Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Josephs is a CIA did it believer where as Ward is a Trejo the right wingers did it believer? 

Thanks for your comments, Michael.

I have two points:

  1. While Josephs is indeed a CIA believer, a theory of which I am skeptical, I acknowledge that Josephs is one of the very few around here that posts evidence.  Others will say that because so-and-so is related to so-and-so, they are a CIA agent and the CIA did it.  Or, they say because Senator so-and-so says the CIA did it, that is evidence the CIA did it.  All the classical logical fallacies (argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority); argumentum ad populum (it must be true because so many people believe it is true) are generally absent from what Josephs says.   So, although I think his idea is too complicated and too much of a massive, multi-year conspiracy, I love him because he posts evidence.  He's also polite and never posts comments about me personally - again, a rare trait around here.
  2. I don't think I've ever forcefully advocated any CT, including Paul Trejo's General Walker theory.   I engage with him for the same reason I engage with David von Pein and David Josephs and you - Paul is evidence-centric.   I block people who only post opinions - who needs it?   Also, people love jumping on a bandwagon and I do not - I'm automatically going to be suspicious of the dominant CIA-did-it idea because it is in fact dominant.   The great unstudied evidence is elsewhere.   I think the far right in this country is under-appreciated and under-studied by they typical left wing male conspiracy theorist who usually has unwarranted confidence in their own ability to sniff out conspiracies no one else can.   I like engaging with those who aren't afraid to stand alone as they never try to argue: Look how many people agree with me!   or Look who else agrees with me!  Paul may be right, wrong, or partially right, but he follows the evidence IMO much more closely than the CIA-did-it types I see.

Thanks again for your courtesy.

 

Jason

 

 

Edited by Jason Ward
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 582
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mr. Ward - I am so tired of the phrase CIA did it conspiracy theorists. You lump everyone who thinks that state actors were the prime movers together. It’s a falsehood perpetrated by you and Trejo. You both think your fooling everyone by placing those that forcefully disagree with that premise on ignore. How courageous of you both. What you are in fact doing is trying to dominate the debate here by claiming that your methods are superior. You have no respect for those that came before you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

David - do you think the CIA did it?

jason - why did our government let a bunch of Dallas cops get away with the crime of the century? 

Pretty well convinced it was military run.... CIA was first line of their defense....

The ACSI data is pretty compelling.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JW: David Josephs is one  of the very few who posts evidence around here?

This from the guy who when he first appeared said that he favored Paul Trejo because he used primary sources, and the rest of us did not. Hmm.

(I think he said that with a straight face, although I would not have thought it possible.)

This whole idea that somehow the rifle thing is part of a CIA scheme is so silly that it must be deliberately obtuse.  

As many of us have stated many times, there were two distinct parts of the Kennedy murder.  The first part was the plot to kill JFK, at least twice. Once in Chicago and the successful one in Dallas.  (I am still trying to figure out how the Dallas police would have figured in the Chicago plot.)

The cover up that followed, by the cops, the FBI and the Warren Commission was something else.  I personally do not think Hoover was in on the plot to kill Kennedy.  In his conversations with LBJ, with the White House staffers, his marginalia, his comments to friends, and ultimately the behavior of the FBI in Mexico, all of these are  indications that he was on the outside.  There are many reasons he went along with the cover up.  I list them in Reclaiming Parkland (pp. 235-37:  BTW Mr. Ward, this is a footnote.  In the reference you will see the evidence for why I am stating what I do.  If you choose not to read it, that does not mean I am not producing evidence.  It means you are choosing not to read the info.)

That Hoover willingly took part in the cover up is proven in over a dozen different ways.  (Ibid.pp. 240-70.  Footnote alert.) One of the very worst parts of Bugliosi's book was when he tried to deny this took place.  And i showed in many ways in my book and on this site that --and there is no way out of this--Vince lied about this point.

As far as the whole phony rifle transaction, from what i garner of that , it was not a CIA operation. From what I can discern, this was done with Holmes and the FBI.  And by the way, this whole exposure about this issue is not new.  It began many, many years ago--in the mid nineties-- with a critic named Martha Moyer.  It was then followed up on by the late Ray Gallagher. These two do not get the credit they deserve, but they were pioneers on the issue.  Three people then advanced it much further: Armstrong, Gil Jesus, and David Josephs.  But the idea that David is the only one who has produced evidence on this, that is simply wrong.  Everyone I named has done it.  If someone is not aware of it, then its because they are not knowledgeable about the issue. (Here is a link to Gil's work http://www.whokilledjfk.net/salute_to_gil_jesus.htm.  Footnote alert.)  

When one traces this phony transaction from its inception--that is the mailing of the money order, all the way to the end, the alleged picking up of the rifle :D--they are simply a series of improbabilities piled on top of each other to the point where it becomes an impossibility.  I am not going to go into it all, since I have done it at least four or five times before on this site.  And the reason I came back here the last time was for that reason: DVP was trying to intimidate people here on the issue.  So i returned to blow him up step by step, being cheered on all the way.  I state a summary of that evidence in Reclaiming Parkland. (See pp. 80-87.  Footnote alert.)

One last point: what I discuss there is not that demeaning term, CT.  What I discuss are facts.  I don't take credit for digging up those facts.  I properly reference the people--named above--who did the research.  Bugliosi deliberately ignored this issue in his book, for obvious reasons. He knew the harpoon it placed in the heart of his inflated, pretentious, and mendacious book.  

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

One almost always stands on the shoulders of those before... Hopefully with a sense of that history and acknowledgement. 

If one can find a new way to present for greater comprehension, mission accomplished.

It's rare when a new path is forged... Math Rules would be a great current example... Unraveling Shaneyfelt and Eisenberg is revealing quite a lot.

IMO, Holmes was winging it knowing he/they could fix most anything....  The men who retrieved it are the most likely suspects in the creation of it...  

We recall these actions are now 8 hours after Holmes finds the non existent stub.

-----------

The PMO is ALSO FOUND at 9:35.


In the same Secret Service document only 25 pages or so further in, we are told that the Secret Service, a Postal Office Department Finance Officer and a Federal Records Center Management 
Analyst were responsible for firing up the Records Facility computers on a Saturday evening. In reality the "reporting agent SA’s BURKE, PARKER and/or GRIMES, JR state they, “THEY”
experienced difficulty in bringing up these computers at the Federal Records Center... the Finance Manager tells these SS agents (even though it is “THEY” who already have someone on 
the inside firing up computers) that they will need an employee of the facility to physically obtain the PMO. (WCD 87, p118-121)
This process begins, according to the report, between 8:30 and 9:00pm DC time when Postal Inspector Verant makes contact with the aforementioned Finance Officer, J. Harold Marks. Marks in turn tells Verant that he had already been contacted an hour earlier (7:30-8:00pm DC time) by DONALD DUGGINS, Deputy Chief, Postal Inspection Service and that a search had already been initiated.

- The Kleins Rifle.

Edited by David Josephs
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Pretty well convinced it was military run.... CIA was first line of their defense....

The ACSI data is pretty compelling.

I find the ACSI data compelling too. CIA and US military are not wholly separate entities. They are intertwined. In fairness I’d like to point out that Walker was an Army General, and his brethren on the JCS were no less fascist than he. They were a whole lot smarter though. Lemnitzer, his superior, stood up for him. JFK moved him out to NATO. LeMay ran with Wallace in 1968. One of Trejo’s favorite false distinctions is that the term ultra right only applies to civilians. That is just false. Another, which Ward espouses, is that high level military/CIA would never put their careers at risk by involving themselves in assassinating a president. The extension of that logic is that there’s no point in looking at contradictory evidence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

The extension of that logic is that there’s no point in looking at contradictory evidence. 

Ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know....

As we continue to see, Murder, Inc and beyond was no joke....  Years and years with complete impunity and they'd be worried about anything?

Add to this the Madmen mentality of business... i.e. selling tobacco as healthy etc... 

Mix in the biggest businesses and richest human owners in history....

Talk about your iron curtain... ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2018 at 5:43 PM, Paul Brancato said:

Jason - why did our government let a bunch of Dallas cops get away with the crime of the century? 


I love simple questions like that that can be used to rule out a lot of possibilities.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This article by Gil Jesus Jim linked earlier is pretty excellent.  Worth your time if you've not read it.

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/salute_to_gil_jesus.htm

It addresses the handwriting issue in detail which is interesting to me regarding a question I thought of a few years back about it.

The article notes the Warren Omission had two handwriting experts, Cardigan of the Treasury and Cole of the FBI.  It doesn't point out that ultimately Cardigan answered to Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon who was also the man ultimately responsible for the Secret Service and their failure to protect JFK on 11/22/63.  Of course Cole ultimately answered to the dictator Hoover who was in cover up mode from day one.  Then Mr. Jesus notes the "A" Hidell on the gun order form in the blurry copy of it in "Cadigan Exhibit A" and the "a Hidell" on the clear and otherwise identical copy used in a 1988 Frontline production and asks where did they get this?  He further point's out all of the documents they examined where photocopies of the exhibits, I. E. of lesser quality than the originals.  Why would experts not examine originals?  Would that not be their preference as experts?  Then he get's to the three HSCA experts who also examined copies and admit they are always inferior to originals.

My thought a few years back was if the FBI, and now I guess Treasury had handwriting analysis experts, did the CIA have forgery experts?  Given the business they are in I think yes.  Fake ID's, all kinds of documents relating to operations.  People familiar with the nuances of handwriting expertise as much as their counterpart analysis experts at the FBI and Treasury, who likely practiced their craft on an almost daily basis?  If the CIA was involved in the set up of Oswald as patsy or in the cover up of the assassination is it logical or reasonable to think such talents might have been utilized?

Could the FBI and Treasury handwriting experts, working for Hoover and the head of the Secret Service have been examining photocopies of work done by forgery experts at the CIA?  Pure speculation on my part.

Edited by Ron Bulman
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:
4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:


I love simple questions like that that can be used to rule out a lot of possibilities.

 

 



Thanks Michael. I'd forgotten about my challenge to Paul Trejo.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

This article by Gil Jesus Jim linked earlier is pretty excellent.  Worth your time if you've not read it.

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/salute_to_gil_jesus.htm

It addresses the handwriting issue in detail which is interesting to me regarding a question I thought of a few years back about it.

The article notes the Warren Omission had two handwriting experts, Cardigan of the Treasury and Cole of the FBI.  It doesn't point out that ultimately Cardigan answered to Treasury Secretary C. Douglas Dillon who was also the man ultimately responsible for the Secret Service and their failure to protect JFK on 11/22/63.  Of course Cole ultimately answered to the dictator Hoover who was in cover up mode from day one.  Then Mr. Jesus notes the "A" Hidell on the gun order form in the blurry copy of it in "Cadigan Exhibit A" and the "a Hidell" on the clear and otherwise identical copy used in a 1988 Frontline production and asks where did they get this?  He further point's out all of the documents they examined where photocopies of the exhibits, I. E. of lesser quality than the originals.  Why would experts not examine originals?  Would that not be their preference as experts?  Then he get's to the three HSCA experts who also examined copies and admit they are always inferior to originals.

My thought a few years back was if the FBI, and now I guess Treasury had handwriting analysis experts, did the CIA have forgery experts?  Given the business they are in I think yes.  Fake ID's, all kinds of documents relating to operations.  People familiar with the nuances of handwriting expertise as much as their counterpart analysis experts at the FBI and Treasury, who likely practiced their craft on an almost daily basis?  If the CIA was involved in the set up of Oswald as patsy or in the cover up of the assassination is it logical or reasonable to think such talents might have been utilized?

Could the FBI and Treasury handwriting experts, working for Hoover and the head of the Secret Service have been examining photocopies of work done by forgery experts at the CIA?  Pure speculation on my part.

Bump.  Worthy of discussion before being buried?

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...