Mark Stapleton
-
Posts
1,846 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Mark Stapleton
-
-
I don't believe the stuff about bus and cab rides. Roger Craig saw him run down the embankment and jump into a Nash Rambler and I believe him.
It seems to me that Oswald's escape would have involved better planning than that. How would the conspirators know that after shooting JFK on Elm Street, the street would promptly be reopened to traffic, so Oswald could come out and be picked up on Elm?
I believe Craig also said he heard the man whistle for the Rambler, as if saying, "Hey, don't forget me!"
It just strikes me as a haphazard way of getting away, unless, of course, Oswald wasn't supposed to get away but to be shot in the building.
Hi Mark and Ron,
I know that this is probably a silly question, but I wonder if anyone knows whether or not the real LHO could even whistle like that........
FWIW, Thomas
Thomas,
Like Ron, I can't whistle like that either though not from lack of trying. My 16 year old son can do that two finger whistle so loud birds fly out of trees. I'm so lame.
Your question is an interesting one, though. I wonder if Marina has ever been asked.
Ron, when you suggest LHO was supposed to be shot in the TSBD, do you mean by the cops?
-
Dawn, Terri and Bernice,
I think Lynne's deliberately goading you. I wouldn't bother with her.
-
Did you know the USA is the only western country without some form of universal health care?
I was surprised to read the other day that they don't even have anything close to universal health care in "Communist" China. I believe it was an article in Newsweek, said that poor people in China don't even bother trying to go to a hospital, because you have to bribe the doctors and poor people don't have the money. I thought that "to each according to his need" was supposed to be one of the benefits of Communism. (I should add, though, that I don't really trust anything I read in Newsweek or Time, which like all the establishment media are purveyors of U.S. government propaganda, including "Oswald did it.")
Ron,
A friend of mine recently returned from a one year stint in China working for Vodaphone. He was in one of the medium sized cities--can't recall the name--and he said that some days he had to literally step over bodies of people who had died in the street. No-one bats an eyelid.
-
SYDNEY DAILY TELEGRAPH November 5, 2005.
"Australian scientist and DNA expert Ian Findlay will use a powerful new technique to try to unmask the real Jack the Ripper, writes Kate Murray:
Professor Findlay, of Griffith University in Queensland hopes his new cell track ID will be able to profile the DNA of both the killer and one of his victims, prostitute Catherine Eddowes.
The revolutionary method needs only one cell or a single strand of hair to produce a DNA profile of the owner, and has been proven to work on cells 160 years old--16 times better than the limit of conventional DNA testing. Most DNA profiles require several cells to create a "fingerprint" and existing techniques cannot be used on old or damaged DNA.
But Professor Findlay used the Cell Track technique to test a brooch containing a 160 year old hair--and discovered that the single strands of hair belonged to four different people, three women and a man.
"With these ancient hairs we didn't think they would work and they just worked so well", said Findlay, who is also chief scientist at the Gribbes Molecular Science independant laboratory.
After his success with the brooch, a private collector in Britain contacted Findlay with a lock of hair believed to belong to Eddowes, who was murdered on September 30, 1888.
More than 600 letters claiming to be from the Ripper were sent to London police during his reign of terror. Most are believed to be hoaxes but two contained body parts--one a piece of kidney and the other a piece of earlobe. Those letters could unlock the mystery.
When the hair and letters arrive from England it could be just a week before the Ripper's identity is revealed.
Since the Ripper was around in the 1880's it could be possible to identify him from his current descendants. Several men were suspected of being JTR and if a genetic fingerprint is obtained from the envelopes, the descendants will be contacted for a match......."
Pretty incredible but if the Ripper is a complete unknown, then I guess we'll never discover his identity as we don't know who his descendants are. Not sure if all the descendants of the known suspects will agree to assist either. What do you think of it, Steve?
-
I think what's more important is what LHO did in the next forty minutes.
I don't believe the stuff about bus and cab rides. Roger Craig saw him run down the embankment and jump into a Nash Rambler and I believe him.
-
Pat, Reagan did have other things on his mind. I have read that he made a conscious decision to spend the Soviet Union into the ashheap of history by accelerated defense spending.
I for one cannot care less if defense contractors made money in bringing an end to the cold war. What pleases me is that my daughter need not grow up like I did, living in constant fear of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers. Perhaps you are too young to remember the era of fall-out shelters, "duck and cover", etc but as long as communism remained an empire dedicated to the destruction of the west, a worldwide nuclear exchange remained a possibility, even if by accident.
And I do not understand what is so difficult to understand about that old adage "better safe than sorry"?
I repeat if there are two reasonable intelligence estimates that differ about whether Iraq has WMD, the only rational choice in my opinion is to act on the estimate that it does, if that estimate is a credible one, even if the greater weight of the evidence supports the alternative point of view. To me, that reasoning is not naive; it is sane; and to "guess" on the riskier alternative, given the risks involved, would indeed be insane.
Tim,
That's what's happened. That era of fallout shelters in your youth has wired into your head the conviction that everything bad in the world, including the assassination, must have been the work of the Soviets or its allies. You should realise that the assassination of JFK is a different and unique event. For one thing, unlike all the other American assassinations, no-one confessed.
The money President Reagan spent to force the Soviets into bankruptcy and collapse could have been spent on better things. Did you know the USA is the only western country without some form of universal health care? Trouble is, that fact is not important to the people who run your country.
-
Mr. Stapleton, I think you have misunderstood my comments about Jim Garrison.
I believe that Jim Garrison's investigation served a very worthy purpose, in that it brought out information that might otherwise have remained buried. Without Jim Garrison's investigation, there would have been no "JFK" movie, which reignited public interest in the assassination and prompted the release of reams of previously classified documents.
But I also can see that Jim Garrison did not deliver what he promised. His investigation resulted in NO convictions, and due to the characterizations in the press of the investigation and prosecution as "half-baked," did much to discredit ALL critics of the Warren Commission whitewash.
It is in respect to the failure to deliver any convictions that my comments about "letting his alligator mouth overload his hummingbird ass" were aimed. If you are unfamiliar with the term, it refers to making grandiose claims that one is unable to back up. In that respect, I stand by my comments.
The fact is, I think Garrison WAS on the right track, at least initially. I think that Garrison was valuable to ALL researchers, because of both his initial revelations AND by what has come from NARA, for which Garrison is indirectly responsible.
In that light, I don't quite understand your attack on me personally. Just because I don't think Garrison delivered what he promised, and because I don't deify Garrison, doesn't mean that my aim is to trash Garrison, as is the apparent aim of Lynne Foster. Had Garrison's investigation resulted in ONE conviction, I might be bowing down at the altar of Garrison, as many apparently are. But while I'm not canonizing Garrison, neither am I attempting to throw out his contributions to the assassination investigation with the garbage. I'm just trying to call it fairly and honestly.
And Garrison delivered less than he promised. In redneck terms, that is the definition of "letting his alligator mouth overload his hummingbird ass." Happens all the time in this part of the world, and often to good people, or to people with good intentions and lots of confidence. It just means that had he not built such grandiose expectations, folks like Lynne Foster might have been a bit more charitable toward Garrison and his intentions...which is what I think he deserves.
Mr. Knight, (since you appear to insist on this formality when referring to me)
No, I didn't misunderstand your post. I read it carefully and understood it fully. Also, I do know what the expression means. Why would I have posted if I didn't know what it meant, but thanks anyway for patronisingly defining it for me.
Far from bowing at the altar of Garrison, as "many apparently are", I was simply responding to what I considered to be a cheap shot at a person to whom I have high regard. If I wanted to worship Garrison I would probably be constantly starting threads about him. The thread was initiated by Lynne Foster who, with Tom Purvis, appears to harbor a visceral dislike of Garrison. That's fine. I don't know why they feel that way and I don't really care but I've always considered your posts rational and perceptive. That's why I immediately suggested you may be being a bit tough on him, considering the unfavorable circumstances under which the investigation was conducted. Insofar as Garrison building grandiose expectations, how many investigators, when prosecuting a case of such international importance, are going to talk down their chances prior to the trial?
I fully acknowledge Garrison failed to achieve a conviction, the most important of his intended aims. But he still achieved plenty, even though it doesn't show on the official scorecard. Some focus only on the scorecard and disregard everything else. Unfair, IMO. I'm just trying to call it fairly and honestly too, as you claim to be doing. From my perspective, Lynne and Tom are not being fair and honest and your joining their chorus, even as a minor player, and with a smart-ass comment thrown in, warranted my response.
Like you, I also stand by my comments.
-
I think a xxxxx is somebody who posts stuff that is boring, like your above post that I did not bother to read, past the first 2 sentences.
Moreover, I think the fact that you people are evidently hero-worshiping Jim Garrison is disturbing.
Hitler condemned Communism in the name of Democracy, and in a similar fashion, Garrison condemned Fascism, in the name of Democracy.
That may impress many of you, but I find it disturbing.
You can't win. The Forum's well informed about Garrison. You can't run this line. You won't be able to post on other assassination issues because no one will listen--you'll have no credibility in the tank. Someone's led you up the wrong path, Lynne.
-
I think Life magazine is a very good source.
New Orleans was the Big Easy and Jim Garrison was the Big Boss who didn't rock the boat.
He may have talked about Huey Long, but he survived because Garrison, the man who was affiliated with the mob served their interests well --as long as he was the DA, Carlos Marcello had nothing to worry about.
Lynne,
To claim that Garrison was affiliated with the mob and "served their interests well" is a very long stretch.
Earlier in this thread Mark Knight, in referring to Jim Garrison, used the expression "he let his alligator mouth overload his hummingbird ass". Mr. Knight was obviously quite pleased with his efforts as he referred to the expression again on another thread shortly thereafter. However, I think the expression more aptly fits Mark Knight rather than Jim Garrison. Garrison's not a suspect, he was an investigator. Although long dead, he contributed more to the case than Mark Knight or yourself ever will.
-
Thank you, Ron. I assume you do not believe Oswald was in the doorway?
Moreover, if he was being set up as a patsy, one would think the conspirators would ensure he was not with a bunch of witnesses at a place he could be photographed! So whether shooter or patsy, it seems logically unlikely that he was in the doorway.
------------------------
Gratz:
Far from me to impugn the "sworn?" testimony of folks that wished they had been Hoboken, NJ that day; but, if some "gummint" official "really" asked me about having been in the same city as LHO, I would have mumbled *&^%$!! "...Say WHAT? MoFo??!! Like "Davy" told Winslow: "....Briefing...at the MI/HQ...on Sunday, November, 17th, 1963....for a security detail at MIA....NAH!!!...I think I was in Chicago that day !!"
The "patsy" plotters physically controlling LHO 24/7? NOT!! They didn't then, nor they do NOW, really give a xxxx where "Ozzie" might have been standing [or squatting on a commode]!! They had MULTIPLE patsies.
First, I can't believe that YOU believe that the final transcripts are actually what was said -- and if said, not coached and parroted out of sheer terror. Worse, the FBI/SS, et al. agents who later refuted many of the "302s", transcripts, LHMs -- did not always voluntarily do so, it seems that some seriously nasty folks chatted with these "darlins'" while being hosted at some rather remote and ominous locales. Scared xxxxless, is too mild of a term for those "investigator's" feelings -- as they were months later being confronted with "inaccuracies" -- by a few PAID operators. You know, the kind who are prepared to go to extremes in order to determine whether these clowns were also complicit in the hit plot, and not just "along-for-the-cover-up". One didn't have to be a Hannsen, Ames, Howard, Walker, et al. to be convinced of the many benefits of "going along" with the Hoover "script" back in the old days.
Did LHO cautiously check out the "whos" standing in the doorway? -- Ya know...for his future ass-covering alibi? And then stroll on up to the 6th Floor. If he did, than he was lap-dancing with the "ouga-bouga" who was still chomping his (whole) chicken down to the bones, and washing it down with a Coke -- all the while chokin' the other chicken while leering at a girly mag.
Now I get it, the lap-dance got him so angry...that he pushed the black dude out of the way and cranked off some perfect "Camp Perry" shots at the nearest targets of opportunity !! You know, LBJ and the "Babushka" gal -- but, he missed and accidentaly hit somebody else ??!!
Get REAL, or give-it-up !!
Kellog's Corn Flakes,
GPH
____________________________________________
Not much new, but a very funny post.
-
John, as I have tried to explain on numerous occasions, I do not think my view of the assassination is influenced by my politics.
From a strictly partisan standpoint, would it not be better to try to pin the assassination on a Democrat (e.g. LBJ) than on Castro? What partisan advantage is there in asserting that Castro killed Kennedy? It is not even an anti-Communist perspective since it is my belief that if Castro "did it" he did so in "self-defense" to protect himself from continuing US efforts to kill him (which I condemn). To assert that Castro did it is really against the interests of my country because it emphasizes our illegal (in my opinion) efforts to kill Castro.
To say Castro may have acted in self-defense is not a "Republican" position or even an "anti-Communist" position. As I said above, all it does is emphasize the terrible assassination plots of the CIA and open the debate whether the plots were approved by Eisenhower and/or Kennedy.
However the point you make in your last paragraph is an interesting one worthy of some consideration.
Tim,
Sadly, I must disagree once again.
You claim that a Castro plot, if proved, is against the interests of your country and thus illustrates your investigative sincerity. That's wrong.
Exposure of a plot implicating the US Government, military, CIA, LBJ and/or other prominent politicians (from either side) would be far more devastating for your country. That's an internal plot. Castro is an external plot. John's point is right--you're a patriot and arguing the case for Castro is the most patriotic thing to do. The other options are much worse.
I'm not arguing that patriotism is a bad thing. I've often wondered how your country will reconcile itself if the truth ever outs. Mathematically, I rate the chances of an internal plot at about 99%. In fairness, I don't know how I'd react if a thing like this ever occured here. I might be in denial like some Americans. I don't think I'm that patriotic, though.
I think your attack on John was a bit strong, too, although you've copped plenty yourself from many on the Forum including me.
-
Did you ever dig up that book Tim? It's been a long time since I've read anything on the subject by my impression has always been that the evidence indicating that JFK was going to pull out of Vietnam was inconclusive.
Len, the evidence is rather conclusive, with regards to the fact that Kennedy was isolated from the rest of his cabinet, when it came to his commitment to withdrawl from Vietnam. That's what his schedule of withdrawal was all about, Kennedy knew that he could not accomplish his goal without a landslide in 1964, and that's what he was working towards.
Now, since he was assassinated, his critics have been free to obscure his record because he had to maintain a public, unity front for political reasons, but his intentions are very clear.
I am convinced that the only reason that his firm decision to pull out is "inconclusive" as you put it, is because his critics have deliberately distorted the record.
Kennedy's intentions re Vietnam were complicated by the behavior of the Diem Government. Images of Buddhist monks self immolating in protest at the regime horrified the world and were the last thing Kennedy wanted to see, with his Government supporting Diem. The fact that the Diem regime was Catholic probably further embarrassed Kennedy. Dallek argues in his bio of JFK that Kennedy pursued two options: imploring Diem to cease repression of the Buddhist majority while at the same time signaling the Vietnamese generals that the US remained interested in a coup. In a September 3 meeting, JFK said, "We should wait for the generals to contact us. When they come to us we will talk to them". Speculating, perhaps the US military leadership interpreted this as a green light.
In television interviews in September 1963, Kennedy said, " ...in the final analysis it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it". Historically, this statement is open to interpretation as it's not a firm commitment to withdraw from Vietnam but it tends to support the majority historical belief that Kennedy planned to act decisively on the issue after the '64 election (was won). He hated the issue as he was on a hiding to nothing. The only thing that came out of it was bad press. Further, conflicting assessments of the war added more confusion, prompting Kennedy to remark to Krulak and Mendenhall, who had submitted conflicting reports, "the two of you did visit the same country, didn't you?". There's an argument in all this that the US military leadership believed Kennedy had lost control of the situation and this could put Vietnam at the top of the reasons for JFK's assassination. If they wanted to stage this war so much, they were ruthless enough to change the leadership in both countries, IMO. They may have acted decisively before JFK had a chance to.
-
As Joan Mellen's book has been published she is now available to answer questions on Farewell to Justice:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5015
I have just had this email from Gerald Posner:
John,
Got waylaid on answering email from Hurricane Wilma – just returning to normal. Going to pass for now on discussing Case Closed on the IEF only because we’re doing mag work and a new book – financing of Vatican – that is keeping up busy up to our eyeballs. Maybe when things slow down here.
Best
Gerald
Ah yes. The old "we're doing mag work and a new book about the Vatican--maybe sometime later" routine. An oldy but a goody. Gerry's still got all the skills.
-
Mr. Purvis,
I seem to recall on another thread you stated that Oswald killed JFK. What was that quote about suckers again?
-
Initially, when the news of Garrison's investigation hit the media, I was intrigued. When Ferrie's name came out, I thought Garrison might be onto something. When I heard rumors that Garrison was getting stonewalled and having problems with the federal government in continuing his investigation, I was pretty damn sure he was onto something.
But by the time he brought Clay Shaw to trial, the show didn't match the hype. The evidence didn't lead where Garrison had initially implied that it would. Bottom line was, Garrison hadn't made the case that he'd sold the American people. For those of us who had, thru the media, bought our tickets, we thought we were due a refund.
I don't mean to imply that there was no value whatsoever to the Garrison investigation. But for him to go to trial with what appeared to be such a flimsy case, after the way Garrison had hyped it in the media, it was an immense letdown for those of us who'd had faith that, just maybe, the JFK assassination case would be broken wide open and the guilty brought to justice.
For those of you with business experience who are familiar with the customer satisfaction motto of "under-promise and over-deliver," Garrison did the exact opposite. And that is what was [is] so disappointing about the Garrison investigation. Or, in "redneck" terminology, "he let his alligator mouth overload his hummingbird ass."
I think it's a bit of a tough call on Garrison. I don't want to sound like a rabid defender of his and Lynne Foster and Tom Purvis obviously don't like him.
However, his trial was hamstrung by bureaucratic scrutiny and interference from the start, Washington, the CIA and sections of the media being the main offenders. By all accounts, he was accorded little sympathy by Johnny Carson when he appeared on the Tonight Show. Also, Ferrie was murdered and one of his witnesses changed his story after being sworn in (I can't recall his name). Overall, he didn't have a smooth run and apparently the trial judge wasn't favorably disposed to his case either. I'm only going on the book and the film JFK on this last point so I stand to be corrected.
He was obviously a self publicist but it must be remembered that he was elected, making him a politician as well as DA. His alligator mouth might have raised unrealistically high expectations of closure but it also drew attention to the fact that there was something very wrong about the WC. For this he deserves credit.
-
You claim I must be a right-wing extremist because Donald Segretti targetted me. Segretti, dear John, was a Nixon operative, and the first person he approached in Wisconsin was Randy Knox, a Rockefeller left-wing Republican. Segretti was a rascal to be sure, who broke (I believe) numerous campaign laws, but he did so in support of a president who was a left-oriented Republican. Nixon's nomination was opposed by conservatives in 1968 (I supported Reagan over Nixon) and his renomination was opposed by some conservatives in 1972. There is no nexus between Segretti and the extreme right-wing. Get your facts straight.
"No nexus?" It is a classic fascist tactic to neutralize the power of the ballot box by thieving elections. If that "rascal" Segretti was part of such an attempt, which is fairly clear from the agenda he outlined for you and others on behalf of the Nixon re-election campaign, then he was not acting in the service of any [small "d"] democratic ideal to further a "left-oriented Republican." Rather, he was using fascist tactics to ensure his candidate would never face the viable opponent who might have made it a horse race, Ed Muskie. That you consider Nixon to have been a "left" Republican tells us more about you than it does Nixon. That you seek to distance Nixon from the machinations employed to maintain him in office, and thereby conclude that Segretti wasn't serving the extreme right wing, is equally illustrative.
Now if you have a shred of intellectual responsibility, you will admit that you have no reason to assert that I am anything but a fairly conventional traditionalist conservative.
For the life of me, I cannot fathom why so much time and attention on this Forum is devoted to plumbing the political leanings of those who contribute. In my own life experience, I've had common cause with those on all points of the political spectrum, depending on the issue and their sincerity.
If somebody is genuinely interested in probing the Kennedy assassination to the extent that it remains possible, why should I care what their politics are? And if they are not sincere in that quest, should I regard them as colleagues, simply because we happen to vote for the same candidates?
I have great disdain for the tack taken here by Tim Gratz, because I think he is shilling for a Castro-did-it tale that he either knows to be wrong, or should. His unwavering support for the Republican party is immaterial. Were he a Democrat, it wouldn't make his performance here any more acceptable to me.
Robert,
I agree with you entirely but the problem with Tim Gratz is that all his offerings on JFK are influenced by his right wing world view. Tim's incapable of evaluating information which doesn't conform to his pre-existing prejudices: ie. left equals bad, right equals good, a woman choosing not to give birth equals evil etc.
Tim's intellectually incapable of removing his politics from his analytical skills. He lacks this ability. His constant denial of this handicap combined with his haughty dismissal of dissenters (and his disgraceful threats of legal recourse), make it difficult not to criticise him.
-
These people are going to remain in power. They didn't steal it for nothing. The worse things get politically for Bush, the more dangerous they get for the American people and the rest of the world. There is no poll numbers problem that another terrorist attack, worse than 9/11, couldn't solve, followed by martial law. Everyone should hope Bush gets through this CIA payback with minimum damage.
Maybe, but hopefully a comprehensive shellacking in the mid-term elections will temper their hubris.
-
Tim, the Pearson article blaming Bobby for his brother's death was almost certainly planted by LBJ as a political reprisal for Bobby's coming out against the war. Pearson had sat on the story for months but only put it out the day after Bobby's speech. Pearson personally met with LBJ to discuss the Rosselli story, only it wasn't actually the Rosselli story, it was the Maheu story, per the Church Committee testimony of both Morgan and Rosselli. Should one doubt that Pearson would perform such hatchet-work on behalf of LBJ one should be aware that Pearson had a secret meeting planned at LBJ's ranch on the night of November 22nd, 1963, (per Pearson's Oral History at the LBJ Library. The purpose of the meeting? A brainstorming session on how to protect LBJ from the Bobby Baker scandal, Don Reynolds' testimony in particular. Pearson subsequently ran a series of articles attacking the credibility of Mr. Reynolds.
Lookat the opening line of the article: LBJ is sitting on an H-bomb... This is an obvious effort to distance LBJ from the leak. The timing of the article and the spin blaming Bobby was LBJ all the way.
Fascinating. I did not know about this meeting. However, I do know about the numerous phone-calls that LBJ made to journalists and politicians about the Don Reynolds problem. In fact, it has been noted that in the weeks following his arrival in the White House he was far more concerned about Reynolds than he was about Oswald. Understandably, given the testimony that Reynolds gave to the Senate Rules Committee on the day JFK was assassinated.
On 17th January, 1964, the Senate Rules Committee voted to release to the public Reynolds' secret testimony. LBJ responded by leaking information from Reynolds' FBI file to Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson. On 5th February, 1964, the Washington Post reported that Reynolds had lied about his academic success at West Point. The article also claimed that Reynolds had been a supporter of Joseph McCarthy and had accused business rivals of being secret members of the American Communist Party. It was also revealed that Reynolds had made anti-Semitic remarks while in Berlin in 1953.
A few weeks later the New York Times reported that LBJ had used information from secret government documents to smear Reynolds. It also reported that Johnson's officials had been applying pressure on the editors of newspapers not to print information that had been disclosed by Reynolds in front of the Senate Rules Committee. The story never took off but when the LBJ tapes were released, it was clear that the New York Times story was completely accurate.
What is also interesting is that in his book "Forty Years Against the Tide", Carl Curtis, who was one of those senators calling for a full investigation into the Don Reynolds affair, admitted that he and John Williams had been relying on leaks coming from Robert Kennedy.
Does anyone know what happened to Don Reynolds? I assume he must have had an accident in about 1964/65.
Having not been familiar with the Reynolds affair before joining the Forum, it strains credulity to image how the media--bar the NYT-- failed to give this story oxygen, on the pretext of a smear job hand delivered by LBJ's allies. Smear or no smear, the testimony was made under oath and its contents should have been duly analysed--in public. I can only assume that the media didn't want the world--especially the Soviets--to witness U.S. Presidents falling like dominoes.
Concerning the Carl Curtis book, if what he says is true about RFK leaking information about Reynolds to him (if some of those leaks were prior to the assassination) then perhaps RFK was partially responsible for spurring LBJ and friends into action--assuming they were the brains behind it.
-
Mark Stapleton wrote:
HaHa. So Tim, I am obliged to "refute the facts", am I ? What facts are these?
Mark, the "facts" are the "facts" alleged in the article that Lynne referenced that you summarily dismissed as "rubbish". And it may escape the sophistication of your mind, but not everything the CIA says is a lie.
And I do think if you call an article "rubbish" you have some obligation to defend your position. The article contains numerous facts that, if true, are fairly damning to Garrison. So far you have refuted not a single such fact.
Tim wrote, "the article contains numerous facts that, if true, are fairly damaging to Garrison."
Tim, how can an allegation be called a "fact" before its truth or otherwise is ascertained? Sheesh.
Anyway, I asked you in an earlier post to provide evidence to support the claim that Garrison met Roselli. Lynne's article didn't provide any. Merely stating that, "according to the CIA" isn't really proof, is it?
The list of instances where you have been asked a reasonable question by a Forum member and failed to provide an answer is growing with each passing day. What shall I do with this one? File it with all the others?
-
Mark, you've got it!!!
I insist there is no truth to the libelous rumor that all those rough spots that cover alligators are nothing but big zits! It's all just a myth!
Very clever!
So was Mark Knight's, by the way.
(Mark S had previously written:
Ron,
"Brendan's anagram generator" gave me 10,452 results when I entered my name.
Don't tell me you plugged in my name and all this service gave you was: "GATOR ZIT MYTH"!!
Tim,
There are other funny ones for TIMOTHY GRATZ:
HAT ZIG MY TORT
THAT GRIT MY OZ
AM TIGHT OZ TRY (are you referring to me here?)
TART HOG MY ZIT (????)
TART MIGHTY OZ
-
The key to solving the assassination can be found in this curious post by James Richards:
OOPS. DELETED.
The number of the post (#12) is also of significance to the final resolution of the case. (Clue: It may relate to the number of shooters/spotters, radio men, umbrella man, etc.)
Leave it to James to so clevery disguise the final clue that solves the case!
Tim,
I think I've discovered why you live relatively close to the Everglades now. It's in your anagram. Are you researching the GATOR ZIT MYTH?
-
Someone recently mentioned anagrams here. I thought it would be interesting to see what meaningful anagrams exist for names of forum members, insofar as the anagrams relate to the JFK assassination.
The anagrams themselves didn’t require much effort, as an online anagram rearranger did all the work for me. It was then simply a matter of determining each anagram’s message.
I’ve excluded some anagrams from the list for being too much of a stretch linguistically. There is JOHN SIMKIN, for example, welcoming new members to the forum with fanfare, as when he HONKS JIM IN; LEE FORMAN wondering if the three tramps were really just that, nothing but LOAFER MEN; and a torrid work in progress by STEPHEN TURNER on the insatiable love affair between Madeleine Brown and LBJ (the anagram line being “Lyndon REENTERS NTH UP”).
Also, some anagrams unfortunately do not relate to the assassination, such as TIMOTHY J. GRATZ’s Shakespearean motto for all crafty, merciless, right-wing extremist attorneys: “JAM ZIG THY TORT.”
For the listed anagrams I have derived context or meaning partly by imagining research that a forum member might be involved in, or what his or her opinion might be in a pertinent area. (As for members not on the list, it’s nothing personal, it’s just that for a good anagram you need to change your name.)
Here, then, is the list (member names and anagrams are in caps):
JASON VERMEER has noticed a lack of jeans being worn in the Zapruder film, and thinks that the conspirators who altered the film may have used JEANS REMOVER.
GREG WAGNER is researching the deteriorating marital relationship that existed between Oswald and Marina. His article will be entitled “The NAGGER GREW.”
TOSH PLUMLEE speculates that even though Oswald never discussed the conspiracy with Marina, she may have suspected it. How? “LEE HUMS PLOT.”
BILL KELLY has described Jack Ruby killing Oswald with one shot to the abdomen as a BELLY KILL.
RYAN CROWE is reportedly doing research on how many of Ruby’s lovely young strippers at the Carousel Club suffered from ACNE WORRY.
DAVID BOYLAN is writing an article about nothing being done at the Bethesda autopsy to positively identify JFK’s body. It’s called “No NAVAL BODY I.D.”
HARRY J. DEAN can tell the Latter Day Saints flock enough about their conspiratorial church to JAR ANY HERD.
DEBRA CONWAY thinks that photos of suspicious lookalikes standing at the corner of Main and Houston may indeed show A BAD CREW YON.
PAT SPEER is working on a script called A PERP SET, about the set of perps he suspects in the JFK murder.
GERRY HEMMING admits that Interpen got so hard up for funds they took a job writing anti-Castro jingles for Miami Cuban radio. Hemming calls this their RHYMER MEN GIG.
TIM CARROLL always provides the forum with nourishing food for thought, making his anagram remarkably appropriate: CARROT MILL.
LARRY HANCOCK questions whether Jack Lawrence actually left a car in the Grassy Knoll parking lot on 11/22 after borrowing it the night before for a “heavy date” (Lawrence supposedly wrote a note to his boss on 11/21 saying, “LACK CAR, HORNY”).
MIKE REGAN wonders, as do others, why Lady Bird Johnson, during the swearing-in ceremony on Air Force One, had that MEEK GRIN on her face.
THOMAS GRAVES says that who killed JFK is as clear to him as A HARVEST SMOG.
Finally, ROBERT HOWARD aptly describes the whole bloody scene in Dallas: “BAD WET HORROR.”
(This list was compiled by RON ECKER, also known as the RECKONER.)
Ron,
"Brendan's anagram generator" gave me 10,452 results when I entered my name.
Memo to DPD: ASK TRAMP ELTON
Memo from DPD: TRAMP LEO STANK
Memo from backup team: PLAN MART SET OK
Memo to Tim: AMTRAK SLEPT ON (sounds like AMTRUNK)
Also, the SKATER MAN PLOT suggests Ferrie's involvement and apprehending Tippett's killer should have been a PATROLMEN TASK.
Compiled by yours truly, otherwise known as PLANET SMART OK.
-
Tim's posts were excellent, I thought.
I notice that when I asked Mark to dispute any of the factual assertions in the article Lynee posted, he singularly failed to refute a single one.
Which is not to say that I agree with the article in its entirety, nor that I doubt that at least some of the factual assertions therein cannot be effectively disputed.
It is curious however that Mark can dismiss the article as "rubbish" in his first post on this thread but is apparently unwilling or unable to refute the facts on a point-by-point basis. I would like to see a refutation of the facts, not the author's opinions. For instance, did Garrison meet Rosselli in Las Vegas or not?
HaHa. So Tim, I am obliged to "refute the facts", am I ? What facts are these? The CIA said Garrison met Rosselli, eh? The CIA is an organisation of such unimpeachable integrity that everything they claim must be a "fact", right? And I always thought that the burden of proof lay with the claimant.
Prove Garrison met Roselli, Tim. Garrison was accusing the CIA of murdering JFK wasn't he?
-
Tim,
Good post. Is the cigarette smoker in the Doonesbery cartoon supposed to be Hunter S. or "brains"? (from the Thunderbirds) (Mark Stapleton)
Hi Mark,
I never trusted Brains. You just never knew who really was pulling his strings.
James
Paid. Very witty. Any DP shots of Lady Penelope? In disguise?
LHO in Doorway
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Hmm.. not sure about that one. I haven't ever heard of Marion Baker's background being questionable.
If shooting LHO in the building is eliminated from the scenario that leaves luring him to the Texas Theatre for execution, getting JD Tippit to shoot him or allowing him to escape to Cuba or Mexico as the only three possibilities left standing, IMO.
I think giving him a lift home in the Rambler is a slightly more secure plan than letting him leave the scene under his own steam but since they had him framed up anyway it probably doesn't matter.
Of those three possibilities I don't like the third one because the first two provide quick and decisive outcomes from which the conspirators can move on to the next phase of the coverup. Allowing him to flee the country means he's still alive, however temporarily, and able to give voice to the injustice of his new circumstances and possibly mention a few names. That brings it down to two.
I tend to think the plan called for him to be shot in the theatre as its more secure than leaving the task to a lone cop. Maybe having Tippet on standby was a backup plan in case Oswald didn't show up at the theatre. Question is, was Tippett's death a genuine bungle or was it staged to reinforce the facade of a desperate criminal on the run? Either way, his execution at the theatre was bungled so we at least have the satisfaction of knowing the conspirators probably developed ulcers from worry over that weekend.