Jump to content
The Education Forum

Glenn Viklund

Members
  • Content Count

    470
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Glenn Viklund

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

8,500 profile views
  1. Greg, You are missing the point. It is a monumental difference as to whether they knew, or did not know, that they were covering up something? Do I have to ask whether you understand this? I have studied this question extensively and had in mind to bring forward a whole range of alternative reasons for the WCs behavior and their from the outset flawed mission. What they should have done, or did not do is an entirely different question. That's not what I wanted this thread to be about. Start another thread about this question if you find it interesting. However, it is not possible for me to
  2. It is apparently easier said than done to exit this site. I've renewed my quest according to what should be the correct way. Meanwhile, it is astonishing. Jim DiEugenio succeeds with what he always does as a response to any posting I make: divert from the issue at hand. How difficult is it, really, to discuss the question I raised when I started this thread: Did the Warren Commission knowingly cover up a conspiracy?
  3. To Pat Speer: If you find the time; please have a look at my positions about the WC as I've expressed them (part of them, I hope this goes way further) in this thread. I'd like your input on my views.
  4. Glenn is not another McAdams. He's wrong about the Kennedys, however. And Jim is right. Although Specter told the doctors Bobby didn't want them to look at the autopsy photos, Katzenbach told the HSCA he spoke to Bobby about them, and Bobby told him they should do whatever was needed. Specter, in fact. wrote a memo to Rankin in which he said the SS told him Bobby would do nothing to prevent them from looking at the photos. Or something to that extent. Warren then looked at them himself, and forbade anyone else from looking at them. One look at the back wound photo should have proved to him
  5. To Jim Di Eugenio: Another thing, and this is a little bit more serious: Quit lumping me in with DVP, McAdams, Reitzes or anybody else that has floored you..right? Please do those people the favor of recognizing the fact that I am not in their league - I haven't spent, I believe, half as much time on the JFK assassination. By no means does that prevent me from nail you once in a while. And even though that's not the issue it's quite a lot of fun...
  6. Mark, The WC - as an entity - wanted to see those photos. Earl Warren himself though, made an agreement with the Kennedys that he was gone be the only one to see them. This was just another peculiarity of those times (I believe) ; nothing of this was based in law, constitution or such. It was all about the Royal Family of the US.
  7. Jim DiEugenio: "And so Hoover, Dulles, McCloy, and Ford wrote the obituary for JFK. And Ford changed the writing of it, among other things, raising the back wound to a neck wound, since he knew it was BS anyway. " This is something that you made up yourself - as we economists say - out of thin air? Right? No proof, no documentation, not phone calls, no witnesses etc. No nothing, right? I noticed your claim a couple of days ago. And still you are avoiding Fetzer and his outrageous positions? Jim, go back to the drawing board and think again - this will do you a huge favor, I believe.
  8. "I knew you knew all this Glenn. No need to thank me for enlightening you." Hehe, Jim that's very good, indeed humorous - now, unfortunatelaty I am far less sure you view it as such. :-) Now: "He told them the circumstances under which he accepted the job. Warren admitted he had declined the position on grounds the Supreme Court should not be involved in such things. Johnson then called him in. Johnson then said "rumors of the most exaggerated kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the GOvernment wis
  9. You will not get away with these weak arguments, period. Heck Jim, you are just making up arguments as you go along, are you not??
  10. It is a mountain of difference dependant of these answers, in my opinion, here. Thanks Pat, for your input here.
  11. Jim, For someone being not worthy or you attention, it is amazing how you repeatedly cannot stay out of my views. (You are making straw man after straw man but that's an issue for another day). And since you are blathering, let me raise the question once again: Did the WC knowingly cover up a conspiracy? One simple question, Jim?
  12. Edit: spelling errors. Let's see where this discussion takes us, and thanks for your views.
  13. Let's make this very straight forward: Did the Warren Commission perpetrate a cover-up? !) Yes? About what? 2) Is the implication that they knew there was something fishy going on? 3) If so - what - exactly - were they aware of? No doubt I would extend these questions. A fair approach of those who oppose this view would be to prove me otherwise - right? In my view it's essential to sort out what the WC knew or did not know. What they were hiding and what the reasons for such an action might have been. And yes, please don't give me that old crap about Dulles. I'm well aware of his hiding
  14. Don, The answer to your first question should be obvious, I hope: to learn. Simply. I appreciate your approach here Don. I've certainly not, in my adult life, been called so many demeaning things as I have in this forum in a couple of years. Having my views, it's pretty much like swimming in a shark tank. Every single day and as a result of every single post I make. "The evidence in this case clearly and unequivocally proves that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy." While I strongly disagree, I respect your position. I'll have to leave for now, but will be back tomorro
×
×
  • Create New...