Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Thomas Kroger

Dealing with deniers

Recommended Posts

... I think particular thanks should be extended to LBJ, for hoodwinking Warren to lend his name and prestige to the coverup phase of the operation - e.g. by convincing him of the geopolitical necessity of a "lone-nut" theory of the assassination. Without such a conclusion, Earl Warren was convinced that a nuclear holocaust was inevitable. So he acted in "good faith," but the Hoover-directed FBI did the "investigation," which presumed Oswald's guilt from the outset.

...

True, LBJ and the FBI tried to dupe and manipulate Earl Warren. But It must also be remembered that Warren witnessed enough witness testimony during the hearings that serious questions should have formed in his mind regarding the foregone Conclusion that Lone Nut Oswald did it all by himself, or alternately that Cuba/Castro was involved in the assassination.

In addition to the information furnished by Tom Scully (posted above this post), I would include a couple other incidents that are very revealing concering Warren's performance on the commission:

1. While interviewing Jack Ruby, Ruby says he cannot talk in Dallas and offers to tell Warren the whole story if Warren will extradite him and take him to Washington. The last known primary player, still alive, offers to spill his guts and tell the whole story if Warren will move him to a safe location. Amazingly, Warren turns down the request.

2. HSCA Special Investigator Gaeton Fonzi offers another revealing incident:

"... There is a brief glimpse, an illustration of the level at which that deceit was carried out, in an incident that occurred during the Warren Commission's investigation. Commission chairman Earl Warren himself, with then Representative Gerald Ford at his side, was interviewing a barman, Curtis LaVerne Crafard. Crafard had worked at Jack Ruby's Carousel Club before he was seized by FBI men as he was hightailing it out of town the day after the assassination, having told someone, "They are not going to pin this on me!"In the interview, Warren asks Craford what he did before he was a bartender.

"I was a Master sniper in the Marine Corps," Craford answered.*

The next question that Warren immediately asked was: "What kind of entertainment did they have at the club?"

Fonzi Quote at jfklancer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me, I realized it was a stretch to give Earl Warren credit for acting in "good faith," even as I wrote those words. My current opinion, for what it is worth, is that Warren really believed LBJ when he told him, that it was either a "lone-nut" theory of the assassination, or WWIII, with nothing in between. Warren, always a bedwetting Liberal, apparently cried, because he understood that he was legitimizing a lie. So that's what the Warren Report is - a lie, presided over by a man who was out of his depth, certainly in the political realm. That's how I read it. I never much cared for Earl Warren, so I can't claim to be impartial. But I think he really believed Johnson, and from what I've read, there was a organized effort to "taint" Oswald as a Soviet operative during his trip to Mexico City. If so, it appears to me that this evidences longer-range planning, presumably by James Angleton, or others close to him. It would enable a containment of any investigation on "national security" grounds. Very clever, I think. At least, that's my theory based on what I know right now, always subject to modification, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>True, LBJ and the FBI tried to dupe and manipulate Earl Warren. But It must also be remembered that Warren witnessed enough witness testimony during the hearings that serious questions should have formed in his mind regarding the foregone Conclusion that Lone Nut Oswald did it all by himself, or alternately that Cuba/Castro was involved in the assassination. Richard Hocking<<<

I believe you are dead-on. All of Warren's behavior convinces me that he suspected MUCH more than he ever admitted in public - e.g. witness his statement to the effect "We will not know the truth about the assassination in our lifetimes." This is an admission that he knew - or suspected - something he wasn't telling the American people. Then he refuses to give Ruby "space" in which to testify. His reason for doing so, I believe, couldn't be more obvious: if Ruby had related what he knew, the "lone-nut" theory of the crime would have been discredited immediately, along with the Commission Report that bore his name. But in Warren's mind, that was the least of the bad outcomes. The worst, and most likely, he was convinced, was a thermonuclear holocaust. As a jurist, Warren was removed from the intel "community," unlike LBJ, who was an executive (unfortunately, in my view.) So it would have been easy for LBJ to persuade Warren that he (LBJ) was privy to information that Warren wasn't. Hence, the con job.

So, I sort of empathize with Warren: I think he was placed in an impossible position by LBJ, who simply used him in much the same way he had so many other people. AS A PERSON, I believe Warren was by all accounts scrupulously honest, although he had deficiencies in common sense. But I don't think he was fooled entirely by Johnson, either. As head of the Warren Commission, he presided as a figurehead, and had very little involvement in the day-to-day work of the body. The same is true of the other senior staffers. The junior staff performed the real work of the Commission. The impression I get upon reading these accounts is that at the senior level, at least, there was a sense that some vital facts were being withheld, but we need to recall that this is before the Zapruder film came out, and from what I understand, the Commission members were spoon-fed misleading depictions of JFK’s head wound. All this persuades me that the Commission was characterized by “groupthink” from its inception, and the individual staffers probably had to deal with a considerable amount of “cognitive dissonance.” In the end, I think, they rationalized their “findings” as necessary “for the good of the country,” or perhaps for survival, depending on how much Warren disclosed to them behind closed doors.

These considerations also persuade me to think that the manuscript I am preparing will take this as its point of departure. If my beliefs about Warren and the position he was in are correct, that explains virtually EVERYTHING: why an improbable, single-bullet explanation was entertained, the ubiquitous pattern of selectivity in terms of evidence used, and the rush to convict Oswald for the crime, if only posthumously.

5/3/2011

Robert tells me that WC staff did in fact view the Zapruder film, which I hadn't known previously. I understand that the critical frames showing the back-and-toward-the-left movement were altered, so I'm not clear on which "version" they saw. But does it even matter? The "lone gunman" had been pre-ordained, and nothing was going to change that. "National security" was deemed to be at stake. TGK

Edited by Thomas Kroger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IN A RECENT POST, Shaboo2 raises the objection that a frontal shooter would have been obstructed by Conally.

That simply isn’t true. I have a high-resolution copy of the Z Film, and Conally is clearly not sitting upright at the time of the fatal headshot. He was not in an upright position for multiple frames prior to the fatal headshot occurring as well. At that point, he has instead collapsed toward his left, onto his wife Nellie.

What does this tell us? It suggests the tactic of obscurantism. On a previous occasion, S V Anderson baldly lied, by denying that any of the Parkland physicians saw a rear exit wound in Kennedy’s skull. When I pointed out Dr. McClelland’s medical sketch, which depicts such a wound, along with its caption, that states that such wound was observed by the Parkland doctors, he backpedaled, claiming that he never made any such denial. I’m sure that by now, he’s gone back in amongst his prior postings, and deleted or modified his denial, but I saw it.

It gets worse. In Grodin’s pamphlet JFK The Case for Conspiracy, he points out no less than fourteen witnesses who saw such a wound. These witnesses are: Jones, Carrico, Dulany, Peters, Salyer, McClelland, Crenshaw, Bell, Ward, Riebe, O’Connor, Riebe, Custer, and O’Neill. This is on page 29 of Grodin’s booklet. In each case, the witness is shown with his hand displaying the area of the wound on his or her own head. I’ve seen these pictures of the witnesses involved, and can find no legitimate reason to doubt them. On the contrary, in the case of the Parkland physicians who are represented therein, their testimony is early, untainted evidence of the nature of the wound, of the sort that should be given maximum weight by any historian. It is pure hypocrisy on the part of S V Anderson, a purported historian, to disregard their depictions for just that reason.

I’ve read by now most of Posner’s defense of Magic Bullet, and am singularly unimpressed. Even if he is correct in assuming that one bullet could account for all seven of the wounds in Kennedy and Conally, there is the fact that Oswald is seen merely ninety seconds later in the lunchroom on the second floor, calmly drinking a Coca-Cola, as the building manager and a police officer burst in. Shots may indeed have been fired from the window on the sixth floor, but that doesn’t prove that it was Oswald that fired them. Further, it doesn’t rule out the presence of other shooters in Dealey Plaza that day, with weapons equipped with silencers. These frequently make a muffled sound, like a car backfiring, which is how some witnesses described what they heard. The acoustics of Dealey Plaza could easily have obscured the direction from which the fatal headshot came, for some of these witnesses.

If this is any indication of the power of Posner’s book, I am amazed that it has received so much critical “acclaim.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't held in as much acclaim now, Thomas...remember...there have always been the "book that is the final word"...Posner has given way to Bugloisi...I wonder how carefully those that laud these works actually read and carefully review..?

Those on the Amazon post are nothing but rabid LN...they are there to obstruct and deny, deny, deny...better to spend time here...at most, they are selling there garbage to what?...20 odd people?...

Anderson has been caught out many times...ask him about Steve Anderson at AllExperts...and why he denies he is the same person...even Von Pein referred to S V as "Steve"...and this charlatan denies it....if they want a real debate..plenty of room here for them...watch them back out of that offer...(Anderson has claimed he left here...he also claimed he was removed...it's a take your pick type story...)...

Hope your reading is coming along...it's a fascinating subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve:

What I find surprising is how otherwise intelligent people could overlook the suspicious circumstances surrounding the case, along with the demonstrated presence of conspiracies to kill JFK – e.g. witness Carlos Marcello, and David Milteer. These are only two examples, but I am certain that there are others. Then there are the powerful, PERSONAL motives, notably in men like Sam Giancana, Jimmy Hoffa, Tony Accardo, Santos Trafficante, and others. Any reasonable person, I think, would look for links to the purported shooter, and these groups, then examine whatever opportunities presented themselves, if the evidence implicating Oswald was weak. I find it amazing that people can convict Oswald, at least in their minds, while he was observed in the 2nd floor lunchroom 90 seconds after the shooting, calmly sipping a Coke. I don’t doubt that shots were fired from the TSBD, but I do doubt that Oswald fired them. A fingerprint expert has discerned Malcom Wallace’s fingerprints as being present near the Sniper’s Nest, which implicates LBJ if true. While I have yet to read Judith Vary Baker’s book, I am certainly open to the possibility that Oswald was given a lot of bad press, to say the least. I’ve never been convinced of his guilt, because his demeanor in the DPD was not that of a guilty man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it rather amusing that on the Amazon discussion board, I created such a stir by asking whether it was “more probable” that fourteen eyewitness were “mistaken” (as S V Anderson put it) in their location of Kennedy’s fatal head wound, OR that there has been, and continues to be, an ongoing and concerted effort, to discredit these witnesses. They are: McClelland, Crenshaw, Jones, Carrico, Dulany, Peters, Salyer, Bell, Ward, Rike, O’Connor, Riebe, Custer, and O’Neill. I’m sure everyone present here will recall that it was Dr. McClelland who drew the medical sketch 264, that clearly identifies a massive exit wound in the rear of JFK’s skull, with no ambiguity. S V Anderson had no convincing reply to make, at least to me, other than to say that these witnesses were “mistaken,” and he hadn’t a clue as to how or why this happened. I found his response to be unsatisfactory, and said so, recalling that the statistical odds against independent parties randomly making such an error had to be considerable. S V Anderson then went on to say that “forensic evidence trumps” such oral testimony, and my rebuttal was that inadvertently, he had raised the key point: namely, that in a case of this sort, involving the assassination of a head of state, the chain of possession of the evidence – in this case the slain President’s body – was crucial. And the “Feds” had possession from start to finish. David Lifton wrote an entire book devoted to the chain of possession, and notes that even Dr. Humes remarked that there appeared to be “surgery of the head area” upon viewing the remains. And this was before the “autopsy,” such as it was, commenced.

I find such a remark to be disturbing. No “surgery of the head” was performed in Dallas. What the hell happened? And the two orderlies present at Bethesda noticed that almost ¾ of the underlying brain tissue was absent. Was Humes delusional? I doubt it. He was, however, inexperienced in performing an autopsy involving gunshot wounds. The selective nature of the procedures employed, the presence of massive authority during the proceedings, and carte-blanche assurances that everything was in order some forty years after the fact, leaves me suspicious. I don’t accept these assurances, and I don’t think anyone else should. Least of all, at a time during which official secrecy continues. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me, as to the mind-set of a significant number of people, that they could accept such assurances, under these circumstances, which by themselves constitute abundant ground for believing, that a coup d’état occurred. It worries me even more that the media has abandoned its “watchdog” role, by accepting these claims and assurances, in effect telling us to trust and not question “our” government.

Increasingly, I am of the belief that is really is all over. There should be outrage, and protest. Instead, we see complacency, and what Professor Ralston calls the hegemonic pattern in connection with the media. Our society has become a plantation, in which dissent is routinely marginalized, and in which our public schools no longer convey any semblance of critical thinking. No, after my experiences of late, I am not comforted at all. As a country, we are headed toward the cliff, and at this point, I’m not convinced that even a Ron Paul Presidency could turn it around. They’d just “JFK” the guy if he got into the White House, probably within six months if it even took even that long.

Edited by Thomas Kroger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Robert Morrow

It isn't held in as much acclaim now, Thomas...remember...there have always been the "book that is the final word"...Posner has given way to Bugloisi...I wonder how carefully those that laud these works actually read and carefully review..?

Those on the Amazon post are nothing but rabid LN...they are there to obstruct and deny, deny, deny...better to spend time here...at most, they are selling there garbage to what?...20 odd people?...

Anderson has been caught out many times...ask him about Steve Anderson at AllExperts...and why he denies he is the same person...even Von Pein referred to S V as "Steve"...and this charlatan denies it....if they want a real debate..plenty of room here for them...watch them back out of that offer...(Anderson has claimed he left here...he also claimed he was removed...it's a take your pick type story...)...

Hope your reading is coming along...it's a fascinating subject.

For what its worth, Steve, David von Pein WAS a member of Education Forum, then he got KICKED OFF. Then he had to beg his way back on here where he tries to act like a "good boy" fighting his tremendous urges to used the "k" word.

But over at Amazon S.V. Anderson can act like a nasty boy with impunity. And his non debate, full time insult modus operandi is to call folks "kooks, nuts, crazies, insane, paranoid, etc."

Capiche?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://justiceforkennedy.blogspot.com/2010/12/greg-burnham-copa-2010-presentation.html



http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html


>>>Thank you for giving McGeorge Bundy the recognition he so deserves. Myra Bronstein<<<

You're quite welcome. I think particular thanks should be extended to LBJ, for hoodwinking Warren to lend his name and prestige to the coverup phase of the operation - e.g. by convincing him of the geopolitical necessity of a "lone-nut" theory of the assassination. Without such a conclusion, Earl Warren was convinced that a nuclear holocaust was inevitable. So he acted in "good faith," but the Hoover-directed FBI did the "investigation," which presumed Oswald's guilt from the outset.

I've never heard of ANY criminal investigation proceeding in such a manner. In a word, its chief defect was its lack of radicalism. It naively assumed that things were only as they appeared, and looked no further. I am unconvinced that Lee Harvey Oswald fired any shots, because only 90 seconds later, he was observed in the lunch room on the second floor, calmly sipping a Coke. No signs of stress. None of his behavior at the DPD strikes me as that of a guilty man. He is calm, collected, and factual, as he asks for legal representation to come forward.

It is revealing that in the post from Shaboo2 which I examined above, she makes a sleight-of-hand from "possible to probable, then undeniable." These are her exact words, to describe Magic Bullet, an ad hoc "theory," composed not to explain, but to exclude the possibility of other shooters. This is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and reprehensible. It is infuriating to read such words, and then be subjected to her ridicule and phoney righteousness. It has so disgusted me, that I am done with Amazon, so far as posting is concerned. I have accomplished far more research in the last week, than was ever possible, while I was busy locking horns with her and/or S V Anderson.

Seldom has any case appeared with more suspicious surrounding circumstances than the JFK assassination. If the perpetrators were disenchanted "Cold Warriors," they undoubtedly believed in the rectitude of their cause, and feared that disclosure of the truth would entail a Constitutional crisis and cataclysmic breakdown at the worst possible time - at the height of the Cold War. That couldn't be permitted, and I believe it was their original motivation. But their successors became accomplices after the fact, and the chain of guilt is ongoing. That is why the coverup is ongoing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas, Harold Weisberg has a booked called "Case Open", which critically attacks Posner's work and methods.

"Reclaiming History", is, of course, the LN bible. Bugliosi says a few things about Posner. Read both. Then read the on-line criticism of RH, there are many..the best being CTKA's in depth review.

Steve i am using your short post to reply to Tom in case he has not as yet found below...thankyou for the use of...b

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/ecc.htm Issue #1 "Case Closed or Posner Exposed?" 100 errors .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas, Harold Weisberg has a booked called "Case Open", which critically attacks Posner's work and methods.

"Reclaiming History", is, of course, the LN bible. Bugliosi says a few things about Posner. Read both. Then read the on-line criticism of RH, there are many..the best being CTKA's in depth review.

Steve i am using your short post to reply to Tom in case he has not as yet found below...thankyou for the use of...b

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/ecc.htm Issue #1 "Case Closed or Posner Exposed?" 100 errors .

Means

Motive

Opportunity

Any criminal investigation must explain these facors to seek successful prosecution.

Did LHO have the means? The research into this question clearly proves the lack of coorobative evidence to support that he had the means

Did he have the motive? Not even close.

Did he have the opportunity? The evidence say's he did not.

Case Open ( to paraphrase)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did LHO have the means? The research into this question clearly proves the lack of coorobative evidence to support that he had the means

Did he have the motive? Not even close.

Did he have the opportunity? The evidence say's he did not.

Tom Wilson is 100% wrong on all three counts. LHO most certainly had the Motive, Means, and Opportunity to kill President Kennedy (particularly the last two--means and opportunity).

Does Tom Wilson really want to deny that Oswald had ready access to his own rifle in November 1963? (Does Tom wish to pretend that Rifle C2766 was planted?)

And does Tom W. also want to deny that Oswald was working in the TSBD Building on 11/22/63, and that LHO even admitted to being INSIDE that building at 12:30 when JFK was being killed? (I wonder how Oswald's prints got on two of the boxes that were located in the exact same very tiny area of the southeast corner of the 6th Floor where an assassin was located on Nov. 22nd? Did the patsy-framers just get LUCKY by choosing two boxes that Oswald just happened to touch on Nov. 21 or 22?)

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswalds-motive.html

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Lee-Harvey-Oswald

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did LHO have the means? The research into this question clearly proves the lack of coorobative evidence to support that he had the means

Did he have the motive? Not even close.

Did he have the opportunity? The evidence say's he did not.

Tom Wilson is 100% wrong on all three counts. LHO most certainly had the Motive, Means, and Opportunity to kill President Kennedy (particularly the last two--means and opportunity).

Does Tom Wilson really want to deny that Oswald had ready access to his own rifle in November 1963? (Does Tom wish to pretend that Rifle C2766 was planted?)

And does Tom W. also want to deny that Oswald was working in the TSBD Building on 11/22/63, and that LHO even admitted to being INSIDE that building at 12:30 when JFK was being killed? (I wonder how Oswald's prints got on two of the boxes that were located in the exact same very tiny area of the southeast corner of the 6th Floor where an assassin was located on Nov. 22nd? Did the patsy-framers just get LUCKY by choosing two boxes that Oswald just happened to touch on Nov. 21 or 22?)

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswalds-motive.html

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Lee-Harvey-Oswald

Yes, I deny that LHO had "his" rifle. Of Course he worked there. So did many others. But you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he fired those shots. You cannot. The rifle did not have his prints on it. It could not be matched to the "paper bag." etc, etc, etc, etc.....

His finger prints on boxes in the snipers nest? That is what you want to hang him with? He toted boxes, that was his job.

Sad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I deny that LHO had "his" rifle.

Gee, what a surprise. A conspiracist is ignoring the hard, physical evidence in the JFK murder case. Will wonders never cease?

And Tom Wilson, naturally, will continue to deny that C2766 was Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, even with Waldman Exhibit No. 7 staring him in the face, plus the order form for the rifle in Oswald's own writing, plus the backyard photos (wherein the characteristics of Rifle #C2766 were identified by the photo panel of the HSCA -- in other words, Oswald is holding the TSBD rifle in those backyard pictures).

All "fake" stuff, eh Tom?

Sad.

Of Course he worked there. So did many others. But you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he fired those shots. You cannot.

That fact was proven on the day the assassination occurred, Tom. I'm surprised you're not aware of that fact. Just listen to D.A. Henry Wade, on the evening of 11/24/63, run down the laundry list of stuff that proves Oswald's guilt. It would make any prosecutor's mouth water:

DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/09/henry-wade-press-conference-11-24-63.html

The rifle did not have his prints on it.

Dead wrong.

There's CE637 (never proven to be planted there); and there are the oft-overlooked trigger guard fingerprints which were positively Oswald's, per print expert Vincent Scalice. He's a xxxx too?

It [Rifle C2766] could not be matched to the "paper bag." etc, etc, etc, etc.

But that paper bag (with Oswald's own prints on it, of course) was tied to the blanket that we know held that rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. (The fiber experts were liars too, Tom?)

His fingerprints on boxes in the sniper's nest? That is what you want to hang him with? He toted boxes, that was his job. Sad.

I always get a kick out of conspiracy theorists like Tom Wilson here. They'll go to the ends of the Earth, it seems, to avoid the obvious implications of ALL of the Oswald-did-it evidence -- from the rifle, to the paper bag, to the bullet shells by the window, to the two large bullet fragments FIRED FROM OSWALD'S GUN that were found in the President's car, to CE399, to the fibers, to the Tippit evidence (I'm not sure if the Tippit stuff applies to Tom Wilson or not, but it sure applies to a lot of other Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists on the Internet these days), and to the fingerprints on the boxes too.

Just how much evidence is necessary to have a guilty Lee Oswald in this case?

For conspiracy theorists, it would appear the answer to my last inquiry is: There can never be enough. Sad.

And those fingerprints and palmprints of Oswald's on those boxes deep inside that Sniper's Nest should not just be tossed aside (as all CTers want to do), as discussed here:

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...