THE KENNEDY CULT BLINKERS THIS INVESTIGATION

[Joe Bauer]

On 5/15/2018 at 4:47 AM, Mervyn Hagger said:

A lot of people come on this Forum and offer a lot of theories about the events that took place on November 22, 1963 in Dallas.

Unfortunately a lot of comments begin with a worshipful approach to all things Kennedy, and this puts blinkers on their eyes and stops up their ears. They see and hear only what they want to see and hear, which is guided by a worshipful approach to all things Kennedy.

"When someone (like me) comes here and couldn't give a rat's ass about the entire Kennedy family, including John and his brother Robert, it sends up howls of protest, because John (especially), is considered to be a saint who cult followers revere."

M. Hagger. 

A personal dislike of the entire Kennedy family ( and a dismissiveness of those who you feel are overly inspired by them ) so clearly intense and deeply held as yours to compel you to pronounce this rather boastingly multiple times to the forum, seems just as likely in it's own extreme bias to put blinkers on "your eyes" and stop up "your ears" as easily and rationally as you claim this about Kennedy admirers.

Your are obviously a highly educated person yet it's surprising you don't see how incongruous your point of bias blindness on one side only is.

 

Edited May 16, 2018 by Joe Bauer

[Ron Ecker]

4 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Ron I asked if anyone could recommend one book, a biography that is well written and well documented without a lot of interpretation. I hope my own hot air melts the snow job I received in return. Again, it was a question worth asking to see how it would be answered. Now I know. Mervyn

I don't know what "snow job" you received or how your question was answered. All I know (thanks to this thread) is that I'm apparently a member of a cult. That's one thing about this forum, you can learn something new every day.

 

[Mervyn Hagger]

6 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

M. Haggar. 

A personal dislike of the entire Kennedy family ( and a dismissiveness of those who you feel are overly inspired by them ) so clearly intense and as obviously long and deeply held as yours to compel you to pronounce this rather boastingly multiple times to the forum, seems just as likely in it's own extreme bias to put blinkers on "your eyes" and stop up "your ears" as easily and rationally as you claim this about Kennedy admirers.

Your are obviously a highly educated person yet it's surprising you don't see how incongruous your point of bias blindness on one side only is.

First of all Joe, please spell name correctly.

As for my views of the Kennedy family, they were stated to offset the counter-views held by the majority. You included, or so it seems.

Mervyn

[Mervyn Hagger]

Clearly the majority do not agree with me. Fair enough, that is your right. Consequently my impression of this Forum has been confirmed. There is some good material, here and there, but by and large it is a waste of time. So I need to start skimming for the useful exhibits and ignoring the banal commentaries. I won't be responding to any more of this jing-jang banter. Mervyn

[Joe Bauer]

4 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

A lot of people come on this Forum and offer a lot of theories about the events that took place on November 22, 1963 in Dallas.

Unfortunately a lot of comments begin with a worshipful approach to all things Kennedy, and this puts blinkers on their eyes and stops up their ears. They see and hear only what they want to see and hear, which is guided by a worshipful approach to all things Kennedy.

"When someone (like me) comes here and couldn't give a rat's ass about the entire Kennedy family, including John and his brother Robert, it sends up howls of protest, because John (especially), is considered to be a saint who cult followers revere."

M. Hagger. 

A personal dislike of the entire Kennedy family ( and a dismissiveness of those who you feel are overly inspired by them ) so clearly intense and as obviously long and deeply held as yours to compel you to pronounce this rather boastingly multiple times to the forum, seems just as likely in it's own extreme bias to put blinkers on "your eyes" and stop up "your ears" as easily and rationally as you claim this about Kennedy admirers.

Your are obviously a highly educated person yet it's surprising you don't see how incongruous your point of bias blindness on one side only is.

Spelling error corrected.

 

[Andrew Prutsok]

We all certainly owe Mr. Hagger better, more objective reasearch.

[Andrew Prutsok]

Is a blinker anything like a blinder?

[Paz Marverde]

The Hagger's cult blinkers MH

[David Josephs]

2 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Clearly the majority do not agree with me. Fair enough, that is your right. Consequently my impression of this Forum has been confirmed. There is some good material, here and there, but by and large it is a waste of time. So I need to start skimming for the useful exhibits and ignoring the banal commentaries. I won't be responding to any more of this jing-jang banter. Mervyn

Agree with you?

You offer nothing but questions without answers, and then get indignant when shown how far from an accurate analysis you've strayed...

What I fail to understand is how the moderators allow a sycophant like yourself to remain spewing this garbage.

PLEASE don't respond to any "jing-jang"   In fact,  why not just toddle off and try to convince some other forum of your bona fides...

Edited May 15, 2018 by David Josephs

[Cory Santos]

I would like to know why British intelligence would have any interest in LHO prior to the assassination.

Also, are you providing  a suggestion that British intelligence could have been involved in the assassination? 

If so, lets hear it.  I fail at this point to see the motive but I would listen to fact based evidence.  If you are no longer commenting feel free to message me.

Again, as I stated earlier, the fact that James Earl Ray somehow escaped America and went to Europe seems very strange. 

Lastly, are you aware that Bolivia has a potential gold mine of information on LHO that has never been really reviewed?

To address your query point blank, the problem with wanting evidence provable in court that Oswald assassinated JFK or that someone else did is a very difficult thing.

 Feel free to google search my credentials.

The problem with looking at only the evidence provable in court is that most of it would never be admissible.  Chain of custody for bullets, the rifle, all a problem.  The limo was immediately cleaned and repaired.  This is destruction of evidence.  As such, any evidence from the limo would not come into court- of course the person who ordered this would be considered for prosecution but that is another issue.

The witness testimony is all over the place.

The crime scene was not even cut off and evidence was destroyed, mutilated, etc.

The snipers nest was rearranged.  People walked all over Dealey Plaza, touching something in the grass, etc.  Booking records were not consistent.  Where is the list of cars parked behind the TSBD that were allowed to leave later in the day?  Why were the cars not first inventoried and examined closely?

This is not to mention the amazing way that LHO was interrogated.  No transcript or recording?  No attorney present although he had asked for one?

Then, we start to look at the cover up which occurred.  Yes, the CIA historian confirmed this is a true statement.

Evidence was destroyed, mutilated, lost, just not provided, etc.

So, when someone asks me to just talk about the evidence that would be admissible in court, I tend to smile a bit, because in this case, it barely exists.  The Warren Commission did a huge disservice to this country-intentionally or negligently, although, to suggest Earl Warren was not aware of criminal procedure standards seems rather strange.

So that begs the question, why was evidence destroyed, mutilated, lost.  Why were witnesses harassed?  Asked to change their testimony?  Why were questions asked by the Warren Commission so lacking in actually trying to find the truth that any seasoned trial attorney would have said "wait a minute, you have to ask this question"?

If you want evidence, I suggest that many researchers have placed themselves out there for scrutiny to get the evidence we have now.  Some is ridiculous and has rightly been criticized.  Others have provided solid research.  Yet you demean them with your comments.

In the last 50 years, we know the following:  1)  LHO was not who the Warren Commission said he was 2)  LBJ assisted in a cover up, regardless of motivation, of the true facts 3) there was a cover up after the fact which the CIA historian acknowledges 4) evidence was destroyed, mutilated and/or lost 5) the files are still not fully released which is odd if LHO acted alone 6) that the FBI taped a man who discussed a plot before Dallas 7) that many individuals involved who claimed no connection to intelligence agencies or who never acknowledged that they had connections  did in fact have connections (some with LHO) and finally,  8 ) that Gerald Posner's book was so filled with so many holes that my law school paper was rather easy to write over two years.

Now there are other things too that we now know.  Plenty.   I do not have time to enlighten you as to all that has been discovered, you need to attend one of my lectures for that.

But, I do want to address one other point, I understand what you say about JFK worship and to an extent can agree that academically this can prevent a researcher from approaching the subject neutrally (of course the opposite is true if you are hostile to him which by your comments, you appear to be), but, your logic in your above statements appears to be faulty.  Not all researchers engage in JFK worship.  I certainly think the Bay of Pigs was terrible and certainly my background-feel free to google-comes from the opposite side of the political aisle.  But, you suggest that for this forum, it is filled with JFK worshipers and therefore their research is faulty.  That is faulty logic.  Moreover, bias when researching a historical subject occurs in the historical field daily.  Sometimes this allows us to consider two opposite points of view on a subject.  That can be a good thing.

Perhaps, if you had more tact in dealing with Americans, that is, instead of being aggressive, dismissive and, forgive my observation but, rather rude when commenting to others (not me), the discussions might be more advantageous and you might enjoy the forum more?  Just a thought.  But since you will not be commenting further, I suppose this is an unnecessary request.  Either way, I think the LHO in England research is interesting and wish you the best with it. 

[Mervyn Hagger]

12 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

What I fail to understand is how the moderators allow a sycophant like yourself to remain spewing this garbage.

It is my understanding David, that the moderators only wade in when attacks on members of this Forum by members of this Forum become personal. How do you justify your comment above? Mervyn

[Robert Harper]

2 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

I won't be responding to any more of this jing-jang banter. Mervyn

Not a man of his word either. What keeps him coming back for "jing-jang banter?"

[David Josephs]

2 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

It is my understanding David, that the moderators only wade in when attacks on members of this Forum by members of this Forum become personal. How do you justify your comment above? Mervyn

It's called.... telling the truth and staying true to one's convictions...

We had a man a while back who freely admitted to not giving a care at all to the JFK case... like you he only looked for reactions and for what he could TAKE from the group... all the while setting fires as he went.

Discussing the religious aspects of a "cover story" without having the first clue of what's being "covered up" (or even the humility to learn) just shows how little you not only care for the knowledge necessary to have a decent discussion on the topic, but your disdain for the realities of the JFK assassination make having ANY discussion with you pointless.... 

Dulles used religion as a cover....  Examples can easily be found.... 

An ex-director of the school explains the origins and associations and you STILL refuse to pull head out of sand...

I have no worries over being moderated for dealing with the likes of you....  it's closed minded sycophants as yourself who make this place so much more difficult to enjoy than it should be...

Your efforts here do not go unnoticed...

[Mervyn Hagger]

8 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

I would like to know why British intelligence would have any interest in LHO prior to the assassination.

Also, are you providing  a suggestion that British intelligence could have been involved in the assassination? 

If so, lets hear it.  I fail at this point to see the motive but I would listen to fact based evidence.  If you are no longer commenting feel free to message me.

Again, as I stated earlier, the fact that James Earl Ray somehow escaped America and went to Europe seems very strange. 

Lastly, are you aware that Bolivia has a potential gold mine of information on LHO that has never been really reviewed?

To address your query point blank, the problem with wanting evidence provable in court that Oswald assassinated JFK or that someone else did is a very difficult thing.

 Feel free to google search my credentials.

The problem with looking at only the evidence provable in court is that most of it would never be admissible.  Chain of custody for bullets, the rifle, all a problem.  The limo was immediately cleaned and repaired.  This is destruction of evidence.  As such, any evidence from the limo would not come into court- of course the person who ordered this would be considered for prosecution but that is another issue.

The witness testimony is all over the place.

The crime scene was not even cut off and evidence was destroyed, mutilated, etc.

The snipers nest was rearranged.  People walked all over Dealey Plaza, touching something in the grass, etc.  Booking records were not consistent.  Where is the list of cars parked behind the TSBD that were allowed to leave later in the day?  Why were the cars not first inventoried and examined closely?

This is not to mention the amazing way that LHO was interrogated.  No transcript or recording?  No attorney present although he had asked for one?

Then, we start to look at the cover up which occurred.  Yes, the CIA historian confirmed this is a true statement.

Evidence was destroyed, mutilated, lost, just not provided, etc.

So, when someone asks me to just talk about the evidence that would be admissible in court, I tend to smile a bit, because in this case, it barely exists.  The Warren Commission did a huge disservice to this country-intentionally or negligently, although, to suggest Earl Warren was not aware of criminal procedure standards seems rather strange.

So that begs the question, why was evidence destroyed, mutilated, lost.  Why were witnesses harassed?  Asked to change their testimony?  Why were questions asked by the Warren Commission so lacking in actually trying to find the truth that any seasoned trial attorney would have said "wait a minute, you have to ask this question"?

If you want evidence, I suggest that many researchers have placed themselves out there for scrutiny to get the evidence we have now.  Some is ridiculous and has rightly been criticized.  Others have provided solid research.  Yet you demean them with your comments.

In the last 50 years, we know the following:  1)  LHO was not who the Warren Commission said he was 2)  LBJ assisted in a cover up, regardless of motivation, of the true facts 3) there was a cover up after the fact which the CIA historian acknowledges 4) evidence was destroyed, mutilated and/or lost 5) the files are still not fully released which is odd if LHO acted alone 6) that the FBI taped a man who discussed a plot before Dallas 7) that many individuals involved who claimed no connection to intelligence agencies or who never acknowledged that they had connections  did in fact have connections (some with LHO) and finally,  8 ) that Gerald Posner's book was so filled with so many holes that my law school paper was rather easy to write over two years.

Now there are other things too that we now know.  Plenty.   I do not have time to enlighten you as to all that has been discovered, you need to attend one of my lectures for that.

But, I do want to address one other point, I understand what you say about JFK worship and to an extent can agree that academically this can prevent a researcher from approaching the subject neutrally (of course the opposite is true if you are hostile to him which by your comments, you appear to be), but, your logic in your above statements appears to be faulty.  Not all researchers engage in JFK worship.  I certainly think the Bay of Pigs was terrible and certainly my background-feel free to google-comes from the opposite side of the political aisle.  But, you suggest that for this forum, it is filled with JFK worshipers and therefore their research is faulty.  That is faulty logic.  Moreover, bias when researching a historical subject occurs in the historical field daily.  Sometimes this allows us to consider two opposite points of view on a subject.  That can be a good thing.

Perhaps, if you had more tact in dealing with Americans, that is, instead of being aggressive, dismissive and, forgive my observation but, rather rude when commenting to others (not me), the discussions might be more advantageous and you might enjoy the forum more?  Just a thought.  But since you will not be commenting further, I suppose this is an unnecessary request.  Either way, I think the LHO in England research is interesting and wish you the best with it. 

Cory, your conclusion points to the reason for my disdain because it is written in such a way that you fail to understand who I am, or why I am on this Forum, or what brought me here, and that is because you have not the taken time to read my own introduction - which I have written so many times that I won't do it again within this text.

[Cory Santos]

2 minutes ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Cory, your conclusion points to the reason for my disdain because it is written in such a way that you fail to understand who I am, or why I am on this Forum, or what brought me here, and that is because you have not the taken time to read my own introduction - which I have written so many times that I won't do it again within this text.

Regardless of why you are here,  tact is the best method when dealing with others.