Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

For those interested in JFK-assassination-related books, Hamilton Books now shows the following titles available at very significant discounts:

https://www.hamiltonbook.com/products/search?q=jfk+assassination&cat_id=

Title  Author Binding Item # Price  Info
HIT LIST: An In-Depth Investigation into the Mysterious Deaths of Witnesses to the JFK Assassination R. Belzer & D. Wayne Paperbound 5895596 $5.95$16.99 View »
POST MORTEM: The Classic Investigation of the JFK Assassination Medical and Ballistics Evidence and Cover-Up Harold Weisberg Paperbound 5813689 $5.95$14.95 View »
THE MISSING JFK ASSASSINATION FILM: The Mystery Surrounding the Orville Nix Home Movie of November 22, 1963 Gayle Nix Jackson Hardbound 5770548 $17.95$24.99 View »
THE POISON PATRIARCH: How the Betrayals of Joseph P. Kennedy Caused the Assassination of JFK Mark Shaw Hardbound 7660448 $6.95$24.95 View »
ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT: The Warren Commission, the Authorities & the Report on the JFK Assassination Sylvia Meagher Paperbound 3605566 $4.95$14.95 View »
NEVER AGAIN! The Government Conspiracy in the JFK Assassination Harold Weisberg Paperbound 269865X $5.95$14.95 View »
DAVID FERRIE: Mafia Pilot, Participant in Anti-Castro Bioweapon Plot, Friend of Lee Harvey Oswald and Key to the JFK Assassination Judyth Vary Baker Paperbound 3604551 $17.95$24.95 View »
WHITEWASH IV: The Top Secret Warren Commission Transcript of the JFK Assassination Harold Weisberg Paperbound 7660626 $4.95$14.95 View »
IN THE EYE OF HISTORY, SECOND EDITION: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence William Matson Law Paperbound 4530551 $19.95$29.95 View »
OSWALD, MEXICO, AND DEEP POLITICS: Revelations from CIA Records on the Assassination of JFK Peter Dale Scott Paperbound 3678334 $4.95$14.95 View »
BULLETINS FROM DALLAS: Reporting the JFK Assassination Bill Sanderson Hardbound 5882524 $17.95$24.99 View »
THE REPORTER WHO KNEW TOO MUCH Mark Shaw Hardbound 5874874 $18.95$26.00 View »
THEY KILLED OUR PRESIDENT: 63 Reasons to Believe There Was a Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK Jesse Ventura et al Hardbound 7582668 $5.95$24.95 View »
AMERICAN LEGACY: The Story of John & Caroline Kennedy C. David Heymann Paperbound 3610004 $2.95$16.00 View »
THE ACCIDENTAL VICTIM: JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, and the Real Target in Dallas James Reston, Jr Hardbound 2660776 $3.95 View »
JFK: A New World Order   DVD 2666219 $3.95 View »
LEE HARVEY OSWALD--48 HOURS TO LIVE: Oswald, Kennedy, and the Conspiracy That Will Not Die Steven M. Gillon Paperbound 5899869 $3.95$16.95 View »
KENNEDY: The Man, the President and the Tragedy   DVD 5999863 $9.95$29.98 View »
THE KENNEDY DETAIL: JFK's Secret Service Agents Break Their Silence Gerald Blaine with L. McCubbin Paperbound 4503384 $5.95$16.00 View »
LAST WORD: My Indictment of the CIA in the Murder of JFK Mark Lane Paperbound 6526500 $4.95$14.95 View »
THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy That Killed the President David Southwell Hardbound 4575881 $4.95$29.95 View »
AUTOPSY: Postmortem with Michael Baden   DVD 5708966 $4.95 View »
AFTER CAMELOT J. Randy Taraborrelli Hardbound 760954X $2.95 View »
JFK'S LAST HUNDRED DAYS: The Transformation of a Man and the Emergence of a Great President Thurston Clarke Hardbound 2747790 $2.95 View »
THE BONE TREE Greg Iles Paperbound 5838509 $7.95$9.99 View »
THE WAR CONSPIRACY: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War Peter Dale Scott Paperbound 5813743 $5.95$16.95 View »
PARKLAND   DVD 2695863 $3.95 View »
THE THIRD BULLET Stephen Hunter Hardbound 5528755 $7.95$26.99 View »
AMERICA'S QUEEN: The Life of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Sarah Bradford Paperbound 5778115 $7.95 View »
DR. FEELGOOD R.A. Lertzman & W.J. Birnes Paperbound 577036X $4.95$14.95 View »
THEY KILLED OUR PRESIDENT: 63 Reasons to Believe There Was a Conspiracy to Assassinate JFK Jesse Ventura et al Paperbound 3639533 $5.95$14.95 View »
THE UNWITTING Ellen Feldman Hardbound 4588568 $2.95$26.00 View »
TRUMPOCALYPSE NOW! The Triumph of the Conspiracy Spectacle Kenn Thomas Paperbound 6599133 $13.95$16.95 View »
THE GREAT PARADE Peter Filichia Hardbound 6576397 $5.95$29.99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,

No, I'm saying that none of those memos were circulated -- they went to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover immediately after the JFK assassination two months later, and any indexes that existed were destroyed.

I fully expect to see -- in these new releases from NARA -- the secret files of J. Edgar Hoover on the JFK assassination.  I truly do.

You ask why the FBI would willingly confess to lying for a half-century.  I note that at least two FBI agents (Swearingen and Adams) have been trying to tell the truth for many years.  I think many other FBI agents will be happy to admit that J. Edgar Hoover wasn't perfect.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

No, I'm saying that none of those memos were circulated -- they went to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover immediately after the JFK assassination two months later, and any indexes that existed were destroyed.

I fully expect to see -- in these new releases from NARA -- the secret files of J. Edgar Hoover on the JFK assassination.  I truly do.

You ask why the FBI would willingly confess to lying for a half-century.  I note that at least two FBI agents (Swearingen and Adams) have been trying to tell the truth for many years.  I think many other FBI agents will be happy to admit that J. Edgar Hoover wasn't perfect.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Numerous former FBI officials have told journalists and scholars and Congressional hearings about misbehavior and illegality during Hoover's time as Director.   FBI documents have provided corroboration for what those individuals have alleged or revealed.

What is different about JFK's assassination is that no FBI employee has ever come forward to substantiate what you claim.  

In addition, historians and political scientists and investigative reporters have never found what you allege with respect to entire files or serials never even being entered into the FBI indexing system.  There are no "secret files of J. Edgar Hoover" which have not been released.  There were documents which Hoover's long-time personal secretary (Helen Gandy) destroyed but nobody has ever suggested that any material pertaining to JFK's murder was among those documents.

You frequently refer to Swearingen and Adams but you never once have told us how you went about establishing that their personal opinions are factual.  Incidentally, Swearingen's book has no footnotes or bibliography and MOST of the persons he mentions or describes are given pseudonyms so there is no possible way for you (or anybody else) to confirm Swearingen's accusations!

Nor have you ever explained why we should believe two Agents who never had any direct responsibility for investigating JFK's murder and who never even worked at FBI HQ.  Again---you can ALWAYS find someone within a large organization who is critical of their employer for personal reasons (such as not being promoted or being given critical performance evaluations or having personality disputes with supervisors).  But you seem to not care about any of that.  You just reverse engineer everything.  If someone says or writes something you think advances your argument, then, automatically you believe it -- while, simultaneously, you ignore anything which those individuals may write or say which contradicts what you believe --- such as Swearingen's contemptuous dismissal of Harry's narrative.

In any event -- when NOTHING is released in October -- you will STILL claim that there are "hidden" files or serials OR that the "smoking gun" documentation has been destroyed.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,

The only authority of FBI agents Wesley Swearingen and Don Adams that I recognize is the fact that they were lifetime FBI agents.

They were also whistle-blowers on the FBI, and they also paid a price for that.

The proofs will come by October 26th of this year.

Now -- if the proofs don't come -- I have already committed publicly -- I will cease my insistence that the US Government is withholding records about Harry Dean and General Walker.

Yet I still maintain today -- I fully expect that these upcoming releases of US Government documents will change US History.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

The only authority of FBI agents Wesley Swearingen and Don Adams that I recognize is the fact that they were lifetime FBI agents.

They were also whistle-blowers on the FBI, and they also paid a price for that.

The proofs will come by October 26th of this year.

Now -- if the proofs don't come -- I have already committed publicly -- I will cease my insistence that the US Government is withholding records about Harry Dean and General Walker.

Yet I still maintain today -- I fully expect that these upcoming releases of US Government documents will change US History.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, By my rough calculations, we have to hear you repeat yourself about 300 times between now and October 26.

By the way Paul, are you sorting through the documents, or are you waiting for Ernie, or someone else, to do that for you?

I would think that if you were sorting through the released documents you might have found something interesting to share, regardless of the fact that I have never seen you share anything interesting except for your personal myths and zealous diatribes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

The only authority of FBI agents Wesley Swearingen and Don Adams that I recognize is the fact that they were lifetime FBI agents.

They were also whistle-blowers on the FBI, and they also paid a price for that.

The proofs will come by October 26th of this year.

Now -- if the proofs don't come -- I have already committed publicly -- I will cease my insistence that the US Government is withholding records about Harry Dean and General Walker.

Yet I still maintain today -- I fully expect that these upcoming releases of US Government documents will change US History.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul -- I would not describe Don Adams as "a lifetime FBI agent" although he worked 22 years for the FBI, -- half of that time in Akron, OH -- which is not the location where superior FBI agents were assigned.  "Lifetime" agents usually joined the FBI in their 20's and then retired when they were in their 60's.

I also would not describe Swearingen or Adams as "whistle blowers".  BTW, what "price" did they pay (according to you)?    They retired with full government pensions and health benefits and lived happily ever after.

A whistle blower makes a public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing by testifying under oath before a legislative body or in court proceedings or by contacting their agency Inspector General or comparable official.  Adams and Swearingen did none of those.   Which means they were both free to make money from books or lectures without ever being challenged to support their assertions --- which is probably why you like them (just like you prefer to believe Harry Dean's unprovable story).

More importantly, anybody within government can complain about something or make allegations but if you do not have the ability to challenge their story and compare it to documentary evidence as well as testimony from other people who have direct personal knowledge then their accusations are a cost-free method of generating publicity.  As previously mentioned, you could never PROVE anything Swearingen writes about because he does not even identify the individuals he writes about by their actual names!  [A genuine whistle blower does not invent pseudonyms to conceal the identity of the persons whom he claims are engaged in corruption or dishonesty.]

In addition, one always has to consider whether someone has a personal grudge or feels under-appreciated or not properly recognized (promotions and pay increases or being overlooked for desired assignments) etc. as explanations for their accusations or their adverse interpretations.  And, as previously mentioned, one also has to become familiar with their actual employment history in order to determine whether or not an Agent had access to the type of information (and cases) which they claim to be knowledgeable about.

But NONE of that interests you.   You have never once shown ANY interest in details.  YOUR entire approach to research is equivalent to going to an all-you-can-eat buffet at a casino.  You just select whatever you like and then ignore everything else.

OCTOBER:  

You do not need to wait until October because early last year, NARA released a 146-page document which lists all of the remaining documents to be released.  The list is organized by NARA agency code (see list below).  In addition, each remaining FBI document is identified by the file number it comes from.  None of those file numbers pertain to Harry, Edwin Walker, or the JBS.    

The numerical agency code prefix for each document is as follows.  The number in (parenthesis) reflects the total number of documents scheduled to be released.  The total number of FBI and CIA documents combined is 2400.  The largest number of FBI documents to be released come from FBI HQ file 62-116395 which is the Church Committee (aka Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities).

104-        CIA - Central Intelligence Agency
111-        DIA - Defense Intelligence Agency (6)
119-        DOS - Department of State (94)
124-        FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
137-        IRS - Internal Revenue Service (178)
157-        SSCIA - Church Committee (26)
173-        ONI - Office of Naval Intelligence (2)
176-        USSS - US Secret Service (46)
177-        LBJ Library (19)
178-        ROCKCOM - Rockefeller Commission (30)
179-        DOJ - Dept. of Justice (522)
180-        HSCA - House Select Committee on Assassinations (167)
181-        NARA - National Archives (39)
198-        Army (6)
202-        JCS - Joint Chiefs of Staff (2)

 

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What price did FBI agents Wesley Swearingen and Don Adams pay for attempting to pursue the truth about the JFK assassination, against the orders of their FBI higher-ups?  They both tell their stories in their respective books:

1. To Kill a President (2008) by M. Wesley Swearingen

2.  From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle  (2012) by Don Adams 

They were both threatened by their FBI managers for attempting to pursue the leads they had previously developed, and they were both relegated to lower-level duties.   Wes Swearingen, a senior investigator, for example, was relegated to Mid-West car-theft duty for the rest of his career.

I highly recommend their books.

By the way -- Don Adams was the FBI agent who worked very closely with Willie Somersett, the FBI informant and key character in this "new book" by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

What price did FBI agents Wesley Swearingen and Don Adams pay for attempting to pursue the truth about the JFK assassination, against the orders of their FBI higher-ups?  They both tell their stories in their respective books:

1. To Kill a President (2008) by M. Wesley Swearingen

2.  From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle  (2012) by Don Adams 

They were both threatened by their FBI managers for attempting to pursue the leads they had previously developed, and they were both relegated to lower-level duties.   Wes Swearingen, a senior investigator, for example, was relegated to Mid-West car-theft duty for the rest of his career.

I highly recommend their books.

By the way -- Don Adams was the FBI agent who worked very closely with Willie Somersett, the FBI informant and key character in this "new book" by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

But, again, Paul -- you have no independent confirmation that establishes what you claim.  You have no idea if it is factually true that either of them were "threatened" by anybody.  For all you know, they just made that up for publicity purposes OR they may have mis-interpreted something OR misrepresented what actually happened.  You have NEVER seen their personnel files so you have no clue what ACTUALLY occurred.

How could you possibly corroborate what Swearingen writes in his book?  There are no footnotes and he uses pseudonyms for most of the people he discusses.   Apparently, THAT is the quality of "evidence" which most appeals to you!

AND you still don't understand that neither of them were assigned to work on the JFK murder.  

As I have written many times --- you DO NOT accept normal rules of evidence or logic.  You have absolutely NO criteria for separating fact from fiction.  You just believe ANYTHING which you think conforms to what you already believe.  Interestingly, however, you ignore the FACT that Swearingen does not believe anything in Harry's story and, in fact, Swearingen stated that Harry needs professional help for some mental issue.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,

According to your logic there, unless we have conclusive proof of ANYTHING, then nothing should be said about it.

But that leads to authoritarianism, because it lets the Government have the final say on everything -- and if the Government withholds evidence from the public (as they admittedly did with the JFK assassination) then they can get away with anything.

No -- in my view the American People should feel free to speculate, and raise questions, and invent theories.  If they see them crash and burn, then OK, at least they had the freedom to express their doubts honestly.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

According to your logic there, unless we have conclusive proof of ANYTHING, then nothing should be said about it.

But that leads to authoritarianism, because it lets the Government have the final say on everything -- and if the Government withholds evidence from the public (as they admittedly did with the JFK assassination) then they can get away with anything.

No -- in my view the American People should feel free to speculate, and raise questions, and invent theories.  If they see them crash and burn, then OK, at least they had the freedom to express their doubts honestly.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

No Paul, your first sentence is 100% false (as usual).  

But your sentence illustrates your intellectual problem better than anything I can write.  YOU believe that when considering evidence, there is nothing valid between "conclusive proof" versus "nothing".   Your comment is equivalent to you going from A to Z and skipping B through Y -- because as I have pointed out repeatedly, you have NO CRITERIA for separating fact from fiction.  You believe EVERYTHING --regardless of source and even if there is NO supporting evidence AND even if the item you are citing contains NO footnotes or bibliographic references or even specific names of people discussed.  THAT is the quality of your mind!

There is nothing wrong with speculating and raising questions and developing theories or hypotheses.   However, apparently you never took a course in logic while you were in college.  There are things called "logical fallacies".  Fallacies occur when there is a defect in reasoning which renders an argument invalid.  This usually occurs when misleading or unsound arguments are proposed.  For example:  YOU have proposed that we accept as factual whatever Swearingen or Adams has written or said -- even though there is no independent confirming factual evidence being offered for their accusations and conclusions.  Even more important, YOU would be the first person to acknowledge that you have NEVER independently investigated their FBI employment .  In other words, whatever you "know" is based EXCLUSIVELY upon whatever Adams and Swearingen have told you.

NO SERIOUS RESEARCHER mindlessly accepts everything some alleged main figure or leading character in a dispute says or writes.  An investigative PROCESS is required that often requires arduous research.  YOUR approach is totally different.  You discover something written or said by someone that seems to conform to what you already believe -- and then you immediately cite that as INDISPUTABLE and FACTUAL --- and you also require us to accept YOUR contention that these people are authoritative and reliable even though you have NOT spent one nanosecond verifying whatever they present.

What YOU are proposing is NOT honest intellectual discussion or debate or speculation or theorizing.  ANY fiction writer can write something which YOU then propose we accept as the standard for credible evidence and arguments.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

According to your logic there, unless we have conclusive proof of ANYTHING, then nothing should be said about it.

But that leads to authoritarianism, because it lets the Government have the final say on everything -- and if the Government withholds evidence from the public (as they admittedly did with the JFK assassination) then they can get away with anything.

No -- in my view the American People should feel free to speculate, and raise questions, and invent theories.  If they see them crash and burn, then OK, at least they had the freedom to express their doubts honestly.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

One wonders WHY you do NOT accept the testimony or writings of former FBI Agents whom aligned themselves with the Birch Society --- such as Cleon Skousen and Dan Smoot?

They both wrote numerous books and articles and gave numerous speeches around the country.  They both worked at FBI HQ.  In Skousen's case, he was a Supervisor for a significant period of time and he was recommended repeatedly for advancement.

Skousen's performance evaluations while he served in the FBI were extremely complimentary.  [Neither of us even knows if Swearingen or Adams had excellent or superior performance evaluations or if either of them was ever recommended for advancement.}

SO...by what standard do you dismiss EVERYTHING written by Skousen and Smoot but ACCEPT EVERYTHING written by Swearingen and Adams?   What is the process you used to arrive at your conclusions?   Especially when you consider that you have NEVER seen their personnel files and there is no conceivable method you could use to verify their assertions since they don't provide footnotes or bibliographic references which you can check.

SO...please enlighten us about your methodology!

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,

My methodology is this.  I start with some theoretical premises that are presented to be tested according to the logical principle of contradiction.

1.  First, that the Warren Commission did not tell us the complete truth about the JFK assassination.

2.  That the central falsehood of the Warren Commission is the FBI's "Lone Nut" theory of Lee Harvey Oswald.

3.  That Bertrand Russell's "Sixteen Questions on the JFK Assassination" (1964) remain intrinsically valid. 

4.  That the inability of world literature to resolve the problems of the JFK assassination, after half a century, is an important fact.

5.  That the CIA-did-it CT has had far more attention than any other CT -- for a half-century -- and it still fails miserably.

5.1.  That the Pentagon-did-it CT is ridiculous on many counts.

6.  That the Mafia-did-it CT is ridiculous on many counts.

7.  That the LBJ-did-it CT is ridiculous on many counts.

8.  That the FBI-did-it CT is ridiculous on many counts.

9.  That aside from the "Lone Nut" alterations, all of the testimony in the Warren Commission remains valid.

10.  That Jim Garrison in 1968 correctly identified the summer, 1963, associates of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans.

11.  That these associates included members of Interpen, including Gerry Patrick Hemming and Loran Hall.

12.  That Mark Lane in 1991 correctly connected the members of Interpen with Lee Harvey Oswald.

13.  That Harry Dean, in 1965, was the first person to publicly connect his personal associate, Loran Hall, with the plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the JFK assassination.

With these premises, Ernie, which have continued to stand up to logical tests, I find I am logically drawn to the 2015 CT of Jeff Caufield, who places Ex-General Edwin Walker at the center of all these people, and more, in a Dallas plot to assassinate JFK. 

That is, the Walker-did-it CT is the strongest of all CT's.

It is significant to me that the bulk of CT literature in the past half-century remains deaf-dumb-and-blind to these premises, which I maintain are solid and important to the solution of the JFK assassination.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

My methodology is this.  I start with some theoretical premises that are presented to be tested according to the logical principle of contradiction.

1.  First, that the Warren Commission did not tell us the complete truth about the JFK assassination.

2.  That the central falsehood of the Warren Commission is the FBI's "Lone Nut" theory of Lee Harvey Oswald.

3.  That Bertrand Russell's "Sixteen Questions on the JFK Assassination" (1964) remain intrinsically valid. 

4.  That the inability of world literature to resolve the problems of the JFK assassination, after half a century, is an important fact.

5.  That the CIA-did-it CT has had far more attention than any other CT -- for a half-century -- and it still fails miserably.

5.1.  That the Pentagon-did-it CT is ridiculous on many counts.

6.  That the Mafia-did-it CT is ridiculous on many counts.

7.  That the LBJ-did-it CT is ridiculous on many counts.

8.  That the FBI-did-it CT is ridiculous on many counts.

9.  That aside from the "Lone Nut" alterations, all of the testimony in the Warren Commission remains valid.

10.  That Jim Garrison in 1968 correctly identified the summer, 1963, associates of Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans.

11.  That these associates included members of Interpen, including Gerry Patrick Hemming and Loran Hall.

12.  That Mark Lane in 1991 correctly connected the members of Interpen with Lee Harvey Oswald.

13.  That Harry Dean, in 1965, was the first person to publicly connect his personal associate, Loran Hall, with the plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the JFK assassination.

With these premises, Ernie, which have continued to stand up to logical tests, I find I am logically drawn to the 2015 CT of Jeff Caufield, who places Ex-General Edwin Walker at the center of all these people, and more, in a Dallas plot to assassinate JFK. 

That is, the Walker-did-it CT is the strongest of all CT's.

It is significant to me that the bulk of CT literature in the past half-century remains deaf-dumb-and-blind to these premises, which I maintain are solid and important to the solution of the JFK assassination.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Apparently, Paul, you do not understand the meaning of the word methodology.  Methodology does not refer to premises.  It refers to what system you use to determine reality and how you are able to distinguish fact from fiction.  In other words, it refers to rules of evidence and logic which you employ.

I asked my question in the context of your dependence upon specific sources of information such as former FBI Agents Swearingen and Adams but you exclude (and do not believe)  other FBI Agents such as Skousen and Smoot.

So in that context, you would need to explain what processes you use with respect to evidence and logic which allows you to make fact-based conclusions?

I will give you  some starting points:  

(1)  One method universally accepted is that there must be independent confirmation for whatever assertions or conclusions are made.  

So, for example:  if person "A" (such as Swearingen) makes a statement or accusation, then there must be some verifiable supporting evidence BEYOND the original statement or accusation made by Swearingen AND contradictory evidence which disputes what person "A" claims must be candidly acknowledged and refuted (if possible).

(2)  There must be credible primary source evidence which can be checked.

So, for example, if person "B" claims to have special knowledge about subject "X", then there must be some kind of factual material available to confirm that person "B" actually has specific relevant education, training, and experience which makes that person a knowledgeable, reliable, and authoritative source to discuss subject "X" AND that person must have not just abstract knowledge but specific relevant experience in time, place, and scope.  

Example:  If an FBI employee or an FBI Informant makes specific accusations or assertions about the status of our internal security during a particular time period, then one must be able to establish that such an FBI employee or informant had significant personal experience with the type of internal security cases he/she claims to know about AND that experience must be in the relevant time and location for whatever subject is under scrutiny.  [Example: an FBI Agent or informant who spent all their time dealing with Communist infiltration into labor unions in southern Ohio during the 1940's would have no credible knowledge about Communist attempts to infiltrate the NAACP in Los Angeles during the 1960's nor would that person be able to speak or write authoritatively about Communist Party activities nationally.]

Edited by Ernie Lazar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ernie,

Apparently, you fail to understand the dialectical meaning of methodology. 

I'll give you a clue.  The dialectical methodology of Hegel, for example, begins with a thesis (a premise) and proceeds to an antithesis (a counter-premise) and then proceeds to a synthesis (a conclusion).  Upon this method a person could construct an entire Encyclopedia -- which is just what Hegel did. 

It's a matter of understanding the dialectical power of a syllogism.  I suppose you missed that class.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Ernie,

Apparently, you fail to understand the dialectical meaning of methodology. 

I'll give you a clue.  The dialectical methodology of Hegel, for example, begins with a thesis (a premise) and proceeds to an antithesis (a counter-premise) and then proceeds to a synthesis (a conclusion).  Upon this method a person could construct an entire Encyclopedia -- which is just what Hegel did. 

It's a matter of understanding the dialectical power of a syllogism.  I suppose you missed that class.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

I have no interest in your pseudo-intellectual and pretentious phony "explanations".  

There is no "dialectical meaning of methodology".  There is just the plain, ordinary, customary meaning of that word in the English language which can be found in EVERY English dictionary on this planet as it was first used circa the year 1800.

That plain, ordinary, customary meaning is simply this:  

the study of empirical research and the suitability of the techniques employed in it---such as the methods used in a particular field of study to determine facts and reality and enable someone to separate fact from fiction.

In short, and in summary:  

METHODOLOGY is that mental discipline which Paul Trejo does not understand, and will NEVER understand and which he NEVER applies to any matter under scrutiny and/or in dispute.

EXAMPLE:  

(1)  QUESTION:  Did Edwin Walker attend a meeting of JBS members in September 1963 in southern California?

(2)  METHODOLOGY:   One could explain whatever methodology (i.e. rules of evidence and logic) one proposes to use in order to credibly answer that question AND to dismiss or reject proposed answers that cannot meet the criteria for rules of evidence and logic

NO "thesis" or "premise" or "counter-premise", or "antithesis" or any other abstraction or philosophical principle can even hypothetically enable a researcher to answer the question posed.  ONLY specific credible and verifiable empirical evidence can do so-- AND methodology refers to the principles of fact-finding and fact-confirmation and data-falsification which enable a researcher to arrive at credible and verifiable empirical evidence.

Edited by Ernie Lazar

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

×
×
  • Create New...