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

Dealing with deniers

Recommended Posts

Pat, I was thinking mainly of Blakey and his pet Mafia theory.

And with Groden as a consultant--need more be said there?

For the record, Groden, much as Wecht, was allowed to testify as an expert to express a minority opinion. In other words, their impact on the committee was minimal at best.

In Wecht's case, moreover, this was by design. The nine members of the FPP were split into two groups. One group made of six doctors was dominated by Baden and Loquvam; 4 of these 6 were colleagues of Dr. Russell Fisher, whose conclusions they were reviewing.

The other group was made of three doctors--with Wecht outgunned by Weston and Spitz, both of whom had already viewed the autopsy materials and had supported the single-assassin conclusion. Spitz, moreover, was Fisher's closest colleague.

The organization of the panel, then, accomplished two tasks: 1) it made sure Wecht was not given a chance to talk to Humes and Boswell, who only talked to the first panel, and 2) it made sure Wecht's ideas were in the minority, and that he would have little opportunity to influence others.

It was a total sham.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=David Von Pein' date='17 June 2011 - 05:11 PM'

timestamp='1308345060' post='228853]

You have no choice but to believe that EVERY official investigative team that looked into the JFK assassination totally botched up everything -- from the DPD, to the FBI, to the Warren Commission, to

the HSCA, to the Clark Panel, to the Rockefeller panel.

I've got all of the above.

Sad. And pathetic.

And btw, according to the 1,031 people polled by ABC News in Nov. 2003, only 7% of those people think that Oswald did not fire any shots at President Kennedy. Not exactly an overwhelming majority, is it?

http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

Those findings of those "official investigative teams" are where the proofs of conspiracy are found. Apparently most of those 1031 people did not have the same faith in the

Warren Commission that David does.

Two thirds of them believe there are still important unanswered questions about the assassination.

Seven out of ten believe that it was not the work of one man; they believe that Kennedy's assassination was part of a broader plot

Two out of three believe that there was an official cover-up to keep the public from learning the truth about the Kennedy assassination.

Based on the ABC poll results, and unlike David Von Pein, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that those investigative teams

that David has so much faith in, "botched things up."

Some other poll results:

From Gallup 2001: Do you think that one man was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think that others were involved in a conspiracy?

Answer:
One man 13%

From CBS 1998: Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone?

Answer:
Yes 10%

These poll results are even more remarkable considering David's theory is backed by the conclusions of the Warren Report and steadfast acceptance by the media (New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, Time-Life etc). One would expect that there would be be a majority that accept the official findings. There isn't.

David is clearly on the fringe with his beliefs.

Edited by Michael Hogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David is clearly on the fringe with his beliefs.

With regard to Oswald acting alone, yes. But as the ABC News poll indicates, it's doubtful that I'm in the overall minority with regard to Oswald shooting at the President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other poll results:

From Gallup 2001: Do you think that one man was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think that others were involved in a conspiracy?

Answer:
One man 13%

From CBS 1998: Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone?

Answer:
Yes 10%

These poll results are even more remarkable considering David's theory is backed by the conclusions of the Warren Report and steadfast acceptance by the media (New York Times, CBS, NBC, ABC, Time-Life etc). One would expect that there would be be a majority that accept the official findings. There isn't.

David is clearly on the fringe with his beliefs.

With regard to Oswald acting alone, yes. But as the ABC News poll indicates, it's doubtful that I'm in the overall minority with regard to Oswald shooting at the President.

This is the ABC poll question that you referenced:

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day,

or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?"

David, If someone believed that Oswald was somehow "involved in the assassination" but fired no shots, how would they answer the above question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is the ABC poll question that you referenced:

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day,

or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?"

David, If someone believed that Oswald was somehow "involved in the assassination" but fired no shots, how would they answer the above question?

If they didn't want to be misleading, they'd have no choice but to answer with the third option: i.e., "Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all".

Because the other two options are things they definitely do not believe.

And if they answered the question the way you obviously think they did answer it, with the second option (i.e., "Do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day?"), then they are putting a gun in Lee Oswald's hands (whether they intended to put that gun in his hands or not).

The poll question could have been worded a little better at the end, yes. It probably should have said "Or do you think Oswald did not fire a gun at President Kennedy at all?"

But even being worded as it is, it's quite obvious that the question is, indeed, talking about Oswald's involvement as a "gunman", since that exact word ("gunman") is used in the first two segments of the

ABC News poll question.

http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
David, If someone believed that Oswald was somehow "involved in the assassination" but fired no shots, how would they answer the above question?

If they didn't want to be misleading, they'd have no choice but to answer with the third option: i.e., "Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all".

Because the other two options are things they definitely do not believe.

And if they answered the question the way you obviously think they've answered it, with the second option (i.e., "Do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day?"), then they are putting a gun in Lee Oswald's hands (whether they intended to put that gun in his hands or not).

http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

Let me get that straight. If someone thought Oswald "was somehow involved in the assassination," they would have no choice but to answer "he was not involved in the assassination at all?"

Before you edited your post, I thought I read that you said that unless they were stupid they would have to answer no opinion. (Which is technically true.) Did you write that initially?

Your last sentence above makes absolutely no sense to me. First of all, I don't think I had the thought you ascribed to me. I'm not sure what what you mean with the rest, unless you are saying that in some cases, there is no applicable answer.

All I thought was that it was a ridiculously worded question with no correct answer for someone described in the box at the top.

Do you think it was worded well enough to be a poll question?

PS) I didn't see the latest changes to your post until after I posted this.

Edited by Michael Hogan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let me get that straight. If someone thought Oswald "was somehow involved in the assassination," they would have no choice but to answer "he was not involved in the assassination at all?"

Before you edited your post, I thought I read that you said that unless they were stupid they would have to answer no opinion. (Which is technically true.) Did you write that initially?

Yes, I did initially write that. But then I realized that that response ("No Opinion") is really not the best answer to the parameters you laid out earlier (i.e., the best answer for people who think Oswald was "involved" but not as a shooter), because the third option ("Oswald not involved at all") is really the only response that fits your criteria, not "No Opinion". And that's because those people DO have an opinion on the subject of Oswald as a "gunman", and it would be (via the criteria you laid out) "Oswald was not involved at all".

Why?

Because that was a COMPARTMENTALIZED question that ABC News was asking -- separate from the other question regarding "conspiracy". It ONLY involved the question of "GUNMEN", not conspiracy.

Your last sentence above makes absolutely no sense to me. First of all, I don't think I had the thought you ascribed to me. I'm not sure what what you mean with the rest, unless you are saying that in some cases, there is no applicable answer.

All I thought was that it was a ridiculously worded question with no correct answer for someone described in the box at the top.

Do you think it was worded well enough to be a poll question?

It could have been worded better, just as I said in my last post above. ABC News could have put the specific word "gunman" in ALL THREE portions of the question, instead of just the first two segments. But, good gosh Michael, since that word "gunman" IS right there in the first two-thirds of the question, isn't it pretty clear that the question is focusing on OSWALD AS A GUNMAN there? I think it's still fairly clear even as written.

Addendum:

Here's the conversation I had with Pat Speer on this exact subject in 2009. A couple of other "LNers" chimed in with their thoughts too during this discussion (which occurred at the IMDB.com forum for the Oliver Stone "JFK" movie).

Highlighting one of my main points during this 2009 discussion:

"You, Pat Speer, seem to think the ABC poll's "gunman" question is

deceptive and misleading. But let me ask you this:

If the 83% of people who comprise the first two categories of that

"gunman" question really DIDN'T believe that Oswald was a "gunman" at

all, then why on Earth would they have responded the way they did to

that poll's question (which, as I said, couldn't be any clearer with

respect to the first two segments of that inquiry, with the word

"gunman" appearing in both segments)?

Why would 83% say that LHO was a gunman if a certain percentage of

those respondents really DIDN'T believe such a thing?" -- DVP; April 2009

----------------------

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Per a 2003 ABC poll (which included twice the number of respondents

than the Gallup Poll), only 7% of people asked thought that Oswald was

completely innocent (i.e., only 7 of every 100 think that Oswald

didn't fire a shot at JFK).

Compared to the paranoid fringe that appear on Internet sites, that's

quite a difference. Because probably better than 85% of those paranoid

kooks seem to think Oswald never fired a shot.

2003 poll:

www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

PAT SPEER THEN SAID:

David, your interpretation of the poll results is incorrect, and

reflects an obvious bias. Although only 7% of conspiracy theorists

thought that Oswald was "not involved"[,] that by no means means the

rest thought he was a shooter. The majority of conspiracy theorists

believe he was involved on some level; some believe he was a lookout,

others believe he was infiltrating the plot on behalf of an

intelligence organization. Only a minority believe he fired a shot at

Kennedy.

DVP THEN SAID:

Yes, it does mean exactly that...because of the specific way ABC News

worded that particular question.

Better look again. 83% of the 1,031 people polled think Oswald was

definitely firing a gun at JFK via that "gunman" polling question.

NICK KENDRICK THEN SAID:

As usual, David is right and you [Pat Speer] are wrong.

Question, ABC news poll, November 5-9th, 2003.

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy

assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to

Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the

assassination at all?"

Only Oswald - 32% (All of them CIA, presumably - NSR)

Another Gunman - 52% [it was actually 51%]

Oswald Not Involved - 7%

No Opinion - 10%

Plainly, the question is phrased so that people who (are insane enough

to) believe that Oswald was a "lookout" or a "government operative"

but (are insane enough to) believe that Oswald didn´t fire a single

shot, would answer "Oswald not involved". The figure for those who

(are insane enough to) believe Oswald wasn´t involved is clear - an

unlucky seven percent. When it comes to sheer arrogance and pomposity,

patspeer, you take the cake. You owe David an apology and you owe

yourself a reality check - either Oswald was innocent, which goes

against all the evidence, or he acted alone.

PAT SPEER THEN SAID:

Here is the question, David:

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy

assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to

Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the

assassination at all?"

By asking whether or not "Oswald was not involved in the assassination

at all" as opposed to the more logical third alternative "Oswald was

not a shooter on 11-22-63"[,] the question becomes blurred. The words

"at all" bit extend way beyond merely shooting.

FWIW: There is a book called "Tainting Evidence" which deals with this

very phenomena--the skewing of poll results via adding bits like "at

all" at the end of the question.

Over the years, I have discussed the Kennedy assassination with at

least 1,000 people beyond those I've met online or at conventions. The

vast majority have no real opinion on the assassination; many saw

[Oliver Stone's] JFK and were half-convinced but then saw the ABC or

the Discovery Channel and were half-convinced, etc. IMO, this

represents the bulk of Americans. Most of them--rightly or wrongly--

have doubts that Oswald could have fired the shots. A large

percentage--perhaps a majority--believe he was involved in some way,

however.

So, bottom line. You are correct to point out that the number of

people thinking Oswald was some innocent guy framed because he was a

leftist is small. But you are totally incorrect if you think the vast

majority of Americans think Oswald shot Kennedy.

NICK KENDRICK THEN SAID:

Now now, Pat Speer, it's very simple - David was right, and you were

(once again) wrong. Pompously, arrogantly and stupidly wrong. That's

all there is to it.

Naturally, I didn't really expect you to have the class to apologize

to David, but at the very least, you could have avoided compounding

your stupidity.

Oh well.

PAT SPEER THEN SAID:

Geez, Louise. Let's be CLEAR about this. David and Nick (assuming

they're not the same person--ha) are now BOTH claiming that 93% of

Americans think Oswald shot Kennedy. Is this right?

If so, I suggest they both get out a little bit, and talk to people

other than themselves (ha).

DVP THEN SAID:

Again, Pat Speer misses the boat (and point). I was talking about the

SPECIFIC POLL done by ABC News in Nov. 2003.

And that's a poll (whether you like its results or not) that shows,

undeniably, that 83% (not 93%, because 10% had "no opinion" one way or

the other) of the respondents--which numbered 1,031 people, twice the

number of the Gallup Poll, btw--were of the opinion that Lee Harvey

Oswald was firing a gun at JFK on 11/22/63.

Live with it, Pat.

PAT SPEER THEN SAID:

Weak sauce, David. You prop up a poll with misleading data and then

run from it when I ask you to say you believe what it implied.

Once again...It was a flawed poll because it had a flawed question.

Think of it in the reverse. If the same group of people had been asked

if they 1) thought the Warren Commission deliberately misled the

public, or 2) thought the Warren Commission told the truth ABOUT

EVERYTHING, how many do you think could bring themselves to go along

with #2? Almost no one, right?

It is the use of the absolute that steers the vote. Same thing with

the ABC poll. By saying "not involved at all"[,] the pollsters knew

damn well they were steering their subjects in the opposite direction.

DVP THEN SAID:

Pat, you must be totally blind not to recognize that the first two

parts of the question (within that particular 2003 ABC Poll question

being discussed here) have the word "GUNMAN" in them:

1.) "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy

assassination."

2.) "Do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there

that day."

32% of the 1,031 people responding voted for #1 above, while another

51% said #2 was their choice.

Which means, by definition, Pat, that 83% total thought that Oswald

was, indeed, shooting at Kennedy.

You cannot slide by those figures and pretend that that 83% really

didn't understand the question or utilize some other excuse to skew

the plain-as-day figures regarding the "GUNMAN" topic in the JFK

assassination.

The fact is that more than 8 out of every 10 of those respondents said

they thought that Oswald was either the lone gunman in Dallas or that

Oswald was one of the gunmen -- hence, the words "ANOTHER GUNMAN" in

the wording of the second part of that particular question.

And since the words "ANOTHER GUNMAN" are followed by the words "IN

ADDITION TO OSWALD" in the wording of the poll's question, those

respondents who fall into that "Another Gunman" category are telling

ABC News that Oswald was ONE OF THE GUNMEN they thought were shooting

at President Kennedy.

Get it now, Pat? Or should we dance around this Mulberry bush a few

more times before the obviousness of this whole thing sinks in?

"BOOGIE KNIGHT" THEN SAID:

Pat, once again proving that a self-taught man has an idiot for both a

teacher and a student, is showing that polling, like other topics such

as "science" and "forensics", is just beyond his grasp.

PAT SPEER THEN SAID:

I see your point, David, but I assure you that the question is

deceptive.

DVP THEN SAID:

Well, your "assurance" doesn't mean much.

PAT SPEER THEN SAID:

If asked, point blank, "Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F.

Kennedy?"[,] do you REALLY believe 83% of those asked would say

"yes"[?]"

DVP THEN SAID:

Yes. Absolutely.

But you don't need my opinion on that matter, because we have the

results of just such a "Do You Think LHO Shot JFK?" inquiry in black-

and-white via the ABC News poll from 2003.

The "gunman" question in that ABC poll couldn't be any clearer, with

ABC asking those 1,031 people if they thought Oswald was the "ONLY

GUNMAN" or if there was "ANOTHER GUNMAN IN ADDITION TO OSWALD" or if

Oswald was "NOT INVOLVED IN THE ASSASSINATION AT ALL".

I think you're probably confusing the answer you'd get from kooks at

Internet forums like this one with the answer you'd get to that

question from the vast majority of Americans who don't frequent pro-

conspiracy Internet boards.

The Anybody-But-Oswald nuts that are abundant online certainly do not

reflect the thinking of the majority of America.

Probably 85% of the kooks online think Oswald never fired a shot. But,

as the ABC poll demonstrates, the majority of people in the mainstream

who have an opinion on the subject believe Oswald was firing a gun at

JFK.

That doesn't mean, however, that that same mainstream doesn't believe

in a conspiracy, as these numbers from the exact same 2003 ABC News

poll readily suggest:

"Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man,

or was it part of a broader plot?":

One Man -- 22%

Broader Plot -- 70%

No Opinion -- 8%

Also, let me add this:

You, Pat Speer, seem to think the ABC poll's "gunman" question is

deceptive and misleading. But let me ask you this:

If the 83% of people who comprise the first two categories of that

"gunman" question really DIDN'T believe that Oswald was a "gunman" at

all, then why on Earth would they have responded the way they did to

that poll's question (which, as I said, couldn't be any clearer with

respect to the first two segments of that inquiry, with the word

"gunman" appearing in both segments)?

Why would 83% say that LHO was a gunman if a certain percentage of

those respondents really DIDN'T believe such a thing?

I'll leave you to sort out my last question in your own mind.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ecfae05e92eaf9f2

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name=David Von Pein' date='19 June 2011 - 09:08 PM'

timestamp='1308532127' post='229002]

Let me get that straight. If someone thought Oswald "was somehow involved in the assassination," they would have no choice but to answer "he was not involved in the assassination at all?"

Before you edited your post, I thought I read that you said that unless they were stupid they would have to answer no opinion. (Which is technically true.) Did you write that initially?

Yes, I did initially write that. But then I realized that that response ("No Opinion") is really not the best answer to the parameters you laid out earlier (i.e., the best answer for people who think Oswald

was "involved" but not as a shooter), because the third option ("Oswald not involved at all") is really the only response that fits your criteria, not "No Opinion". And that's because those people DO have an

opinion on the subject of Oswald as a "gunman", and it would be (via the criteria you laid out) "Oswald was not involved at all".

Why?

Because that was a COMPARTMENTALIZED question that ABC News was asking -- separate from the other question regarding "conspiracy". It ONLY involved the question of "GUNMEN", not conspiracy.

David, I wish I had captured your first response before you edited it. It was a tacit admission that the question was flawed and that there was no possible answer for some respondents.

Your sudden "realization" was that you couldn't afford to admit that. So instead, you slip me some double-talk like the above that makes no sense.

Can you show me where I laid out any parameters that included "the best answer.?" My contention has been and is that there is no answer.

Thanks for all that other stuff you included; I read it but it sure was tedious. With a capital T. It takes something simple and makes it incomprehensibly complicated.

My question was a simple one.

Are you claiming
"If someone thought Oswald
was somehow involved in the assassination
, they would have no choice but to answer
he was not involved in the assassination at all
?
"

Your answer seems to be yes. David, that's ridiculous on the face of it. Their only other option would be to answer that Oswald was a gunman that day.

And at first, you wrote they would have to be stupid answer that way. Sorry David, but that tipped your hand.

One more time, here was the poll question:

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to

Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?"

It could have been worded better, just as I said in my last post above. ABC News could have put the specific word "gunman"

in ALL THREE portions of the question, instead of just the first two segments. But, good gosh Michael, since that word "gunman"

IS right there in the first two-thirds of the question, isn't it pretty clear that the question is focusing on OSWALD AS A GUNMAN

there? I think it's still fairly clear even as written.

Huh? Fairly clear? What does that mean? ABC could have? Why didn't they?

The last two poll answers have everything to do with conspiracy and the first one doesn't rule out conspiracy.

David, you and I both know your original post is how you really feel. You didn't suddenly have an epiphany.

Good gosh to you too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

....DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Per a 2003 ABC poll (which included twice the number of respondents

than the Gallup Poll), only 7% of people asked thought that Oswald was

completely innocent (i.e., only 7 of every 100 think that Oswald

didn't fire a shot at JFK).

Compared to the paranoid fringe that appear on Internet sites, that's

quite a difference. Because probably better than 85% of those paranoid

kooks seem to think Oswald never fired a shot.

2003 poll:

www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy ....

Maybe this is too personal a question David, but have you put yourself through the exercise described here, by the son of Robert Lynd?

quote http://www.pbs.org/fmc/interviews/lynd.htm

Staughton Lynd is the son of Robert and Helen Lynd, the sociologists who wrote Middletown, and Middletown in Transition. Staughton Lynd is a labor activist by profession.

....And I feel that at least as far as my father was concerned it was that kind of experience, that, I mean, Muncie was already in him in a way that he knew he would never wholly extricate himself from and didn't want to wholly extricate himself from. But at the same time it was a part of his growing up to look at that with fresh eyes and see things that perhaps as a banker's son growing up in Louisville he hadn't seen so clearly. I mean, you just have to sort of partake of the Horatio Alger aspect of that from which my father came to understand that he would want to both affirm it and to critique it. And that's what Middletown is.

My father in going to Muncie and in spending years of his life stubbornly saying that he wanted to write about Muncie as he felt it needed to be written about, was I think performing an act of criticism and an act of love. He was talking about the kind of earnest Christian background in which he had grown up and which he was certainly not prepared to disavow or ridicule, but which he also thought needed to be looked at in new ways, or that you didn't try to discuss the religion of Muncie or of the United States except in the context of its life as a whole, and you recognized that that life included a class division between blue collar workers and others, and you reached out in love with one hand at the same time you insisted on seeing it as it is or as it was with the other.

/quote

David, meet Evan Chesler, managing partner of John McCloy's, Maurice T. Moore's and Rozwell Gilptric's law firm, Cravath.

Now, attorney Chesler, just as McCloy, et al, did before him, is representing the best interests of his clients. Chesler is an informed person and a skilled lawyer; this is what his own opinion is.:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YiRJ6uRvrpYJ:www.lawdragon.com/images/uploads/pdf/LD_mag_April_06.pdf+evan+chesler+hung+the+jury&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com

From the Bronx to the top post

at Cravath Swaine & Moore,

Evan Chesler lives the consummate New York Story.

page 30 ....

...present name from the three presiding partners who led the firm from 1906 to 1957: Paul Cravath, Robert Swaine and

Hoyt Moore. The firm was renamed Cravath Swaine &

Moore in 1944. Under today's firm rules, the presid-ing partner must step down at the age of 63. Chesler, who is 56, will replace Robert Joffe (pictured), the present leader.

Robert D. Joffe 1999–current

Samuel C. Butler 1980–1998

Royall Victor Jr. 1977–1980

Roswell L. Gilpatric 1967–1977

Maurice T. Moore 1963–1966 .....

...The other oddity from 1992 was Chesler’s sole criminal

trial, on behalf of Lee Harvey Oswald. Barr and Chesler

defended Oswald in an American Bar Association-spon-

sored mock trial. Chesler handled the forensic witness-

es and closing arguments for the defense, which also

included David Boies, a longtime Cravath star who

departed in 1997. (Boies did not answer requests for

comment for this story.) They faced off against an

impressive Bay Area trio of prosecutors: Joe Cotchett,

John Keker and James Brosnahan.

The Cravath team hung the jury against convicting

Oswald in the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

Chesler became convinced that Oswald was part of a

larger conspiracy. He is happy to talk about the case’s

forensic evidence for as long as you’re willing to lis-ten.

“I think the evidence is overwhelming that he did not

act alone,” he says. “I don’t think he fired the fatal shot.

The fatal shot came from the front, from the [grassy]

knoll area.” ...

...Chesler contends it would have been too difficult for

Oswald to fire the fatal shot from his distant perch in

the book depository. He also terms untenable the gov-

ernment’s magic bullet theory — which has a single

bullet inflicting multiple wounds on JFK and Texas Gov.

John Connolly. Then there’s the Zapruder film of the

assassination, which shows Kennedy’s head moving

back and to the left, suggesting a fatal shot from the

front.

“The physics are just wrong,” Chesler says....

David, while the Rockefellers and others of proximate power and wealth have always had the talent of people like the ones who came before the current Cravath partners to very ably represent their interests, judging by what was learned in the exhaustive studies of the residents of Muncie, it seems they have had no one to represent their best interests, NOT EVEN THEMSELVES.

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/interviews/caplow.htm

New River Media Interview with: Theodore Caplow

Commonwealth Professor of Sociology, University of Virginia Co-Author, The First Measured Century

QUESTION: Explain a bit about the first Middletown study.

THEODORE CAPLOW: Robert and Helen Lynd went to Muncie, Indiana in 1924, with a commission to study grassroots religion. And they came back in 1925 with a marvelous study of social change, having used 1890 as the baseline and gotten all sorts of retrospective information from people who were still alive and from documents. And they constructed the authoritative story of what had happened to a typical American community in that generational period.

It's a wonderful book, Middletown, published in 1929. [it] almost didn't get published, because the sponsors, the Rockefeller Institute for Social and Religious Research were shocked by the fact that the little study of grassroots religion had turned into a comprehensive examination of a whole society. It took the intervention of Clark Wissler, who was chairman of the board of the Museum of Natural History to get the book published.

It then became the first sociological bestseller. It's been in print ever since. The whole 70 years it's never been out of print. It's a great book. ....

.... QUESTION: What were the main findings of the Lynds in the book?

THEODORE CAPLOW: They discovered the scandal of class. Most Americans at the time had been brought up to believe that we live in a democracy, where everybody is essentially equal, though admittedly some people are richer than others. The Lynds discovered in Middletown that there was a business class, as they called it, and a working class, and that they were as different as two different tribes. Their conditions of life were different. Their values were different. Their expectations were different. And there wasn't, they thought, much passage between the two. That was what made the book exciting.

But they did all sorts of other things. They looked at the influence of the automobile on the sex habits on the population. They considered the enormous stability that religion had showed from 1890 to 1924. It's a very comprehensive and careful examination. ...

..... QUESTION: What kind of criteria were used to select Muncie?

THEODORE CAPLOW: ...The Middletown one study does not really contain a critique of consumerism. It contains a critique of class stratification, and the fact that the business class as they saw it were not only exploiting the working class, but also attempting to control them ideologically. There was a movement called "Magic Middletown." There was boosterism. Lynd devotes a lot of space to how squalid the typical working man's home was....

...QUESTION: What happened between Middletown II in the 1930s, and when the next study, Middletown III, took place in the 1970s?

THEODORE CAPLOW: We are still using the distinction between business class and working class, but two things have happened in the interim, had already happened by 1977, when we did Middletown III, and are even more salient today after Middletown IV [the current study]....

...For example, no working class person would have dreamed of playing golf in 1924. In 1977 it was commonplace. But on the other hand, the incidence of golfers and membership in the country clubs still gave you a pretty sharp division between the two groups.

There is still, for example, a conspicuous difference in exposure to unemployment. It's not as conspicuous as it was. In 1924 it was pretty nearly absolute. That is, Lynd couldn't find anybody in the business class who had been unemployed, whereas it was a normal and routine occurrence in the working class. .....

....QUESTION: Why do you suppose the Lynds noted class differentiation in the way they did? And does the observation still hold?

THEODORE CAPLOW: It was forced upon them by the fact that they looked attentively at the community. You couldn't help seeing it. It was perfectly obvious that the community was bifurcated in that way. Middletown is only the first of a dozen important studies...

...QUESTION: Can we tell anything about political attitudes?

THEODORE CAPLOW:...We have a question taken literally from the 1924 questionnaire that was asked in 1977 and 1999 about what is popularly called the Protestant ethic. I think it reads something like, "It's the fault of the man himself if he does not succeed." - and we didn't change the wording out of political correctness, because as far as possible we try never to change wordings. And more young people accept that proposition as true now than in 1977 or even 1924. That's really quite startling.

On the other hand, we have another question about "The fact that some people have so much more money than others, so there's something wrong with this country." And there we get more people taking the liberal point of view in 1999 than in either 1977 or 1924....

Sorry David, you label us, so I'm confident you have this coming....I have an insight influenced by my fascination with the work of the Lynds and of the uniformity of the Indiana town and its residents they studied.... if we are "kooks", it may just be because we are not confined to provincial, in lockstep thinking, as seems the norm in the land of,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/05/AR2008050502738.html

Sociologists Robert and Helen Lynd chose to study Muncie (dubbing it Middletown) in the '20s because it was "middle-of-the-road," without "outstanding peculiarities." (By Zach Dobson For The Washington Post)

Middletown, Teetering On the Divide An Indiana City With an Average Past Anxiously Faces an Uncertain Future

By Libby Copeland Washington Post Staff Writer

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

MUNCIE, Ind.

In the 1920s, two amateur sociologists went searching for a city that was singularly unexceptional. They wound up here.

They made a study of Muncie, asking its children how often they read, and its women how often they ironed. Then more sociologists came, and market researchers and documentarians and journalists, poking and prodding over the decades, measuring Muncie with the calipers of their trades....

...Muncie was not truly average or typical in the literal sense. It had fewer immigrants than most Midwestern cities of its size, and what black population there was, the Lynds utterly ignored in their surveys.

But when the book "Middletown" came out in 1929, it became a national bestseller, and many Americans came to feel that Muncie was Anytown, U.S.A. Muncie became another Peoria for market researchers and trade journals, who figured that if, say, newfangled school supplies sold here, they would sell . . . everywhere!

"The only two books that are absolutely necessary for an advertising man are the Bible and MIDDLETOWN!" one sales journal declared, according to Sarah E. Igo's book "The Averaged American."

There have been many more sociological studies and books about Muncie over the decades -- so many that Ball State formed the Center for Middletown Studies. A filmmaker came in and made a documentary series that aired on PBS in the late '70s and early '80s

http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22*Herr+Goebbels+does+not+know+about+america%22&btnG=Search+Books

The Averaged American: Surveys, Citizens, and the Making of a Mass ... - Page 91

Sarah E. Igo - 2008 - 398 pages - Preview

“More cities like Middletown are needed here—good, sane, substantial, hard-working communities that breed the best citizens,” he proclaimed. Reversing the surveyors' negative assessment of Muncie as an ostrich with its head in the sand, the commentator was reassured by their judgment that “Middletown re-mains singularly the same."35 In a period rife with international tensions, the commonality of the American people and their beliefs, as uncovered by the Lynds, could also be marshaled politically. Noting that Hitler's propaganda minister had referenced the Lynds' survey to argue that FDR did not speak for average Americans on the question of refugees from Nazism, the New York Times in 1938 stated, “Herr Goebbels no doubt considers himself a very well-informed man on America because he knows about one of our fine books, 'Middletown.'"

But “what Herr Goebbels does not know about America,” editorialized the paper as war loomed, “is that when it comes down to a test of American fundamentals, Mr. Roosevelt of Washington, and Mr. Smith of Middletown . . . think alike...

http://books.google.com/books?id=SVKgrMlMAFkC&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=caillois+%22betrayed+by+themselves%22&source=web&ots=oun4yOKB8-&sig=A1gg7icDHVAyPF7olES1bDIcT8M&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#v=onepage&q=caillois%20%22betrayed%20by%20themselves%22&f=false

Back to Middletown: three generations of sociological reflections By Rita Caccamo De Luca

....There had been a moment in the history of Middletown when it's symbols and beliefs ran parallel with it's dreams and the realities of everyday life. In the years of the economic boom, progress was apparent and touched everyone, though of course some profited from it more than others. With the Depression, on the other hand,

the distance between the symbolic universe of belief and the pragmatic universe of everday action has widened. They have again floated abruptly apart, and so far apart as to demand of Middletown either that it apply it's customary formula and blinldy deny that the gap has actually widened, or at least regard it as merely a temporary interrruption; or that it revise this high-floating world of symbols, restating it in humbler and less hopeful terms so as to re-locate it closer to everyday reality; or that it accept as normal the fact of living in an enhanced state of tension because of the unwonted permanent remoteness of the two planes. 32

The symbolic ceiling above Middletown has collapsed: there was no longer hope for everyone, but only a reality shaped by the will and actions of the power elite. Dreams themselves were reduced to contingencies and wonder had been exchanged for consumer object; or their range was restricted to the parameters of the possible, limited to the triviality of the objects within reach: in short, betrayed by themselves (Caillois 1990).

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/HAROLD.TXT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-------------------------------------------X

ROBERT J. GRODEN

Plaintiff,

-v- Docket No.

94 CIV 1074 (JSM)

RANDOM HOUSE, INC.,

THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, INC., AFFIDAVIT OF

and GERALD POSNER HAROLD WEISBERG

Defendants.

-------------------------------------------X

STATE OF MARYLAND }

}ss.:

COUNTY OF FREDERICK }

HAROLD WEISBERG, having been duly sworn, hereby deposes and says: ....

...42. Posner does not explain in his book that Failure Analy-

sis Associates merely cooked up a showcase for the use of its

technological wares in litigation for an annual meeting of the

American Bar Association in San Francisco in August 1992. This

was presented in the form of a two-day mock trial of Lee Harvey

Oswald. FaAA provided evidence and expert witnesses for both the

defense and the prosecution. The trial ended in a hung jury.

Posner does not tell his readers this; indeed, he makes no men-

tion of the ABA mock trial anywhere in his 600 pages. Drawing

only from the prosecution's case, Posner's writing is carefully

designed to give the impression that FaAA's work was done for

him, without actually saying either that he paid for that work or

that it was in fact done for him. Furthermore, he did not have

that company's permission to do this. Even after his book was

published, Posner left his interviewers with the clear yet erro-

neous impression that FaAA's work was done for him.

43. Note the double-edged misrepresentation by omission in

Posner's not reporting that there was any defense against what he

selected to use of what Failure Analysis presented at that

"trial", or that when the credibility of the evidence he care-

fully selected was tested before a jury, they deadlocked. Ac-

cording to an account of the trial reported by USA Today on Au-

gust 12, 1992, five jurors voted to acquit because, "the theory

that Oswald fired a single, magical bullet (through both Kennedy

21

and Connally) was unbelievable; his motive for killing Kennedy

was unclear; many doubts remain."

44. It's even possible that Posner's book represents noth-

ing more than a disgruntled ex-employee's attack against his old

employer because, interestingly, Oswald was represented at the

ABA mock trial by the senior partners of his old firm, Cravath,

Swaine & Moore. I understand that, during his short association

with them, they assigned Posner the most menial chore of going

over discovery evidence in the IBM antitrust litigation, a chore

assigned by some of the major corporations to those who do not

even have a law degree. He has since inflated his menial role

into being a publicity and cover-worthy "Wall Street lawyer."

45. Of the ABA presentation, David V. Boies told the Asso-

ciated Press that the prosecution "hadn't met its burden of

proof." Thomas Barr, Cravath's managing partner, was quoted in

The San Francisco Chronicle on August 11, 1992 as saying, "There

should not be the slightest doubt of any kind as to what the

facts are. And yet every single fact of any significance is open

to serious doubt." Not in Posner's version. Still another of

the top partners in the firm that did not need Posner's continued

services or his fabled "analytical mind," Evan Chesler, said, "no

one can be sure about how many shots were fired or where they

came from. Despite all the evidence, the government only has

circumstantial evidence to string together ... The doubts are

such that in this case (the government) cannot carry its burden."

46. Remarkably, none of the major media have commented on

his taking FaAA's work for the ABA mock trial and presenting it

22

as specially commissioned for his book. All those papers and

magazines that went ape for Posner and his book, all those ec-

static reviewers and their laudatory reviews, all the electronic

media virtually falling all over themselves to air him and sell

his fraudulent book -- not a word about any of this truth...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is too personal a question David, but have you put yourself through the exercise described here, by the son of Robert Lynd?

quote http://www.pbs.org/fmc/interviews/lynd.htm

Staughton Lynd is the son of Robert and Helen Lynd, the sociologists who wrote Middletown, and Middletown in Transition. Staughton Lynd is a labor activist by profession.

All I know is Staughton Lynd co-wrote this: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/The_critics/Lynd/Seeds_of_doubt.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, if you can't figure out that that ABC question involves the topic of GUNMEN ONLY (not conspiracy, per se), then you're a lost cause. Because the wording of that question is quite clear, even as written.

And now you want to call me a xxxx, saying that my original comment about "No Opinion" is still (right now) my current stance on this topic. Well, you're wrong, it isn't. Because THE ONLY correct answer that the respondents to that particular inquiry could possibly have, if they believe Oswald fired NO SHOTS, would be to answer "Oswald Was Not Involved At All", with a built-in parenthetical "AS A GUNMAN" included, because that IS what that question meant, which could hardly be more obvious -- i.e., ABC was asking people if OSWALD WAS A GUNMAN OR NOT.

And it is you, not I, who is unnecessarily complicating a question that is very clear to begin with.

I'll ask you, Michael, the very same question I asked Patrick J. Speer in April of 2009:

Why would 83% say that LHO was a gunman if a certain percentage of those respondents really DIDN'T believe such a thing?

Do you REALLY think that 83% of the people completely misunderstood the question?

The thing that the conspiracists should really be upset about is the amazingly-high percentage (from the "Internet" CTer's perspective) of 32% of those 1,031 poll respondents believing that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Or did those people misunderstand the question too, Michael?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Question for DVP: How can you look for conspiracy from any angle if you advocate the SBT?

Silly question here. DiEugenio is suggesting that there would be no avenue for "conspiracy" AT ALL if the HSCA believes in the SBT. Utterly foolish. There are many avenues of potential conspiracy to pursue that aren't related in any way to the SBT. There are no PROVABLE angles of conspiracy, true. But that doesn't mean that the HSCA saying the SBT is true = No Conspiracy Whatsoever. (Is Jimbo serious?)

Question for DVP: If you bring back people who the WC originally used to create the Single Bullet Fantasy, how can you be seeking ANY conspiracy?

See above response, because this question is every bit as stupid as Jim's first one.

Again, Jimbo seems to be saying that an advocate of the SBT cannot think that ANY conspiracy could exist in THE WHOLE CASE -- including Ruby, Ferrie, the Mob, the CIA, or any of the other bogus theories peddled by various conspiracy mongers since 1963. (Has Jimbo lost it?)

Question for DVP: How can you investigate a conspiracy if you bring in people who admit they know nothing about the scene they are investigating?

You're undoubtedly talking about a very small percentage of people here. Naturally, you probably want to expand this number of "know nothing" investigators to triple digits.

The examples you provided are from the Garrison case in New Orleans, which, as we all know (and the HSCA knew this from Day 1 too) was a totally bogus fraud of a case to begin with. Clay Shaw had as much to do with Kennedy's death as Elvis Presley or Mary Tyler Moore.

Question for DVP: How can you investigate a presidential assassination for the public, if you allow the CIA and FBI to have the last word over what the public is going to read?

Simple. The CIA and FBI (for the most part) told the truth about the assassination and their investigations and neither organization had anything to hide with regard to the major question of: Did Lee Harvey Oswald act alone in assassinating President Kennedy? Period.

That, naturally, is a fact that the DiEugenios of the world will never swallow. But the constant whining of conspiracy fanatics like Jimbo could hardly matter less. The history books of the world will always finger Jim's favorite patsy as JFK's murderer. And that's because the EVIDENCE proves that to be a fact. Like it or not.

Question for DVP: How can you be looking for a conspiracy if you bring in a quack expert who 1.) Doesn't have the right info to base his analysis on and 2.) Then falsifies exhibits to make the SBT work?

That's Jimbo's conspiracy spin on Canning. And, as usual, it's all bullxxxx. Canning's trajectories work just fine. Naturally, you think he deliberately skewed things. But, as usual, you're wrong.

>>> "Question for DVP: How could Blakey be looking for ANY conspiracy, if he was saying that a guy who could not hit a falling zeppelin, could suddenly just point his rifle at a moving target--WITHOUT AIMING--and get 2 of 3 hits in the head and shoulder area." <<<

Whether or not Oswald utilized the telescopic sight on his Carcano rifle has always been a question open for debate. We can never know, of course. But the FACT remains that Oswald was TRAINED IN THE UNITED STATES MARINES to fire a rifle. And the fact remains that Oswald was a sharpshooter in the early days of his Marine hitch.

Now, a question for Jimbo The Great -- Is a MARINE SHARPSHOOTER normally considered to be a guy who "could not hit a falling zeppelin"?

If the Marine Corps issues "Sharpshooter" rankings to people who are piss-poor gunmen, then God help the United States Marine Corps.

>>> "Von Pein is making stuff up here. He is angry because the HSCA actually said there was a shot from the Grassy Knoll that missed." <<<

And Jimbo The Great is even angrier that the HSCA came to the same identical conclusions about Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt that the Warren Commission came to -- i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald, and only Oswald, hit any victims with any bullets on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

That declaration by the HSCA no doubt burns both sides of DiEugenio's toast.

>>> "He [Von Pein] should count his blessings: if Sprague and Tanenbaum were allowed to stay, the entire conspriracy would have been exposed. And DVP would be in the Betty Ford Center." <<<

James DiEugenio, therefore, somehow thinks that the great Sprague and Tanenbaum would have created a make-believe conspiracy out of whole cloth. Because that's the only kind of "conspiracy" that exists in the JFK murder case (one built from whole cloth), with or without the Gods known as Mr. Sprague and Mr. Tanenbaum.

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/DVP-Vs-DiEugenio-The-Complete-Series

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah David. Your beliefs are in the 10-13 % range. And you call me a lost cause.

Your stuff about gunmen and conspiracy and what ABC could have, should have said is nonsensical.

I didn't call you a xxxx. Another one of your inventions. Like I said, I wish I had your original post before you changed it.

I'm not going to answer any of your questions. You didn't address mine.

I've had enough. You have plenty of stamina. Just not enough logic and reason. If you want to pretend that you think that question is clearly worded, go ahead. You're not fooling me.

Or anyone else, for that matter.

And Dave, you need to lose the CAPS thing. It doesn't become Raymond Carroll and it doesn't become you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, if you can't figure out that that ABC question involves the topic of GUNMEN ONLY (not conspiracy, per se), then you're a lost cause. Because the wording of that question is quite clear, even as written.

And now you want to call me a xxxx, saying that my original comment about "No Opinion" is still (right now) my current stance on this topic. Well, you're wrong, it isn't. Because THE ONLY correct answer that the respondents to that particular inquiry could possibly have, if they believe Oswald fired NO SHOTS, would be to answer "Oswald Was Not Involved At All", with a built-in parenthetical "AS A GUNMAN" included, because that IS what that question meant, which could hardly be more obvious -- i.e., ABC was asking people if OSWALD WAS A GUNMAN OR NOT.

And it is you, not I, who is unnecessarily complicating a question that is very clear to begin with.

I'll ask you, Michael, the very same question I asked Patrick J. Speer in April of 2009:

Why would 83% say that LHO was a gunman if a certain percentage of those respondents really DIDN'T believe such a thing?

Do you REALLY think that 83% of the people completely misunderstood the question?

The thing that the conspiracists should really be upset about is the amazingly-high percentage (from the "Internet" CTer's perspective) of 32% of those 1,031 poll respondents believing that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Or did those people misunderstand the question too, Michael?

How clever of you to bring up that 2009 discussion, David. And how sneaky.

What David doesn't want to admit, fellas, is that we had another go-round on this issue in 2010. Here is how I summarized these discussions once upon a time...

A February, 2009 online discussion with single-assassin theorist David Von Pein further illustrates this point. On the IMDB Forum for the film "JFK" Von Pein kept citing a 2003 ABC News poll as evidence the majority of Americans think Oswald shot Kennedy. I tried to correct him on this, and point out that the poll's question "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?"" was misleading. I argued that by saying "not involved in the assassination at all" at the end, the questioner misrepresented this as the only remaining alternative and pressured people convinced that Oswald was somehow involved to pick one of the first two options. I likened this to asking people "Do you think the Warren Commission was created to deceive, do you think the Warren Commission decided on their own to deceive, or do you think the Warren Commission told the American people the truth ABOUT EVERYTHING?", a question that, in my opinion, would lead people to overwhelmingly state that the Warren Commission deceived the public. But Von Pein would have none of this. He continued to claim, and continues to claim, that ABC's poll showed that 32% of Americans believed Oswald was the lone gunman, 51% thought Oswald was one of multiple gunmen, 10% had no opinion, and only 7% of the American people thought someone other than Oswald fired from the sniper's nest in the school book depository.

This was obviously wrong. If 83% believed Oswald fired from the book depository, and only 7% believed he did not, then it follows that for every conspiracy theorist suspecting that Oswald was framed, TWELVE people thought Oswald was guilty. This is ludicrous. If, as Von Pein claims, only 7% of the American people thought then and continue to think Oswald innocent of shooting Kennedy, then why are he and his fellow single-assassin theorists so driven to convince others of Oswald's guilt? I mean, far more than 7% of the American people think Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster, or that AIDS was designed by the CIA, and you don't see a nation-wide movement of journalists, historians, and "researchers" arguing that these people are wrong. Such wild theories, when held by only a small minority of people, are just ignored. Furthermore, if by 2003 only 7% of Americans thought there was anything to the possibility raised by Oliver Stone's 1991 film JFK--that Oswald was framed by the American government--then where in the world do people like Vincent Bugliosi and Von Pein get off blaming Oliver Stone for misleading the American people? Are we to believe that BEFORE the movie "JFK" hit the theaters, far FEWER than 7% of the American people thought Oswald innocent of killing Kennedy?

A year later, as part of his ongoing campaign to paint those believing Oswald innocent of killing Kennedy as kooks, Von Pein started up on this again. This time, however, I asked him WHO the supposedly 51% of the public thinking Oswald fired shots as part of a team thought Oswald was working for. For this, he referred me to yet another poll, one in which 34% of the public said they believed the CIA was involved. This makes Von Pein's assertion only 7% of the public thinks Oswald innocent of shooting Kennedy positively bizarre. Could he really believe that at least 27% of the public believes Oswald shot Kennedy as part of a CIA plot? Could he really believe those thinking Oswald fired shots on behalf of the CIA outnumbered those thinking he was a patsy by a ratio of almost 4 to 1? And if so, how could he or his hero Vincent Bugliosi possibly believe the public was remotely swayed to believe such a thing by Oliver Stone's movie JFK, or any other film or publication? Outside a few researchers claiming Oswald was part of a CIA mind-control program, and a Manchurian Candidate-type assassin programmed by the CIA, no one, and I mean no one, in the conspiracy research community believes Oswald was an assassin for the CIA. I have talked to hundreds of non-buffs over the years, and can absolutely assert that this suspicion is next to non-existent in the non-buff public as well. Von Pein's assertion that as many as one out of every four Americans thinks Oswald was a hit man for the CIA is just plain wacky...

And when I pushed him on this...he admitted as much. On March 4, 2010, on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup, he admitted: "if I WERE to disbelieve that "7%" ABC poll, where does that really lead? I'll tell you where -- such a belief leads to a vast MAJORITY of Americans actually falling into "Kookville". Yes, you read that right. In Von Pein's mind, his acceptance of that poll equates to his rescuing the vast majority of Americans from "Kookville." He doesn't want to believe HE is in the vast minority, so he trumpets flawed polls from years past to convince himself he is not, even though his acceptance of this poll leads to the inescapable conclusion that a substantial percentage of Americans believe Oswald to have been a hit man for the CIA, something he KNOWS isn't true.

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...