Jump to content
The Education Forum

Anthony Thorne

Members
  • Content Count

    478
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Anthony Thorne

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

9,565 profile views
  1. I wouldn’t think it would require Trump’s personal attention to release documents that should have been scheduled a couple of years ago. But I’m not holding my breath for anything to come out. Hopefully I’m wrong.
  2. Thanks Larry, good observations. I still intend to reread from the beginning. Have a happy holidays.
  3. I was gathering from Larry’s comments - and I might have misread him, maybe not - that the initial conspiracy was intended to have multiple shooters as part of the ‘official’ story, presumably as the story of multiple shooters killing Kennedy would point somewhere else, possibly outside the US. Potentially, this is the ‘blame it on Castro’ thesis. And if the intention was to have multiple shooters as part of the story, a film of their handiwork would come in handy. Then, after Oswald survived his arrest, the plan changed, the lone nut thesis was quickly decided upon as the expedient
  4. Any thoughts on why Zapruder was there in the first place? There were lots of spectators in Dealey Plaza, and also - clearly - a number of people with ulterior motives. I’m just wondering if you view his presence in the necessary spot with a movie camera as a lucky accident, or as something perhaps not unknown or unwanted by the original plotters. I’m sure arguments have been made both ways.
  5. UK establishment folk speaking to the media have often referred to confirmed conspiracies as ‘a stitch up’ as it gives the newspaper headlines a phrase to print that avoids confirming the existence of a single conspiracy. “Oh, that wasn’t a conspiracy, that was a stitch up” has sometimes been said, with the difference between the two presumably being that folks who perform a stitch up are having a good chuckle while they do it - I’m in stiches, ho ho ho - while folks who carry out a conspiracy are more grimly serious. And since folks looking serious while they carry out a conspiracy is the sor
  6. It definitely looks that way. I'd love to read that book someday but a cursory search suggests that volume is hard to find, just like some of his other books. But I'm sure Stanley would have some interesting things to say about the folks from that era. It's great Marks is coming back into print after all this time.
  7. Larry, thanks for your comments and I’ll add a couple of longer thoughts when I’m not typing on my phone. Footnote 292, fourth paragraph, calls the Griggs book No Case to Offer. The other references you make to the book have the correct title, No Case to Answer.
  8. That’s going above and beyond, Rob, but is characteristic of the thoroughness and dedication you bring to the field. Great work and I’m looking forward to getting them all.
  9. Larry, excellent work. Time for me to re-read from part one again. One of your footnotes alters the name of Ian Griggs’ book, and two other footnotes get it right. I forget which footnote it was, on the next reading when I see it again I’ll note it if you haven’t caught it. Through all of Tipping Point I noticed maybe four typos at most, so great work in putting this together. I’ll still be buying the book when it appears. I’m now wondering which particular figures high up were most keen on starting a war with Cuba and using events in Dealey Plaza to move them towards that goal. A kn
  10. Larry, great update with solid arguments throughout the chapter. When the final part is published I intend to return to the start and give it all a second read. Speculation - you cite September ‘63 as being a reasonable estimate for when the plot to kill JFK really took off. As a guess, how much earlier, if at all, do you think the idea to do it might have been floated, before the wheels were put in motion? Two hypothetical scenarios come to mind, both conjecture. The first, Harvey and Roselli spoke and made plans and talked to groups earlier in ‘63, without a consensus to move forwa
  11. I can still log in and watch the conference videos, which is great. How do I download my digital copies? I can’t see a link on those pages to do so.
  12. The interview with Angleton reminds me of footage I saw of Paul Nizte, Scheslinger and a few others from the late 70's. They came across as methodically spoken rationalists endlessly dwelling on the threat of the Soviets. Once you pictured the way their meetings must have gone, you could have a better idea of how they must have eventually reached certain ideas. An Australian broadcasting outlet (I forget if it was TV or radio) asked Angleton about the Whitlam dismissal, and he again was quite cagey in his response. It'd be lovely if that withheld report on Angleton's activities eve
  13. I enjoyed the portions of all the talks that I heard (and David Boylan’s discussion noted above was really great) but I’m going to wait for the emailed link to come out to rewatch the presentations tonight or tomorrow. The Facebook page was linked in one of the emails that was posted and there’s been a bit of discussion there already.
×
×
  • Create New...