Glenn Nall
-
Posts
1,422 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Glenn Nall
-
-
I'm failing to understand people's needs to introduce their own current political labels into this thing. "I'm no Right-Winger" - "self described liberal" ... it escapes me how today's partisanship has ANY relevance to yesterday's political scenery and power and destruction. This was 50+ years ago.
I'm a self-described conservative/libertarian - it is NO SKIN OFF MY BACK if the right-wingers were mostly responsible for this - i happen to believe that this is the case. But just because I lean right doesn't mean i'm willing to defend GHWBush and his ilk. Or Nixon. From what i've seen in present day politics, both parties can produce some low slung dung. Especially in Texas.
i'm just sayin'. If your particular political persuasion affects your approach to this kind of research, then good luck to ya.
-
General George Custer was a hero, to some. William Tecumseh Sherman was, too. (I'm from Atlanta - he's not my favorite person, as persons go). Funny, the things that impress people as heroic, manly...
-
The USSR wanted to push into Europe, and Allen Dulles defended Europe by appropriating the DEFEATED Nazi databases about USSR spies. We own Allen Dulles a patriotic debt of gratitude.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
Notwithstanding that the Dulles brothers, Harriman, and others of their circle helped create Nazi Germany and revive its economy, industry and military. Great heroics there, if decades' accumulated money and murder equal heroics. Your arguments are the same as those that have sustained a hard-right vs. hard-left system worldwide, with the US continually backing repressive, murderous right-wing governments.
and let's not forget that little mishap in dallas. with heroes like him, who needs treasonous, back-stabbing, spineless whores in our government?
-
It doesn’t matter whether a deal was with DEFEATED or UNDEFEATED Nazis, it spit on the many who gave their lives to defeat this evil, including the 300,000 American servicemen who perished fighting Germany.
My gosh, Martin, you're completely mistaken about this accusation. It surely makes a difference if the Nazis were DEFEATED or UNDEFEATED before somebody made a deal with them. If you can't follow that logic, then there's no reasoning with you.
Allen Dulles was a great American patriot. He advanced the cause of the USA in the 1940's and 1950's as few others in public service.
Further, there's nothing Right-wing about me, Martin. I'm very liberal -- but I'm clearly not Left-wing. Nor is Left-wing defined as the only moral, honest and fair people -- as they like to think. They make as many mistakes as anybody else.
The Radical Right in the USA were probably the ones who killed JFK. I detest the Radical Right. But the Radical Left in the USA were quick to defend LHO on the theory that he was a Fidelista, and they could not imagine a Fidelista killing JFK (e.g. Lyman Paine).
So they joined Jim Garrison to defend LHO for the past 47 years. I agree that LHO was a Patsy, and so one of the victims of the JFK plot. Yet it's a mistake to imagine that LHO was a Leftist; he worked for Guy Banister. (Jim Garrison saw this in the early days of his investigation which led him to 544 Camp Street and the Radical Right. But events frightened Garrison away.)
But let's focus on Allen Dulles and the flaw of the Left-wing in the USA that fails to recognize the necessity of the CIA in World Politics. There simply is no such thing as International "Law" -- and War is the most common condition in International Relations.
The USSR wanted to push into Europe, and Allen Dulles defended Europe by appropriating the DEFEATED Nazi databases about USSR spies. We own Allen Dulles a patriotic debt of gratitude.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
"If you can't follow that logic, then there's no reasoning with you."
that's very funny, Paul, coming from you... almost like you intended the irony...
-
David Andrews,
I'll say this. I believe the murder of JFK was orchestrated by an intelligence service. In 1963, many countries had intelligence services.
exactly, and to the best of my inside information, the United States had quite a few.
-
I ask all here to consider carefully whether the known facts support the proposition that Allen Dulles had a hand in killing JFK.
I don't believe they do.
It's easy to imagine Allen Dulles's loyalty to the CIA was strong. So strong that if he believed the CIA would be damaged by a full-blown investigation of the JFK assassination, he would have thwarted any such investigation.
I don't believe Allen Dulles knew who killed JFK. I believe he knew a lot of hanky panky, meaning gross misbehavior on the part of the CIA, which he would not have wanted to be revealed.
The U.S. Government does not til this day continue to block the uncovering of truth about the JFK assassination just to protect Allen Dulles.
Talbot may be right that Allen Dulles did bad things. It's out to lunch to maintain that therefore Allen Dulles had a hand in JFK's killing.
i'm thinking you're not reading the same stuff i'm reading.
don't you get The National Enquirer? The New York Post...?
-
i agree with all that - sure. i think the term pawn has been bandied about of late... my one hesitancy is the word 'hire', asint if there's a human resources department who checks to see of you've ever stolen a snickers from Six Flags with two friends who threw you under the bus like an empty styrofoam spaghetti box - not that i've ever experienced that - i think in this game of cloak and dagger there's an extremely large chasm between "hired" and "no longer employed", etc.... usefulness comes in all shapes and colors.
i tend to agree that LHO had the perfect balance of intelligence and abject idiocy, which probably made him invaluable to intel types. hell, they probably discovered his rare trait in Atsugi.
i agree with all that - sure. i think the term pawn has been bandied about of late... my one hesitancy is the word 'hire', asint if there's a human resources department who checks to see of you've ever stolen a snickers from Six Flags with two friends who threw you under the bus like an empty styrofoam spaghetti box - not that i've ever experienced that - i think in this game of cloak and dagger there's an extremely large chasm between "hired" and "no longer employed", etc.... usefulness comes in all shapes and colors.
i tend to agree that LHO had the perfect balance of intelligence and abject idiocy, which probably made him invaluable to intel types. hell, they probably discovered his rare trait in Atsugi.
maybe he had that perfect balance because he was two people
yes, i've become, er, "interested" in this approach. very intriguing, at least.
i just wish i weren't so busy having to make a living and sh** like that so i could spend some time with this stuff.
-
David Talbot wrote on Facebook today:
I've been told that the Washington Post is refusing to even review "The Devil's Chessboard" -- after reviewing my two previous books. Major newspapers like the Washington Post and the New York Times have historically been far too cozy with U.S. intelligence, particularly throughout the Dulles regime at the CIA. One would hope, for the good of press freedom and our democracy, that the Washington media establishment -- after all the government manipulation and lies of the Cold War and now the War on Terror -- would FINALLY be growing a backbone in its coverage of the national security state. In the meantime, read "The Devil's Chessboard" -- the book that the CIA and the media elite don't want you to read.
the press and backbone; two words i don't think we'll ever see in the same sentence outside of platforms like this...
-
i agree with all that - sure. i think the term pawn has been bandied about of late... my one hesitancy is the word 'hire', asint if there's a human resources department who checks to see of you've ever stolen a snickers from Six Flags with two friends who threw you under the bus like an empty styrofoam spaghetti box - not that i've ever experienced that - i think in this game of cloak and dagger there's an extremely large chasm between "hired" and "no longer employed", etc.... usefulness comes in all shapes and colors.
i tend to agree that LHO had the perfect balance of intelligence and abject idiocy, which probably made him invaluable to intel types. hell, they probably discovered his rare trait in Atsugi.
-
Biased against the CIA? Well Paul, consider this. Unlike the rightwing crazies you propose Oswald was aligned with, certain CIA were provably following Oswald' movements and actions for at least 3 years, a fact they tried hard to conceal both during Oswald's short life and after his death, even to the present day.
Well, Paul B., I have always recognized that LHO was tracked by the CIA, starting with his trek into the USSR in 1959. LHO was moving in Intelligence Circles since 1959, IMHO, but not as an important figure, rather, only as a trainee.
IMHO, former CIA Agent Victor Marchetti is right when he says that Oswald went to the USSR as a "dangle" in a large system of dozens of "dangles" organized by the ONI.
IMHO, LHO pissed off the ONI by quitting on them -- abandoning his post, getting married and having a baby, and then rushing back to the USA before completing his trainee "dangle" mission.
That explains, IMHO, why the Marines lowered LHO's discharge status.
After that, the FBI did interview him, and the CIA admitted that it considered "laying on of interviews" with regard to LHO. But LHO never got hired.
LHO was bright enough to learn Russian at a young age, as well as radar secrets and perhaps "micro-dots", but LHO was also too independent to be a Team Player. Neither the FBI, CIA nor ONI hired him full time (but possibly gave him "informant" status and some chump change(.
LHO really got into trouble with the FBI and CIA, however, when, at the urging of George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt (and possibly Michael Paine), LHO tried to murder General Walker at his Dallas home.
Dick Russell (1992) says Mrs. Igor Voshinin told the FBI about Oswald-as-a-Walker-suspect only four days later. This corresponds with many of Walker's personal papers, for example, his letter to Senator Frank Church in 1975: http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf
After that, I will bet my bottom dollar that the FBI, CIA and ONI just wrote Oswald off as a potential Agent, and only put him on their watch lists as just another crackpot mixed up with Guy Banister in New Orleans.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
PT *** abandoning his post, getting married and having a baby, and then rushing back to the USA before completing his trainee "dangle" mission.
Only problem with that is his very mysteriously expedited visa and return to the US so soon after he'd just pronounced his allegiance to the Party. We're talking weeks. You think a normal US citizen could renounce americanism, move to russia, marry a russian and then just up and change his mind? xxxx, man, that would have taken a year at a minimum.
someone helped him get there, AND someone helped him get back. pure as pickles.
-
I made a misstatement in an earlier post, as bolded here:
The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present:
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
o
o
o
At first glance it appeared to me that all the witnesses to Kennedy's gaping wound, in Dr. Aguliar's list, are medical professionals. However, having now glanced through it more thoroughly, I see that it is a list of all witnesses. Two of the witnesses in Dallas are Secret Service agents. In Bethesda two are FBI, two are Secret Service, and a few are military men, all of whom witnessed the autopsy.
But still, the large majority of the 46 are medical professionals.
wow. great resource for some obscure stuff. thanks again.I'm glad to have helped in some way.
The list/article is really quite comprehensive, not only in the number of witnesses, but also in how the various testimonies played out over the years. I find it so valuable that I've copied it to my hard drive, just in case it ever disappears.
It's not comprehensive. He deliberately excluded those viewing Kennedy in the plaza, or in the limo outside Parkland. They described a wound, or pointed to a wound, on the top or side of their heads.
perhaps you could provide a list of who's missing from these witnesses? I'm attempting a bona fide comparison of visual ID's between Elm and Bethesda, short and sweet, with no riff raff. who's missing from these lists...? little help?
-
PS *** Lawyers know that if the evidence doesn't show what you want to show, you simply find an "expert" who'll say it doesn't show it, and that arguing that medical evidence has been faked is a sure loser in the eyes of a judge or jury.
not a very fair, or true, accusation, Pat. Not that it matters to anyone in here, but i take a little offense to this.
darn, dude... that's pretty bold.
-
And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.
If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.
How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?
Something i'd love to know: I wonder what the ratio would be - of all legitimate observers - who describe, in general terms, a "large wound" to the in the rear to those who say say the basic opposite.
Wonder if there's an organized list of these two lists.
I imagine it would be a lot like holding 26 NYYankees World Series rings in one hand, and say 3 of those of say, The Cubs and then listening to the myriad YHers come up with hundreds of reasons why, well, some of them are really fake, and that others don't count, and how many Yankees were in fact way too unqualified to have played well enough... and these Yankees weren't actually Forensics Baseball players, so THEIR rings don't count - ...
And I'm like !!! , "But David, I'm holding 26 Rings! You're holding 3!!"
If you're asking if there's a comprehensive list available of everyone seeing Kennedy after the shooting, and what they recalled of his head wounds, the answer would be no. The closest thing to that is chapters 18c and 18d of my website. Those pushing that there was a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, and that the autopsy photos are fake, routinely ignore a number of the best witnesses, and prop up a number of witnesses who are totally unreliable. But there remain a number of credible witnesses for a wound on the back of the head. This creates a quandary. This is why it takes two chapters to explain my position on the matter.
Here's an example of something that is overlooked by most holding that the wound was really on the back of the head. While they love to flash those photos of witnesses taken 20-30 years after the fact, in which they point to the back of their head, they rarely acknowledge that the first witnesses unanimously pointed to a location on the front of the head.
from 18b
...As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound depicted in the autopsy photos is in the same location as the large head wound seen at Parkland Hospital. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the right temple, exactly where Newman and his wife had seen a wound.
And not only them, but Malcolm Kilduff himself. A 10-26-77 article found in the Michigan City News-Dispatch reveals that upon his arrival at Parkland Hospital, Kilduff observed Kennedy’s head wound, and that, according to Kilduff “His head was just a mass of blood...It looked like hamburger meat." While the location of the wound observed by Kilduff is far from clear, it seems likely that, if he felt it was somewhere other than the right temple, he would have questioned Burkley's claim it was by the temple. This is supported, moreover, by Kilduff's subsequent statements to Gary Mack, in which he confirmed that when he pointed to his temple during the 11-22-63 press conference he was pointing to, in Mack's words, "where the big hole was on Kennedy's head."
No offense, Pat, but -
that's some real serious irresponsible and illogical writing. I'm not quite sure how you get from one assumption to another.
but i still respect the energy you put in, just maybe not so much your conclusions...
What's irresponsible about it? A lot of CTs assume that when Kilduff pointed towards his temple he was pointing to the location of a small entrance wound that led to a large exit wound on the back of the head. That's hogwash. 1. No one at Parkland had noticed such a wound. 2. Kilduff specifically denied he was pointing out such a wound.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22096&page=6
-
i for one am not biased or glued to the CIA's collusion - it's just that everywhere you look, some member or another of the organization keeps popping up, from the BOP to the Paines to Howard Hunt's lies to de Morenschildt's assoc. with LHO, ad infinitum. It's hard to ignore them when they're everywhere you look.
-
And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.
If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.
How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?
Something i'd love to know: I wonder what the ratio would be - of all legitimate observers - who describe, in general terms, a "large wound" to the in the rear to those who say say the basic opposite.
Wonder if there's an organized list of these two lists.
o
o
o
If you're asking if there's a comprehensive list available of everyone seeing Kennedy after the shooting, and what they recalled of his head wounds, the answer would be no. The closest thing to that is chapters 18c and 18d of my website.
o
o
o
The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present:
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
(Maybe it covers other wounds as well... I don't recall.)
Nearly all 46 of these Parkland and Bethesda witnesses initially described the gaping hole as being located at the right rear of the head. Though a number of them changed their minds later on, for example after viewing the autopsy photos. (Who wouldn't, after seeing the back-of-head autopsy photo? Oh yeah... the ones with true conviction, those who place more value in integrity than in "going along." IMO) Aguliar's list documents when and how these witnesses changed their testimony over time.
It's obvious to me that -- on average -- initial testimony is more likely to describe the truth than is later testimony, given that it can be colored by external influence.
It's also obvious to me that medical professionals would be highly reliable ones when it comes to the wounds they saw.
Because of these factors I determined some time ago that the gaping hole indeed must have been where most the medical professionals placed it. And that anything or anybody suggesting otherwise is suspect. Therefore, the autopsy doctors must be wrong, and the back of head photo must be wrong. For me that's a hell of a lot easier to believe than 40 medical professionals being wrong, especially given the extremely suspicious nature of the assassination.
The autopsy doctors are wrong because they followed the orders of corrupt superior officers. The back-of-head photo is wrong because it has been altered or fabricated. Neither of these statements is hard for me to believe.
wow. great resource for some obscure stuff. thanks again.
-
And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.
If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.
How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?
Something i'd love to know: I wonder what the ratio would be - of all legitimate observers - who describe, in general terms, a "large wound" to the in the rear to those who say say the basic opposite.
Wonder if there's an organized list of these two lists.
o
o
o
If you're asking if there's a comprehensive list available of everyone seeing Kennedy after the shooting, and what they recalled of his head wounds, the answer would be no. The closest thing to that is chapters 18c and 18d of my website.
o
o
o
The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present:
http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm
(Maybe it covers other wounds as well... I don't recall.)
Nearly all 46 of these Parkland and Bethesda witnesses initially described the gaping hole as being located at the right rear of the head. Though a number of them changed their minds later on, for example after viewing the autopsy photos. (Who wouldn't, after seeing the back-of-head autopsy photo? Oh yeah... the ones with true conviction, those who place more value in integrity than in "going along." IMO) Aguliar's list documents when and how these witnesses changed their testimony over time.
It's obvious to me that -- on average -- initial testimony is more likely to describe the truth than is later testimony, given that it can be colored by external influence.
It's also obvious to me that medical professionals would be highly reliable ones when it comes to the wounds they saw.
Because of these factors I determined some time ago that the gaping hole indeed must have been where most the medical professionals placed it. And that anything or anybody suggesting otherwise is suspect. Therefore, the autopsy doctors must be wrong, and the back of head photo must be wrong. For me that's a hell of a lot easier to believe than 40 medical professionals being wrong, especially given the extremely suspicious nature of the assassination.
The autopsy doctors are wrong because they followed the orders of corrupt superior officers. The back-of-head photo is wrong because it has been altered or fabricated. Neither of these statements is hard for me to believe.
Thank you, Sandy, for getting my point. That's what i'm looking to compile, strictly a comparison of testimonies of where anyone saw what kind of wound, knowing good and well that the vast majority will show [i dunno, what do you think?] and that the initial impressions would carry more weight than the 'filtered' impressions.
and thanks for the link.
-
i really do appreciate the weight of disdain that can be conveyed in such a concise statement: "what a very bad man." I think that sums him up fairly nicely.
-
and I agree with Jon - in this game of life (which i as a teenager studied, tested, and failed miserably) it occurred to me that sometimes pawns are the exact right approach.
if what's her name had succeeded in poisoning Adolfidel Castro (there are those who think she got quite close), what would we have called that other than a checkmate by a (doomed, for certain) pawn.
these things are quite situational. and to compare life to chess other than in terminology makes no sense to me whatsoever.
i rather like Pink Floyd's metaphor (or is it an asimile?). Pigs, Dogs, and Sheep. simplifies things...
-
a couple of years ago I read a really terrific book on the BOP that had just recently been published in 2012 - i forget the author's name - but in it he describes some very heated last minute (the night of BOP) White House meetings between Dulles, et al, and some Mil Staff and Kennedy where the moves being made were to mislead AND coerce Jack into action, and in which Jack really vacillated...
anyone remember or know of this book? it seemed very well researched and integrous.
-
Mr. Trejo:
So where was the rifle between the time LHO left New Orleans and October 4th? I'm guessing it did NOT go to Mexico with him.
IMHO, Mark, Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) had accomplices in Dallas, in New Orleans and also in Mexico City.
In my reading, the Warren Commission had to pretend that LHO took a bus to Mexico City, in order to support their "Lone Nut" theory of LHO. Mexican officials -- when asked apart from the US Government -- reported that LHO entered and exited Mexico as a passenger in a car.
(No Mexican officials or records have LHO on a bus, and no Mexican witnesses saw LHO on a bus. Only four American tourists claimed to see Oswald, and their testimony is contradictory.)
So, IMHO, just as Oswald rode in a car to and from the Walker shooting in April 1963, so also did Oswald ride in a car from Mexico City in September 1963. His rifle was with him the entire time. That's my reading.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
i find your reasoning quite solid and informative when a certain General is not the topic. seriously. 'cept for that MP being a genius among geniuses bit...
so LHO had accomplices in Dallas AND N.O., AND Mexico?
really?????
i'm just kiddin' with ya. I'm pretty sure he had accomplices in Atlanta (FBI) and Tampa and Kansas City, as well. And Raleigh (phone call from jail...?). Lee Harvey Oswald, the Jet Setter.
-
PT *** The reason Michael Paine didn't open up to LHO about his own family, was because Michael was a Harvard man, a brilliant intellectual, and LHO was a phony who tried to read Karl Marx, but couldn't really get past the first page. Michael really looked down on LHO, for good reason.
um. where do you get this crap? Has it been so stated that that's why MP didn't open up to LHO? By whom?
Because he was 'a Harvard Man' he's a brilliant intellectual? Hate to break it to you, but one does NOT necessarily follow the other. It might impress you, but I know personally a Harvard man with 2 Master's and he is quite a distance from brilliantly intellectual.
And LHO couldn't get past the first page of Karl Marx? really...?
Being the intrepid, experienced journalist you so obviously are, I can understand the privilege you maintain in not revealing your sources for these most fascinating, and heretofore unrevealed, minutiae. But surely you can cite just ONE source for this drivel... please?
I'll accept the distinct possibility that some of this might be stuff that i've never seen it before, but your skills in gigantic leaps to nowhere really does make me doubt it.
It's in the Warren Commission testimony of Michael Paine, Glenn. You should read it sometime.
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
Really? Michael Paine said, "I'm a brilliant intellectual" in WC testimony? Wonder how that went over in front of a group of bona fide (pseudo)brilliant intellectuals...
and this "good reason" that MP looked down on LHO was established in testimony?
and he couldn't get past page 1 of "Karl Marx" - but ate up Trotsky, spent half his life embracing socialism, moved to Russia, married a Russian woman, was embraced by the White Russians upon his return...
maybe he was able to get to the third, or maybe even the fourth, page...
"Yep, Justice Warren, I happen to be a brilliant intellectual - no offense to you, of course." you're right, i need to go read that...
-
thanks Mark for clearing that up for me. I knew something didn't sound quite right about that. makes just a wee bit more sense.
-
Okay,
Here are my Top Ten Questions for Michael Paine.
1) After leaving Harvard, MP transferred to a Quaker college in suburban Philadelphia, when he met Ruth Hyde Paine at a folk dance session. Thanks to MP's mother's husband, Arthur Young, MP gets a job in research and development at Bell Helicopter in Texas. What prompted the move from Philly to Dallas?
2) Michael Paine told the WC that he didn't know Oswald had a rifle, but later he said that he saw the photo of Oswald with rifle in backyard when he picked up Oswald at his apartment to take him home for dinner, early in their association. What's up with that?
3) The German Minox spy camera, previously attributed to belonging to Oswald, has been claimed by MP as his own. If so, then he can explain the photos and why it was entered into evidence.
4) Michael Paine's father was co-founder of the Trotskite Party in USA, yet when Michael met Oswald, who claimed to be not just a communist but a Trotskite, MP didn't bother to impress Oswald with the fact his father was a co-founder of the Trotskite Party USA. Why not?
5) Michael Paine's superior at Bell Helicopter was former Nazi General Dornberger, who worked on the V2 rocket program and became part of Operation Paperclip.
6) MP took Oswald to the American Civil Liberties meeting, along with another friend of MP who left MP and LHO and went to Jack Ruby's Carousel Club afterwards.
7) MP's mother, Ruth Forges Paine Young, was best friends with Mary Bancroft, and accompanied Bancroft on a steamship trip to Europe on which Bancroft met her husband, a Swiss businessman, which put Bancroft in position of becoming one of Alan Dulles' most important agents involved in Operation Sunrise (German Surrender) and an assassination attempt against Hitler. How come it never came out that the mother of the chief patron of the accused assassin was best friends with the mistress and agent of Warren Commissioner Dulles?
8) What was up with the conversation between MP and his wife in which they agree that Oswald wasn't responsible and they knew who was? See:: Coincidence or Conspiracy (Fensterwald, Ewing)
9) What's with the cars? MP is said to have encouraged Oswald to drive, and showed him how he could buy a car for a few hundred bucks and may have even purchased a car for Oswald at the time of the assassination.
10) Then there's the station wagon, the car that transported the alleged assassination weapon from Dallas to New Orleans and back again. Who loaded the car and how come nobody noticed there was a rifle there?
Anyway, there's my top ten questions for Michael Paine. BK
This is still a relevant thread, Bill Kelly, so I'll try to address a few of your original ten questions with my own opinions:
(2) It is one of the most important puzzles in the 21st century analysis of the JFK murder history -- that Michael Paine contradicted himself on this critical topic.
I'm convinced that Michael Paine didn't tell his wife, Ruth, about seeing the Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) Backyard Photograph. They were separated at the time, and aside from their children (and his money) they had very little in common.
However, the fact that Michael Paine knew about the Backyard Photographs on April 2, 1963, suggests that Michael Paine spoke with Lee Harvey Oswald about General Walker, also. This makes Paine a potential part of the plot to assassinate General Walker. I think far more should be done to investigate this.
(4) The reason Michael Paine didn't open up to LHO about his own family, was because Michael was a Harvard man, a brilliant intellectual, and LHO was a phony who tried to read Karl Marx, but couldn't really get past the first page. Michael really looked down on LHO, for good reason.
(7) It's not really relevant that Ruth Paine's mother's friend was once a lover of Allen Dulles in the 1940's. It says utterly nothing about the JFK assassination. George Michael Evica to the contrary.
(8) Ruth Paine herself says that in her post-assassination conversation with Michael, the "one's who really did it" mentioned, were merely the generic "they" who published the Black-bordered Ad (Welcome to Dallas, Mr. Kennedy), and the "Wanted for Treason: JFK" handbills. I find that eminently believable.
(9) Ruth Paine felt sorry for the Oswalds -- especially for Marina whom she liked very much. Lee was a loser who couldn't hold down a steady job, and didn't know how to drive when he was 23 years old. Ruth tried to teach LHO how to drive. It's not surprising that Ruth would beg Michael Paine (who was rich) to help LHO buy his own car, so LHO could hold down a decent job and support his own wife and children.
(10) The reason that nobody noticed a rifle was in the luggage atop Ruth Paine's station wagon in her trip from New Orleans to Irving, Texas in September 1963, was because THERE WAS NO RIFLE THERE.
Instead, the rifle appeared in Ruth Paine's garage only after October 4th, when LHO finally appeared at Ruth's doorstep after his Mexico City episode.
Best regards,
--Paul Trejo
PT *** The reason Michael Paine didn't open up to LHO about his own family, was because Michael was a Harvard man, a brilliant intellectual, and LHO was a phony who tried to read Karl Marx, but couldn't really get past the first page. Michael really looked down on LHO, for good reason.
um. where do you get this crap? Has it been so stated that that's why MP didn't open up to LHO? By whom?
Because he was 'a Harvard Man' he's a brilliant intellectual? Hate to break it to you, but one does NOT necessarily follow the other. It might impress you, but I know personally a Harvard man with 2 Master's and he is quite a distance from brilliantly intellectual.
And LHO couldn't get past the first page of Karl Marx? really...?
Being the intrepid, experienced journalist you so obviously are, I can understand the privilege you maintain in not revealing your sources for these most fascinating, and heretofore unrevealed, minutiae. But surely you can cite just ONE source for this drivel... please?
I'll accept the distinct possibility that some of this might be stuff that i've never seen it before, but your skills in gigantic leaps to nowhere really does make me doubt it.
-
review from the beast, which posits incorrect facts and myths about jfk's policies and assassination.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/13/did-allen-dulles-order-the-hit-on-jfk.html
James A. Warren ably asks us:
...Finally, from a practical standpoint, is it at all plausible that John McCone, the Kennedy-appointed CIA director at the time of the assassination, stood by passively as the retired Dulles waltzed back into CIA headquarters two years after having been fired to spearhead the greatest conspiracy in U.S. history?
And if Dulles was behind it all, one wonders why Robert Kennedy pleaded with President Johnson to ask the gentleman spy to serve on the commission to investigate the murder of his beloved brother. Was Bobby in on it, too?
Excellent questions, IMHO.
All the CIA-did-it theories are winding down. It's been 47 years since Jim Garrison first blamed the CIA -- and only rumor and innuendo keep this train running. Facts are lacking, and logic is missing.
All the fuss over the CIA prevents sincere JFK researchers from finding the REAL killers of JFK -- the Radical Right in Dallas. More relevant than Talbot, IMHO, is the new book by Jeffrey Caufield: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015).
Regards,
--Paul Trejo
***stood by passively as the retired Dulles waltzed back into CIA headquarters two years after having been fired to spearhead the greatest conspiracy in U.S. history?
False assumptions: --That Dulles spearheaded anything. Being involved and spearheading are two completely different animals. this is a grand example of zealots jumping to unjustified conclusions. --And, that it was done from CIA HQ. IMO, when people, like me, who say "the CIA" in this context, we don't mean THE CIA, we mean some members, rogue elements (which happen to be the type of people the CIA was built with), and which were most certainly NOT operating from Langley...
So those are great leaps of illogic.
And Jim Garrison did more to show CIA involvement than he did to dissuade the idea.
OH. And what's THIS??? Paul Trejo, taking yet another opportunity to mention General Walker? Say it ain't so...
Bill Kelly's Review of David Talbot's new book "The Devil's Chessboard"
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
when i read Oglesby's Yankee Cowboy War and first grasped the significance of the Gehlen (and that Russian spy/general cat) enterprise, the irony - the absolute hypocrisy - of the US being in bed with these people at the same time the American citizenry is building bomb-shelters in their backyards and the US Senate is witch-hunting "commies" is mind-boggling. Absolutely despicable.
This realization i think i can say is when the light went on and I became fully open to the depths to which our 'shadow' govt are willing to reach to get what they want. It's at this point that I reached the inability to be surprised by anything in this arena. General Landsdale and/or GHWBush pulling strings in 63? Why the hell not? Reagan and Bush bargaining with American hostages with some guns and then blaming a good old-fashioned Colonel when it hit the fan? Why the hell not?
Dulles helping plan a political assassination? Why the hell not?