they watched Rolla do it. As to why he went to the hospital, I would imagine he went there because the question arose as to why they had found no keys. When he first searched the pockets, he wasn't specifically looking for car keys, he was looking for anything like ID or a suicide note. I can't source the "ill-gotten gains" story because I don't remember where I read it. I thought you might have come across it in your research. I suspect it may have been on the old Newsmax website (I say "old" because I haven't been there in years, since we don't have the Clintons to kick around anymore - no, wait!), but I don't know.
  12. Jim, Excellent job. Ruddy's book is the only one I've read on the Foster case, and that was years ago. But I have some questions, based on my recollection of that book, that you don't cover in your article. The Park Police did not find any car keys in Foster's pocket. The official explanation was that the officer missed the keys because they were under Foster's side. If any part of a pocket was under Foster's side, you would think any competent person searching that pocket would know it, by not being able to get to that part of the pocket. It just sounds fishy. And a little more on this shortly. According to Ruddy, the person who did the autopsy did not x-ray Foster's body because the x-ray machine allegedly wasn't working. Whatever happened to "Be Prepared"? For such a notable autopsy, couldn't an x-ray machine be borrowed for the occasion, even if you have to go to where the machine is? It just sounds fishy (if true). You cover the torn-up note that was found in Foster's briefcase. But you don't point out that Foster's immediate WH supervisor (I think his name was Nussbaum) had searched the briefcase and found nothing. Shades of the Park Police unable to find car keys in Foster's pocket. It just sounds fishy. One other thing, and my recollection is hazy, but there was some speculation that Foster had some ill-gotten gains, like a million dollars or more, and one reason for his depression was that he discovered that his bank account containing all that money had been emptied. Whatever that was all about may have involved the Clintons. Does that ring any bell? I don't remember now where I read it, I don't think it was Ruddy.
  13. And born with a tattoo of Nixon on his back. I wonder what the Incas thought of that.
  14. I've often wondered how to describe Roger Stone's head. You've sent me to the dictionary.
×
×
  • Create New...