Terry Mauro
-
Posts
1,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Terry Mauro
-
-
Hope this doesn't sound like another sales pitch and I apologize if it's an intrusion. I just wanted to let those of you who might be interested in purchasing my novel "The Unreals" know that my publisher is now giving a portion of the profits to a worthy cause.
Starting this September 1st, my publisher, StoneGarden.net Publishing, will donate $1 to inner city baseball leagues in the Oakland, CA community for every book sold. This is an indefinite program, running as long as there are inner city baseball leagues in the area.
Specifically, StoneGarden.net Publishing will be working with MLB's RBI (Return Baseball to the Inner cities) program. Listed is the contact they'll be using.
OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
Mr. Norman Knowles
Boys & Girls Clubs of Oakland
P.O. Box 23203kn
Oakland, CA 94623-0203
510-654-0307 FAX: 510-839-2078
MLB RBI
Here is the link to my book's Amazon page: Amazon- "The Unreals"
Here is the Barnes and Noble page:
Barnes And Noble- "The Unreals"
Help give city kids something FABULOUS to do so they might choose NOT to join a gang !!!!
*******************************************************************
Don, I wish you the best of luck on your new book, and want to commend both you and StoneGarden.net publishing for making such a generous and noble gesture on your part. Way to go!
With love,
Ter
-
JFK Assassination Poll
http://donroberdeau.freehomepage.com/cgi-b...poll_center.htm
Good Day.... If you want to, please take a moment to vote in my JFK
theorized suspects assassination poll that has been internet available
for almost a year. (it also links to one of my mirror sites to my AOL
webpage)
You may select more than one theorized suspect group for your vote, but
the poll is coordinated and monitored that you may only vote once. The
updated poll results to date will be visible after you vote. (or
before, if you are a person who likes to go to a book ending, first)
:{ )-]
If you select the "other" theorized suspect group option, that link
will open in a new window where you can type in the details for your
"other" theorized suspect group not listed.
The eleven suspect groups are (in no particular order)....
Who was behind &/or performed the assassination of President Kennedy?
(multiple choices are allowed, but you can only vote once)
1....anti-Castrolites as revenge for JFK 's lack of full support
during the failed "Bay of Pigs" &/or to lay the blame for assassination
onto Castro for planned 2nd Cuba invasion
2....Fidel Castro as revenge for several C.I.A. attempts to try to
kill Castro &/or revenge for Cuban Missile Crisis embarrassment &/or
1962-to-present trade goods blockade of Cuba
3....C.I.A. anti-JFK rogue agents as revenge for JFK 's lack of full
support during the failed "Bay of Pigs" &/or JFK was scaling down
Vietnam War &/or JFK wanted to smash C.I.A. into 1000 pieces &/or to
lay the blame for assassination onto Castro for planned 2nd Cuba
invasion
4....South Vietnam President Ngo Dinh Diem as revenge (followed
through by his surviving family) because C.I.A. was helping anti-Diem
leaders plan a coup &/or Diem wanted to keep receiving million$ in
profits from drugs shipped from Vietnam/Asia "golden drug triangle" to
mafia processors/sellers &/or JFK was scaling down Vietnam War and Diem
wanted to keep skimming million$ from U.S. military aid
5....F.B.I. because JFK would have retired Hoover (which Hoover did
not want to do) at the then-mandatory retirement age 65 &/or Hoover
knew of JFK's infidelities (including a mafia mistress) and despised
him for infidelities/mafia connection but did not want to publicly
embarrass the office of the president &/or JFK/RFK knew about Hoover
ties to mafia leaders
6....Lyndon Baines Johnson because of LBJ being investigated for his
involvement in at least 4 scandals (all of which "disappeared" after
11-22-63) and JFK spoke privately of dropping LBJ from '64 ticket &/or
LBJ's involvement with the mafia &/or LBJ wanted to act in league with
other groups to profit billion$ after increasing Vietnam War &/or LBJ
was power-hungry
7....mafia (U.S. &/or French) because mafia prosecutions increased
11-fold under JFK despite mafia's 1960 election help &/or to protect
drug profits in U.S. &/or to stop JFK/RFK exposure of LBJ and Hoover
ties to mafia leaders &/or to lay the blame for assassination onto
Castro so after a 2nd U.S. invasion of Cuba the mafia would reaquire
gambling and drug profits out of Cuba
8....Lee Harvey Oswald, seemingly a Communist, and the Capitalist
world leader drove within his shooting range &/or Oswald was depressed
about his failing marriage/family separation &/or Oswald was an insane
"lone nut"
9....right-wing extremists because "military industrial complex" saw
JFK starting to close military bases and scaling down Vietnam War &/or
wealthy oil tycoons and bankers were angry at losing billion$ when JFK
eliminated 27% oil depletion tax credit &/or extreme rightists racial
supremeists saw JFK giving minorities more civil rights &/or to lay the
blame for assassination onto Castro for planned 2nd Cuba invasion
10....Soviet Union because of JFK views against them &/or revenge for
Cuban Missile Crisis embarrassment &/or to demoralize American people
11....Other (please detail)
Don Roberdeau
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, CV-67, "Big John" Plank Walker
Sooner, or later, the Truth emerges Clearly
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/DP.jpg
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/ROSE...NOUNCEMENT.html
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/BOND...PINGarnold.html
http://members.aol.com/DRoberdeau/JFK/GHOS...update2001.html
T ogether
E veryone
A chieves
M ore
"A red-brown to black area of skin surrounds the wound, forming what is
called an abrasion collar. It was caused by the bullet's scraping the
margins of the skin on penetration and is characteristic of a gunshot
wound of entrance. The abrasion collar is larger at the lower margin of
the wound, evidence that the bullet's trajectory at the instant of
penetration was slightly upward in relation to the body."
- 07HSCA175 describing President KENNEDY's, theorized,
not-completely-probed, neck and back wounds
****************************************************************
1., 3., and 9.
-
Did Bowers ever explain which side of the fence he was referring to? The answer is obviously yes, for Lane wrote on page 223, "In a filmed and tape-recorded interview in 1966, Bowers told me that, 'other than these two [men behind the fence] and the people who were over on the top of the underpass who, for the most part, were railroad employees or employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, there were no strangers out on this area." There were plenty of people south of the fence and pergola who were obviously strangers to Bowers, so he could not have been referring to them as being "behind" the fence. Therefore, the men he saw were on his side - the back side - of the fence."
Lane inserted those words "men behind the fence" into Bowers reply.
LEE BOWERS: "Other than these two and the people who were over on the top of the Underpass who - that were, for the most part, were railroad employees or were employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, uh - there were no strangers out in this area."
If that is not a blantant misuse of a what someone said, I don't know what is.
"Out of order"!
************************************************************************
"Bowers also observed two unfamiliar men standing on top of the Knoll at the edge of the parking lot, within 10 or 15 feet of each other---"one man, middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or a plaid coat or jacket." Both were facing toward Elm and Houston, where the motorcade would be coming from. They were the only strangers he remembered seeing."
"Lane inserted those words "men behind the fence" into Bowers reply."
According to whom? You? Show me who's claiming that statement.
"Bowers also observed two unfamiliar men standing on top of the Knoll at the edge of the parking lot,
Bowers never said this. This is false.
within 10 or 15 feet of each other---"one man, middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or a plaid coat or jacket." Both were facing toward Elm and Houston, where the motorcade would be coming from. They were the only strangers he remembered seeing."
"Lane inserted those words "men behind the fence" into Bowers reply."
According to whom?
According to the recorded transcript. And according to me.
You? Show me who's claiming that statement.
Alan is completely correct. Lane fudged in this little self serving parenthesis. Bowers never said this.
*******************************************************************************
"Alan is completely correct. Lane fudged in this little self serving parenthesis. Bowers never said this."
Now, is that right? When the xxxx hits the fan, discredit Lane. Well guess what, fellas? You're all wet. Just a couple of revisionistas, and the whole world is laughing at your bizarre attempts to re-write history.
-
So what I’m saying is that Emmett Hudson is the red shirt man on the stairs.
Don
And what I am telling you is that Emmett Hudson was 58 years old on the day of the assassination, stocky, and had gray bushy hair.
Bill
Sorry Bill, you are wrong... Hudson was 56 on the day of the assassination. The red shirt man does fit the description of a stocky 56-year-old man. The gray bushy hair is your own claim. The old man tramp also has gray hair as a disguise; maybe his hair was bushy underneath his hat. Anyways, I go by the facts, not hearsay from some person on a forum.
Don
**********************************************************************
"Sorry Bill, you are wrong... Hudson was 56 on the day of the assassination. The red shirt man does fit the description of a stocky 56-year-old man. The gray bushy hair is your own claim. The old man tramp also has gray hair as a disguise; maybe his hair was bushy underneath his hat. Anyways, I go by the facts, not hearsay from some person on a forum."
HEARSAY? Why is it that for some strange reason I seem to denote a bit of chicanery going on here, especially coming from a "supposed" newbie. Now, how many times have I seen a provocateur try to hide behind that worn-out excuse? Quibbling over two year age discrepancy, at that! But, the sheer audacity to state, "The gray bushy hair is your own claim. The old man tramp also has gray hair as a disguise; maybe his hair was bushy underneath his hat."
Well, you know something else, Don? It's this particular brand of speculation and supposition that tends to give the research community a bad name, but even worse, it tends to drive a wedge between legitimate would-be collaborators.
For just once, I would hope that the seasoned researchers might see through this superfluous attempt of yours and Miles the Numbskull Scull and Co.'s frivolous, hypothetical, hodge-podge form of analysis you seem hell-bent on twisting to suit your ridiculous agenda. All you guys are doing is having a free-for-all at setting people up, in the hopes of setting them against one another. I see it, plain as day. But, it ain't gonna work here, this time.
You may be a "newbie" to this forum, Don. But, you'll never convince me you haven't trolled and frequented the "newsgroups," and any of the other forums pertaining to this subject. I'm looking right through you, mister.
-
What is so important about Lane's opinion, which was precisely matched by director Emile De Antonio to me in 1988, is that his conclusions were reached as a result of interviewing Bowers beforehand by telephone, in person prior to the formal interview, and the filmed interview itself. If there had been doubts about Bowers' veracity or accuracy, his story would likely not have been filmed.
Opinions that are not backed up by the words of the actual witness remain just that, opinions.
We already know Lane's opinion anyway, he put him in a film to try & bolster the grassy knoll assassin but Bowers appearance there did nothing but mask the fact that he did not say the men were behind the fence.
He saw two men in the area and something that attracted his attention to the fence when the shots were fired." So Bowers' account to Lane, as told in one or more earlier, unrecorded interviews, and repeated on film, specifically placed the source of some odd disturbance at the fence, not down at the street or somewhere in between.Nowhere does Bowers say that the two men & the flash of light & or smoke were at the same exact spot.
Does he say the flash of light or smoke was behind the fence in the transcripts?
Of course he doesn't.
Lane: "Bowers had stated that when the shots were fired his attention was attracted to the area just behind the fence"...........Mack: "Lane and Bowers state that he was observing the fence area"
Bowers may of said that "the occurence was at the fence" to Lane over the phone or whatever, I for one can't possibly know he didn't but, any healthy sceptic has to ask the question, "if he did, then why didn't Lane get it on tape & why didn't he use it in the film since this was one of the main thrusts of the documentary?".
Surely Gary would ask the same question from anyone.
Lane opinionizing that Bowers saw men behind the fence we already have, just watch RTJ.
"Lee Bowers, who said he saw two men behind the wooden fence at the time of the shooting and observed what was possibly 'a flash of light there when the assassination occurred." In this instance, Lane makes it abundantly clear that the precise spot was at the fence, not 25 feet in front of it or anywhere else.YES. That was Lane's opinion only.
Bill reckons Lane's opinion is important, I do not.
Lane was obviously committed to using Bowers in the film whether he said "behind the fence" or not.
The Bowers segment totally misleads the viewer into thinking Bowers' two men were behind the fence, when he appears to say the complete opposite in the transcript..
Did Bowers ever explain which side of the fence he was referring to? The answer is obviously yes, for Lane wrote on page 223, "In a filmed and tape-recorded interview in 1966, Bowers told me that, 'other than these two [men behind the fence] and the people who were over on the top of the underpass who, for the most part, were railroad employees or employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, there were no strangers out on this area." There were plenty of people south of the fence and pergola who were obviously strangers to Bowers, so he could not have been referring to them as being "behind" the fence. Therefore, the men he saw were on his side - the back side - of the fence."Lane inserted those words "men behind the fence" into Bowers reply.
LEE BOWERS: "Other than these two and the people who were over on the top of the Underpass who - that were, for the most part, were railroad employees or were employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, uh - there were no strangers out in this area."
If that is not a blantant misuse of a what someone said, I don't know what is.
"Out of order"!
************************************************************************
"Bowers also observed two unfamiliar men standing on top of the Knoll at the edge of the parking lot, within 10 or 15 feet of each other---"one man, middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or a plaid coat or jacket." Both were facing toward Elm and Houston, where the motorcade would be coming from. They were the only strangers he remembered seeing."
"Lane inserted those words "men behind the fence" into Bowers reply."
According to whom? You? Show me who's claiming that statement.
-
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/topics
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...126&t=11050
Whereas Mr. "Von Pain" chose to attack me in a forum of which I do not normally visit, my responses are being made there as well as other places which Mr. "Pain" is attempting to pass himself off as some sort of expert on the JFK assassination.
http://openlettersmonthly.com/issue/he-died/#comment-1938
Although I have not visited JFK Lancer in some time, in event that anyone else sees Mr. "Von Pain"s" heroic attempts to defend VB; the WC; and Posner, if they will let me known than I will be more than glad to acquaint Mr. "Pain" with the true facts of the assassination.
******************************************************************************
"Although I have not visited JFK Lancer in some time, in event that anyone else sees Mr. "Von Pain"s" heroic attempts to defend VB; the WC; and Posner, if they will let me known than I will be more than glad to acquaint Mr. "Pain" with the true facts of the assassination."
I thought Debra had kicked his sorry ass off Lancer a long time ago, Purv?
I carried on a heated exchange with him on Amazon.com's Book Review when Bugliosi's Baloney was first released. I told him he came off sounding like an hysterical female when attempting to defend his theory. When he finally ran out of counter-points to sling at me, he stated that I was probably a really nice person to know, outside of the assassination forums. Yeah, in his worst nightmare.
-
If one cannot get the alleged researcher to contact Mark Lane, then let's get Mark Lane to contact the researcher and what better way to do this than through the following book ... "A Citizen's Dissent". Gary Mack was kind enough to share with me some of the things Lane wrote that I had inquired about this past couple of weeks.
Below is some of what Gary Mack had shared with me about this particular book.
Gary said the following .......
"Mark Lane's 1968 book, A Citizen's Dissent, is quite interesting and it contains information about Lee Bowers that does not appear in Lane's earlier book, Rush To Judgment. Lane's information proved to be most helpful during my early studies of the Badge Man photograph.
What is so important about Lane's opinion, which was precisely matched by director Emile De Antonio to me in 1988, is that his conclusions were reached as a result of interviewing Bowers beforehand by telephone, in person prior to the formal interview, and the filmed interview itself. If there had been doubts about Bowers' veracity or accuracy, his story would likely not have been filmed.
What was Mark Lane's personal and professional opinion of Lee Bowers and his credibility? From his advance telephone interview(s) to his face-to-face meeting and filmed interview in 1966, Lane concluded on page 69, "The most impressive of the witnesses was Lee E. Bowers, Jr. His wry sense of humor and his excellent memory made him perhaps the finest witness I have ever questioned. He was behind the fence in a railroad tower when the shots were fired. He saw two men in the area and something that attracted his attention to the fence when the shots were fired." So Bowers' account to Lane, as told in one or more earlier, unrecorded interviews, and repeated on film, specifically placed the source of some odd disturbance at the fence, not down at the street or somewhere in between.
What was the actual location of the unknown event Bowers observed? The fence, as Lane explained on page 174. "Bowers had stated that when the shots were fired his attention was attracted to the area just behind the fence because of something that caught his eye there: 'Now, what this was, I could not state at the time and at this time I could not identify it, other than there was some unusual occurrence - a flash of light or smoke or something which caused me to feel like something out of the ordinary had occurred there.'" Again, Lane and Bowers state that he was observing the fence area, not the steps or walkway or any other location.
Was the occurrence which Bowers described at the fence or away from it such as halfway down the steps toward the street? After speaking with Bowers personally, Lane knew exactly, as he wrote on page 220, "Lee Bowers, who said he saw two men behind the wooden fence at the time of the shooting and observed what was possibly 'a flash of light there when the assassination occurred." In this instance, Lane makes it abundantly clear that the precise spot was at the fence, not 25 feet in front of it or anywhere else.
Did Bowers ever explain which side of the fence he was referring to? The answer is obviously yes, for Lane wrote on page 223, "In a filmed and tape-recorded interview in 1966, Bowers told me that, 'other than these two [men behind the fence] and the people who were over on the top of the underpass who, for the most part, were railroad employees or employees of a Fort Worth welding firm who were working on the railroad, there were no strangers out on this area." There were plenty of people south of the fence and pergola who were obviously strangers to Bowers, so he could not have been referring to them as being "behind" the fence. Therefore, the men he saw were on his side - the back side - of the fence."
A special thanks to Gary Mack for pointing out the references Lane made. For those of us who do not have a copy of Lane's book handy, Gary was kind enough to share some of those valuable citations with me and now I have passed them along to this forum.
Bill Miller
*************************************************************************
I've been scouring the net for "A Citizen's Dissent," in hopes of finding a manuscript of the book in order that I may copy and paste the link, as well as the pertinent pages cited by Bill and Gary Mack in this regard.
So far, I've been able to find an article from Ramparts citing Penn Jones. Here is the link, followed by Bower's testimony to Lane.
From the Pages of "Ramparts"
Add to them the book-writers---Mark Lane, the most persistence public gadfly of ..... Lee Bowers' testimony is perhaps as explosive as any recorded by the ...
www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/09th_Issue/ramparts.html - 56k - Cached - Similar pages
Lee Bowers---Automobile Accident
Lee Bowers' testimony is perhaps as explosive as any recorded by the Warren Commission. He was one of 65 known witnesses to the President's assassination who thought shots were fired from the area of the Grassy Knoll. (The Knoll is west of the Texas School Book Depository.) But more than that, he was in a unique position to observe some pretty strange behavior in the Knoll area during and immediately before the assassination.
Bowers, then a towerman with the Union Terminal Co., was stationed in his 14-foot tower directly behind the Grassy Knoll. As he faced the assassination site, he could see the railroad overpass to his right front. Directly in front of him was a parking lot, and then a wooden stockade fence and a row of trees running along the top of the Grassy Knoll. The Knoll sloped down to the spot on Elm Street where Kennedy was killed. Police had "cut off" traffic into the parking area, Bowers said, "so that anyone moving around could actually be observed."
Bowers made two significant observations which he revealed to the Commission. First, he saw three unfamiliar cars slowly cruising around the parking area in the 35 minutes before the assassination; the first two left after a few minutes. The driver of the second car appeared to be talking into "a mike or telephone"---"he was holding something up to his mouth with one hand and he was driving with the other." A third car, with out-of-state plates and mud up to the windows, probed all around the parking area. Bowers last remembered seeing it about eight minutes before the shooting, pausing "just above the assassination site." He gave detailed descriptions of the cars and their drivers.
Bowers also observed two unfamiliar men standing on top of the Knoll at the edge of the parking lot, within 10 or 15 feet of each other---"one man, middle-aged or slightly older, fairly heavy-set, in a white shirt, fairly dark trousers. Another younger man, about mid-twenties, in either a plaid shirt or a plaid coat or jacket." Both were facing toward Elm and Houston, where the motorcade would be coming from. They were the only strangers he remembered seeing. His description shows a remarkable similarity to Julia Ann Mercer's description of two unidentified men climbing the knoll [minor deletia.]
When the shots rang out, Bowers' attention was drawn to the area where he had seen the two men; he could still make out the one in the white shirt---"the darker dressed man was too hard to distinguish from the trees." He observed "some commotion" at that spot, "...something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around...which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify." At that moment, he testified, a motorcycle policeman left the Presidential motorcade and roared up the Grassy Knoll straight to where the two mysterious gentlemen were standing behind the fence. The policeman dismounted, Bowers recalled, then after a moment climbed on his motorcycle and drove off. Later, in a film interview with attorney Mark Lane, he explained that the "commotion" that caught his eye may have been "a flash of light or smoke." His information dovetails with what other witnesses observed from different vantage points.
On the morning of August 9, 1966, Lee Bowers, now the vice-president of a construction firm, was driving south from Dallas on business. He was two miles from Midlothian when his brand new company car veered from the road and hit a bridge abutment. A farmer who saw it said the car was going 50 miles an hour, a slow speed for that road. There were no skidmarks to indicate braking.
Bowers died of his wounds at 1 p.m. in a Dallas hospital. He was 41. There was no autopsy, and he was cremated soon afterward. Doctors saw no evidence that he had suffered a heart attack. A doctor from Midlothian, who rode in the ambulance with Bowers, noticed something peculiar about the victim. "He was in a strange state of shock," the old doctor said, "a different kind of shock than an accident victim experiences. I can't explain it. I've never seen anything like it."
Bowers widow at first insisted to Penn Jones that there was nothing suspicious about her husband's death. Then she became flustered and said: "They told him not to talk."
I'll keep searching. But Bill, if you could get Gary to scan those particular pages of testimony from "A Citizen's Dissent" directly to you, you could copy and paste them right here on the forum, as true documentation.
-
Hi Kathy:
Perhaps there is a solution here...
The members reading and who are still interested in this particular ongoing scenario......are being asked, to in effect, accept, what Dale Myers has posted on his web site, in reference to a transcript that he has obtained of said interview by Mark Lane of Lee Bowers, back in I take it around 66...or so ....without showing said transcript...or documentation......Sorry that is simply not acceptable....
Now Miles has posted one page, of which he now states he has been going through reams of obscure documents, which I take it to mean he must have access to...said interview transcripts....if not all, just what do you have access to Miles, how much of the interviews..?
Is this mana being provided by Mr Myers, and if so, why is it not being provided to the research world in general......and if not why not ??
.....No one can possibly think, and this goes for any who have passed along their said input into this, Bill, Gary, Debra and whomever, that any serious researcher is going to take what Mr.Myers has posted on his site, or anyone else has stated as written in stone, without seeing that documentation for themselves...or having the opportunity to do so..
..That is not how research is done...and that is what has and will in the future continue to cause many a harsh difference within any study on any forum, the information has to be presented upfront, honestly and openly.....for all...
When it is not, well, the peoples are much more intelligent than some apparently are giving them credit for....
They will not buy until they see the merchandise and examine it for themselves, or whomever wishes to
obtain it and see to it that it is posted, for all.....researched and examined as well as proven to be the real McCoy..
Too much in the past has come down the pike as being real, and has then turned out to have been an altered document or a newly re-created one.
Miles are you prepared to post the transcript, the pages of the interview between Lane and Bowers, and if not why not..?.....Seeing that you have posted
the one now, it has shown that you do apparently have access, according to your posted information..
Is Dale Myers willing to sell a copy of this portion of the transcript.....and if he does not have that right, where is it obtainable and who from.??
What is the address....and the price ....and if it is not available, then why not.?.
I think it is time to put up......or.........
B.........
*****************************************************************************
"The members reading and who are still interested in this particular ongoing scenario......are being asked, to in effect, accept, what Dale Myers has posted on his web site, in reference to a transcript that he has obtained of said interview by Mark Lane of Lee Bowers, back in I take it around 66...or so....without showing said transcript...or documentation......Sorry that is simply not acceptable....
Now Miles has posted one page, of which he now states he has been going through reams of obscure documents, which I take it to mean he must have access to...said interview transcripts....if not all, just what do you have access to Miles, how much of the interviews..?
Is this mana being provided by Mr Myers, and if so, why is it not being provided to the research world in general......and if not why not ??
.....No one can possibly think, and this goes for any who have passed along their said input into this, Bill, Gary, Debra and whomever, that any serious researcher is going to take what Mr.Myers has posted on his site, or anyone else has stated as written in stone, without seeing that documentation for themselves...or having the opportunity to do so..
..That is not how research is done...and that is what has and will in the future continue to cause many a harsh difference within any study on any forum, the information has to be presented upfront, honestly and openly.....for all...
When it is not, well, the peoples are much more intelligent than some apparently are giving them credit for....
They will not buy until they see the merchandise and examine it for themselves, or whomever wishes to
obtain it and see to it that it is posted, for all.....researched and examined as well as proven to be the real McCoy..
Too much in the past has come down the pike as being real, and has then turned out to have been an altered document or a newly re-created one.
Miles are you prepared to post the transcript, the pages of the interview between Lane and Bowers, and if not why not..?.....Seeing that you have posted the one now, it has shown that you do apparently have access, according to your posted information..
Is Dale Myers willing to sell a copy of this portion of the transcript.....and if he does not have that right, where is it obtainable and who from.??
What is the address....and the price ....and if it is not available, then why not.?.
I think it is time to put up......or.........
B........."
EXACTLY! And, I couldn't have put it any better than you have, Bern.
-
What kind of skewed logic is that? You'd ask the postman to leave the package in front of the fence, outside the gate.
But, aside from all your attempts at anything remotely resembling analogy, you're still coming up lame, as far as I can denote.
Terry, Miles reputation concerning his trying to show logic by being illogical has become well documented. Miles plays to a limited audience of whom ever will show him any attention. A few post ago it was Miles, I believe who felt that because he and Alan were the only ones responding in a negative light to what I had said about Bowers testimony - that this somehow validated his position. I mentioned then that this was an illogical assumption. Now after your post, combined with what Mack has said and by what Conway posted and added to my posting ... I guess that I can now say that Miles must have been wrong because 4 to 2 wins out on who is right or wrong. After all, these are the rules Miles wanted to play by when he thought that only he and Alan were the only ones posting in rebuttal to what I had written. Of course, I expect that Miles will now change his 'illogical logic' method of thinking now that it is leaning away from his favor. But its OK, because just like he did with the "plaid" means "red" nonsense to continue on with his claim - the forum is archived and his method of alleged research cannot escape the things he has written. God bless the forum archives!!!
Bill
**************************************************************
I couldn't agree with you more, Bill. I'm nonplussed by Miles' revisionary attempts at paraphrasing testimony to suit his slant on a particular aspect of the case, such as Bowers, that has more than stood the test of time, with respect to its literal validity, over the years as it is.
You've done an excellent job in debating this issue. I'm quite proud to see the community coming together and putting forth the work and the effort on such a scholarly level. This how it's supposed to be done. Good job!
-
The back of a picket fence is like the back of a car.
Both have front & back & they don't change.
You don't say the back of the car if your talking about the front no matter which way it's facing.
If the back was furthest from you you would say "the far side" to avoid confusion but it's still "the back of the fence" whether it's facing you or not.
Next time you see a picket type fence stop & ponder.
The fence was 5' tall on the RR side & on most of east side near the pathway.
But not on 95% of the south facing side.
Try 6'+.
He would see the top of their heads IF they were over 6' & IF the foilage allowed it but those are big ifs obviously.
I am starting to think that if the garbage being said by you guys ever got to the 'Tonight Show' writers ... Jay Leno would be making cracks about it in his monologue. Let's put to rest one of the misstatements of fact that you all are spreading. The fence is not 6'+ on one side as Alan states. United Press International did a study of the fence in 1965 or 1966. The fence was measured to be 5' tall on the Elm Street side and 4' 10" or 11" on the parking lot side. So let us at least nip that error in the bud before it goes much further.
When Bowers spoke about not seeing anyone on the south side of the fence, he was saying that from his elevated view he could not see anyone on the other side of the fence in the vicinity from where the flash of light/or smoke had come from. The impression that I got, as well as other researchers I have spoken with on this subject was that Bowers was trying to convey that if these two men were part of the conspiracy, then Lee didn't notice any accomplices on the other side of the fence. How much intelligence should it take for anyone to understand that someone facing the fence from the south side would then call the north side of the fence the back side. If someone is on the north side of the fence and looking back to the south, then the backside of the fence would be the Elm Street side or the south side. Like Mack said ... Bowers worked in the RR yard and knew his directions well enough to know which way was north and which was was south.
As expected, more silly nonsense.
You live in a house surrounded by a picket fence.
The fence gate is locked.
Suddenly, you realise that a package of expensive & fragile glassware is due any minute, but that gate is locked.
The postman suddenly arrives at the gate to deliver this delicate & fragile package.
You quickly lean out the window & yell out to the post man:
"Mr. Postman, please leave the package back of the fence." -- because you think he will then gently place the package down on the ground right outside the fence.
Unfortunately, the postman leans over the fence & drops the package to the ground inside the fence!
You see it drop to the ground & you hear the sound of shattering glass.
What happened?
I couldn't agree with you more Miles but you express it far better than I.When I asked Bill to reason that Bowers made an error & he told me that it's unlikely because Bowers said the same thing to several researchers.
I'm still waiting for the references, his opinions I can ignore until I see proof of what he said.
If he can produce even one other reference where Bowers said "there was no one on the south side of the fence" I'll be satisfied.
I guess this is a good example of not being able to not see the forest for the trees - hey Alan??? I not only posted the following information, but you also pasted it in some of your responses. It read as follows, "When discussing with Gary Mack about how anyone could confuse what Bowers was talking about, Gary replied, "I don't need others to interpret for me what Lee Bowers said vs. what Lee Bowers meant. I can read, and I have also interviewed two people who interviewed him extensively: filmmaker Emile de Antonio and researcher Jones Harris. de Antonio was the producer/director of the film Rush To Judgment. De, as he was called by his friends, told me directly that, without question, the most credible person he and Mark Lane interviewed for their documentary was Lee Bowers. De remembered vividly how Bowers described the events and what he saw before, during and after the assassination. There were two men behind the fence near the east corner. That was one of the main reasons Bowers appeared in the film." Three names are mentioned in that paragraph. Jones Harris lives in New York and spoke to Bowers in 1964/65. Look him up and ask him what Bowers said about the men he saw and what he meant by the south side of the fence. Of course, a horse can be led to water, but getting him to drink is another matter altogether.
Since Bowers stated that he saw the two men by Hudson in the stairs area, then those of his interview statements had to be cut from RTJ.
They were. Then Lane could put his "X" marks the stop for the two men in a bogus location behind the fence. A deception.
Lucky Myers noticed the ruse.
Bill
*************************************************************
"You live in a house surrounded by a picket fence.
The fence gate is locked.
Suddenly, you realise that a package of expensive & fragile glassware is due any minute, but that gate is locked.
The postman suddenly arrives at the gate to deliver this delicate & fragile package.
You quickly lean out the window & yell out to the post man:
"Mr. Postman, please leave the package back of the fence." -- because you think he will then gently place the package down on the ground right outside the fence.
Unfortunately, the postman leans over the fence & drops the package to the ground inside the fence!
You see it drop to the ground & you hear the sound of shattering glass."
What kind of skewed logic is that? You'd ask the postman to leave the package in front of the fence, outside the gate.
But, aside from all your attempts at anything remotely resembling analogy, you're still coming up lame, as far as I can denote.
-
Does anyone else have trouble reading all that bold text?
***********************************************************
"Does anyone else have trouble reading all that bold text?"
Actually, no. I happen to pen all my personal e-mails in "bold" lettering. As for the content of Bill Miller's post, I for one, am in total agreement with him, bold text, or no bold text. I think he spelled out the point quite plainly, and cleared up the relevant discrepancies involved in this post. IMHO and FWIW
-
Granted, RCD. Yet, what is the purpose of bringing up such an obviously contrived hypothesis, in the first place?
Paul is better positioned to answer that question. Presumably, he believes it. For most of us, I think, researching this crime is a process in which, when confronted with new or contradictory evidence, we are required to reassess our biases and make the necessary amendments to our thoughts and conclusions. What Paul believes today may change in time, as it has for me and, I submit, just about everyone else who's entered this dark labyrinth. Only those cursed with complete certitude from the outset refuse to alter their opinions in the face of new facts.
Rigby, while seemingly quite knowledgeable with regard to other aspects pertinent to historical fact, somewhat diminishes his credibility, not for being taken seriously, mind you. But, for the necessity of delving into an area that has already been regurgitated ad nauseam, across the proverbial drawing board of JFK related research sites umpteen times, to begin with. It also leaves the question in concern "open" to deliberation, as if it had an increment of truth attached to its premises, by all and everyone from MySpace to YouTube, those most impressionable, yet least of all, "knowledgeable" on the subject, believing this kind of speculative theory as having a modicum of "weight" attached to it.
How can you expect a plausible acceptability to ever be maintained regarding the actual facts surrounding this case when you have someone as bright and respected as Rigby, dredging up unfounded and unproven allegations to be rehashed as if there were any merit left to them, at all?
The single greatest benefit of forae such as this one is that a person is free to post just about anything they wish. The single greatest disadvantage to sites such as this one is that people are free to post just about anything they wish. I am confident that in the open marketplace of ideas, those with the greatest credibility and logical heft will carry the day. Were it otherwise, this issue would have been considered "resolved" with the issuance of the Warren Report.
My only point in posting on this thread was to urge others not to blind themselves to Paul's other posts, cogent and well argued, simply because they disagree with the content of his posts on this thread. As you say, Paul is "bright and respected," and with good cause. I feel able to determine for myself which of his posts are compelling, and which are not. I credit most others here with the same ability, and encourage them to continue reading Paul's posts, even those with which they disagree, as you and I do with Paul on this issue.
*******************************************************************************
"My only point in posting on this thread was to urge others not to blind themselves to Paul's other posts, cogent and well argued, simply because they disagree with the content of his posts on this thread. As you say, Paul is "bright and respected," and with good cause. I feel able to determine for myself which of his posts are compelling, and which are not. I credit most others here with the same ability, and encourage them to continue reading Paul's posts, even those with which they disagree, as you and I do with Paul on this issue."
And, I couldn't agree with you more, RCD. That's the reason why I was so taken aback by the progression of the thread, as it seemed antithesis to his otherwise exemplary contributions to the forum. Aside from the fact that I thought it was totally out of character for him considering the exceptional research skills he had been demonstrating from the moment he joined the forum. Which inadvertently led me to believe he might have been "goofing" on us, by bringing up Greer-Kellerman issue, that's all.
-
...tracing who started [originally] such rediculous ideas and what their motives were are a good idea...discussing if the diriver had a gun, or an exploding 'whoopee cushion' or poison darts in his back brace did him in, are not. The very people who designed and maintain the cover-up play with the research community by throwing these poisoned bones to us. Digging out who started some of these might point to the cover-upers [or just some really strange loonies]. But serious discussion of this topic, I agree, does more harm than good, overall. Better spend our time on real mysteries of the day than phantom ones.
I first encountered this trope about 30 years ago, via a man named William Cooper, whose hypothesis was based on a low-quality nth generation bootlegged version of the Zfilm. It purportedly "showed" Greer offing the CinC. Cooper's premise, as best I can recall, was that Kennedy was about to reveal the truth about space aliens to the US populace, and hence had to be silenced before he could do so. If one wished to discredit JFK researchers as feeble-minded and gullible, one could do little better than Cooper's output.
A number of years ago, a fellow member of this Forum kindly provided me with a copy of the unpublished "Murder From Within," which I had often seen footnoted as a credible source in others books' bibliographies. It was, and remains, a fascinating read, meticulously detailed with facts and suppositions that were well-constructed and rather novel in the JFK research world when it was first written. It was only when it reached the cringe-worthy "Greer did it" postulation that the book went rather badly sideways. However, despite this fairly large lapse of reason, I still think the book is highly worthy of reading for all of the other details presented, and the style with which it is done.
Similarly, while I think the "Greer did it" scenario is no less silly today, I would be greatly disheartened if Paul Rigby's posts in support of this hypothesis resulted in Forum members becoming disinclined to read his other very worthwhile and insightful posts. I have learned much of value from Paul's posts on Richard Starnes - a treasure trove of critical information about the sturm and drang of early Viet Nam machinations within various compartments of the US government at the time - and other of his posts. While most here may eschew - rightly in my humble estimation - the "Greer did it" scenario that Paul favours, let us not overlook valid and valued contributions from this Forum member in other areas of research. We do ourselves no favours bandying about terms such as "lunatic" and "insane," particularly when those who do so are themselves proponents of "Castro did it" or "Madame Nhu did it" or other equally untenable scenarios.
I think Chuck Robbins hit the nail on the head with his observation:
You may criticize what others raise questions about. That is your right.
When you start in with the personal attacks and the name calling, you know...things like stupid, etc., that is not your right.
Every person who reads these threads has the faculties to determine for themselves what is nonsense, factual, theoretical, supposition or just plain fantasy.
We all have our beliefs as to what happened that day.
Wouldn't we all be better served by allowing all to voice their opinions?
How many persons keep good observations to themselves due to a fear of being ridiculed?
Who is benefitted by any decrease in communication in this situation? Think about it.
Luckily, Paul Rigby is no shrinking violet, and will continue to contribute much of value, with any luck. However, his contributions will be in vain if we summarily dismiss and ignore his most cogent observations because we vehemently disagree with only one observation we feel is spurious. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
***************************************************************************
"Luckily, Paul Rigby is no shrinking violet, and will continue to contribute much of value, with any luck. However, his contributions will be in vain if we summarily dismiss and ignore his most cogent observations because we vehemently disagree with only one observation we feel is spurious. Let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater."
Granted, RCD. Yet, what is the purpose of bringing up such an obviously contrived hypothesis, in the first place? Rigby, while seemingly quite knowledgeable with regard to other aspects pertinent to historical fact, somewhat diminishes his credibility, not for being taken seriously, mind you. But, for the necessity of delving into an area that has already been regurgitated ad nauseam, across the proverbial drawing board of JFK related research sites umpteen times, to begin with. It also leaves the question in concern "open" to deliberation, as if it had an increment of truth attached to its premises, by all and everyone from MySpace to YouTube, those most impressionable, yet least of all, "knowledgeable" on the subject, believing this kind of speculative theory as having a modicum of "weight" attached to it.
How can you expect a plausible acceptability to ever be maintained regarding the actual facts surrounding this case when you have someone as bright and respected as Rigby, dredging up unfounded and unproven allegations to be rehashed as if there were any merit left to them, at all?
-
Since the single bullet theory is the silliest theory associated with the JFK assassination (even Greer shooting JFK is physically possible, whereas the SBT isn't), I would think that that is sufficient grounds for a new investigation, no matter how many lesser known silly theories are around.
***********************************************************************
"Since the single bullet theory is the silliest theory associated with the JFK assassination (even Greer shooting JFK is physically possible, whereas the SBT isn't),"
Aside from defying the laws of physics in relation to the obviously contrived ballistic evidence, the total absurdity of the claim led me to doubt the word of the United States government for the rest of my life.
Terry Berry,
Consider yourself blessed.
In the utmost seriousness, studying the JFK assassination has been the most extraordinarily liberating experience of my life. Intellectually. Politically. Spiritually.
What a terrible price he paid for our freedom.
C
******************************************************************
"What a terrible price he paid for our freedom."
Yes, my darlin' C.D. But, what a terrible price to have to pay for opening our eyes to the reality of the extensiveness of that loss.
I will never forget the overwhelming weight I felt lifted from my shoulders upon reading Col L. Fletcher Prouty's books, and David Lifton's. Because, for the longest time I thought I must have been hallucinating what really happened. But then, these two authors "exonerated" me, for lack of a better description of how I felt. After reading their work, I just plowed into all I could find on the subject. Because, these two men, through their forensic and investigative approach to research, encouraged me to find my voice in the matter. And yes, on one hand, it was liberating, but it was also disconcerting and depressing on the other hand, to realize that those whom you would've thought you could've trusted with your life, were in all actuality the ones you had to fear the most.
Your Berry,
Terry
-
Since the single bullet theory is the silliest theory associated with the JFK assassination (even Greer shooting JFK is physically possible, whereas the SBT isn't), I would think that that is sufficient grounds for a new investigation, no matter how many lesser known silly theories are around.
***********************************************************************
"Since the single bullet theory is the silliest theory associated with the JFK assassination (even Greer shooting JFK is physically possible, whereas the SBT isn't),"
Aside from defying the laws of physics in relation to the obviously contrived ballistic evidence, the total absurdity of the claim led me to doubt the word of the United States government for the rest of my life.
-
Tim
Just to reply quickly and still continue the point that I attempted to make....
Neither you, I, the book publishers nor anyone else can even atempt to pretend to understand what is truly happening within the confines of not only the CIA but any of the "many" intelligence organizations....some of which we would not even recognize by name.
No amount of reading of the works of ANY author will ever change that. To think otherwise proves your gullibility to what they wish perceived!
Many say that "intelligence" had no inkling that the Berlin wall was going to come down. BUT...it came down !
The "cold war" was won (if there is such a thing as a permanent "win" in these matters) as a result of the USSR's response to imagined perceptions followed by unecessary attempted reactions.
This Tim is what intelligence and counter intelligence is all about. It is about winning,
without being observed and acknowledged as a "winner".
American fotball players are "credited" with their teams wins over theoretically superior opponents. Most of these wins are the result of superior "scouting" of the other teams and the correct analyzation of their "Tendencies"....from which a "game plan" is formulated by the coaching staff...."the strategists". But who gets credit for the victory ? This is not a childish comparison of what occurs in real political conflict. It is very similar !
Have you ever thought that there were elements within the U.S. government that did not want Castro to be "in fact killed" ? Despite all that you "have read" ! An alive Castro may have been bait and "fodder" for a much more expansive action against the dreaded "communist menace".
Holding a high security clearance myself during this time period, I personally know that the Bay of Pigs had virtualy no effect on our defcon situation. However, the Cuban Missile Crisis brought us much closer to the Brink than many even today realize. What were the "true desires" of the joint chiefs and their various supporting intelligence sources ?
You talk of Castro's beard falling out and exploding clam shells. This is child's play designed to impress "idiots" with intelligence incompetency.
They have done their jobs quite well if you and others feel that they are a group of bumbling idiots.
These "bumbling idiots" were primarily responsible for a successful Coup d' Etat in the worlds image of THE truly successful "free and democratic" government.
Since you mentioned it...9 / 11 may have been the most important intelligence coup ever !
Successful intelligence operation has nothing to do with the "wishes" of you, I, or the masses.
To think so indicates the height of naivete !
I am condoning "Nothing" that they have done. I am merely "Realizing It ".
Many need to awaken to reality ! Reality is often "very ugly" !
Charles Black
*********************************************************************
"Many need to awaken to reality ! Reality is often "very ugly" !"
But, I think you may be overlooking one other "ugly reality" in this case, and that's "money."
You don't necessarily need to be, nor for that matter claim to be, the "brightest and the best," when you've got the monetary resources to pay for it. Consider, for instance, that people such as, G.W. were able to secure their Ivy League degrees in their name, on their grandfather and great-grandfather's alumni support of Yale University. Another case in point is Ronald Reagan, who wouldn't have gotten as far as he did without the support of the Walter Annendales. And, where does the C.I.A. send their recruiters during the final semesters of these graduate and post-graduate universities? Only to the supposedly, "brightest and the best," of the ivy leaguers, where you have to be "from" money in order to attend, that is, if you haven't been blessed with the "real" intelligence needed to secure a scholarship.
Bottom line, those who stood to lose the most were the one's holding the most. The bankers and the oil corporations. They're eternally intertwined with the MIC, the Brown & Roots, nee Halliburtons, their Blackwater subsidiary spin-offs, and the construction companies, such as Webb and Knapp, and Mandeville, to name a couple who profited during the Vietnam debacle. And, a multitude of other, reorganized, or now defunct, companies, who thrive on war-related industries. And, what source of energy drives the war machine? OIL. And, where are all those government contracts secured, along with the collateral obtained, in order to purchase the equipment, which runs on this commodity, as well as the manpower to steer it. BANKS.
As the saying on Wall Street goes, "Money talks, bullxxxx walks." And, guess under which category Operation Mockingbird lumps most researchers? "Intelligence" has next to nothing to do with it. It's merely an intimidating iconoclastic moniker employed to cow the insecure, or the low self-esteemed, of an ever-diminishing and shrinking "middle-class."
The "dumbing-down" of American, in the interim, has been an unprecedented success.
-
Oh, OK. I think I see a pattern, and it breaks down like this:
Step 1. If someone is really getting to you, start a thread about them.
If it's open, go ahead and post there. If a moderator locks it, proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Start a thread about the locked thread. Post that you know that it will eventually be locked as well as these things tend to get a bit vicious. After that thread is locked proceed to Step 3.
Step 3. Start a thread about the moderators. Be sure to question any motives, why they are doing what they are doing. Add some catchy modifiers such as ''biased', "immoderate", etc.
I do not frequent the PC board,and 1/2 the time am not really familiar with any poster's MO. Many of us do not read all threads. We are not looking for substance, but are concerned as to how it is said. Intervention isn't usually done unless the problem has become extreme. We have no idea there is a problem, in some cases,until someone send us a PM.
And Peter, I am not clear on the 98% moderator response--it that just a figure of speech?
I assure you that each PM we receive is discussed. Some are venting, and some are questioning, and some are reporting. We do not publish them. There is no need to. Most people desire anonymity in these matters.
Kathy Beckett
That seems a fairly accurate account of what happens. Like Andy I have been on holiday (we did not advertise the fact as that usually results in a "denial of service" attack). As I have fairly strong views on the subjects we discuss, I have tried to withdraw myself from the role of moderator. In my opinion they do a great job. They were selected for this thankless task because of the way they have conducted themselves on the forum. So far, I have had no difficulty in agreeing with the decisions that they have made.
John's back! Welcome back.
*************************************************************************
"Welcome back Andy."
"John's back! Welcome back."
Hey Myra, you're starting to sound like "the hostess with the mostest."
-
Oh, OK. I think I see a pattern, and it breaks down like this:
Step 1. If someone is really getting to you, start a thread about them.
If it's open, go ahead and post there. If a moderator locks it, proceed to Step 2.
Step 2. Start a thread about the locked thread. Post that you know that it will eventually be locked as well as these things tend to get a bit vicious. After that thread is locked proceed to Step 3.
Step 3. Start a thread about the moderators. Be sure to question any motives, why they are doing what they are doing. Add some catchy modifiers such as ''biased', "immoderate", etc.
I do not frequent the PC board,and 1/2 the time am not really familiar with any poster's MO. Many of us do not read all threads. We are not looking for substance, but are concerned as to how it is said. Intervention isn't usually done unless the problem has become extreme. We have no idea there is a problem, in some cases,until someone send us a PM.
And Peter, I am not clear on the 98% moderator response--it that just a figure of speech?
I assure you that each PM we receive is discussed. Some are venting, and some are questioning, and some are reporting. We do not publish them. There is no need to. Most people desire anonymity in these matters.
Kathy Beckett
***************************************************************
"Most people desire anonymity in these matters."
I despise these passive-aggressive types who think nothing of stabbing people in the back because they themselves, lack the balls, or are too goddamned lazy to put forth an intelligent retort to something that got their nose out of joint, in the first place. Shoot your best shot, and if it results in you getting a few lumps because of it, counter with everything you've got that is beyond a shadow of a doubt, meaning hard copy evidence, and let the chips fall where they may. Least of all, refrain from getting into a pissing match with those who think and reply from a thirteen-year-old's P.O.V. Otherwise, you end up looking and sounding like a bunch of sissies. IMHO
-
No weapons were seen by anyone...
Not sure that's true, Peter...
5. Hugh Betzner, Jr. told the Dallas County Sheriffs Office that he "saw what looked like a fire-cracker going off in the President's car and recall seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in or somewhere immediately around the President's car," 19WCH467.And as for this objection...
...and don't ya think Jackie must might have mentioned it...If you've seen Jackie's full testimony, you're a very privileged soul. Care to share its location(s)?
- or Mrs C or even JC.....JC thought so much of the SS he wouldn't let it near him in 1980. Actions speak louder than words. As for members of the US elite engaging in self-censorship, that's agreeably easy to demonstrate.
...or photo would have seen such a weapon?The film record's a rank fake, with one important exception.
Your right you have a long row to hoe with that one......There's a spaceship at my disposal, don't you know, so distance is no object. And after visiting Planet Knoll (north & south poles), I can confirm there's not a sign of intelligent life...
**************************************************************
Well I, for one, cannot believe this thread has come this far.
The idea of Greer and Kellerman being party to a shoot-out occurring in the limo at Greer's hand is, and for all intents and purposes, remains the most preposterous idea to come down the pike regarding the assassination, to date.
It's just this kind of asinine speculation that libels our asses into being regarded as nothing more than cannon fodder for the likes of the Bugliosis', the Posners', and the McAdams' white-washers.
Who the hell ever thought up such a ridiculous concept and why, is beyond me.
As has been stated, Jackie, Connelly, Nellie, Moorman, Hill, not to mention those closest to the limo as it was passing, would've seen something, or caught it on film. Instead, what we have is idle speculation, or hallucinations brought about by some wise-guy thinking he sees a flash he would love to prove to be muzzle-fire from a pistol, when in reality the flash of light is coming off a piece of metal either on the windshield or the roll bar of the vehicle.
I can't believe we've degenerated down into this form of muck and mire at this stage of the game.
Terry;
It is not unlike the claim that the SS Agent in the followup car shot JFK, as well as the "who's buried in Oswald's grave" BS.
All that those who are truly responsible for obscurring the facts have to do is to bring up some completely asinine theory/idea, and there are those who jump onto the bandwagon and proclaim it's validity.
Which happens to make/paint all who question the WC to appear as co-participants in the games of fools.
Therein lies the absolute reasons why no government body is likely to ever take a serious look at the JFK matter again.
And the more that the fools yell, the less likely any other dedicated investigation would appear, and any valid reasons for a new investigation are lost among the rants and ravings of fools.
If one is a fool, then they are a fool. Irrelevant as to whether a LN fool who actually believes the WC, or a CT fool who chases body kidnappers and/or SS assassins in the Presidential Limo.
******************************************************************
"And the more that the fools yell, the less likely any other dedicated investigation would appear, and any valid reasons for a new investigation are lost among the rants and ravings of fools."
What one might call, a "Ship Of Fools." Or, a xxxxload of fools, actually.
It's hot as hell here in L.A. today, Purv. How's the weather back in your neck of the woods.?
-
Well I, for one, cannot believe this thread has come this far.
The idea of Greer and Kellerman being party to a shoot-out occurring in the limo at Greer's hand is, and for all intents and purposes, remains the most preposterous idea to come down the pike regarding the assassination, to date.
It's just this kind of asinine speculation that libels our asses into being regarded as nothing more than cannon fodder for the likes of the Bugliosis', the Posners', and the McAdams' white-washers.
Who the hell ever thought up such a ridiculous concept and why, is beyond me.
As has been stated, Jackie, Connelly, Nellie, Moorman, Hill, not to mention those closest to the limo as it was passing, would've seen something, or caught it on film. Instead, what we have is idle speculation, or hallucinations brought about by some wise-guy thinking he sees a flash he would love to prove to be muzzle-fire from a pistol, when in reality the flash of light is coming off a piece of metal either on the windshield or the roll bar of the vehicle.
I can't believe we've degenerated down into this form of muck and mire at this stage of the game.
By happy coincidence, I took receipt yesterday of the editions of The Minority of One which more or less complete my collection. (Ah, the wonders of ebay...) Flicking through them late last night I came across the following letter from a Chicago-based gentleman named Harry Zitzler. Shrewd guy, Harry:
“My own personal experience in such groups taught me that dissenters are frequently only inverted conformists…That is to say, he desperately wants popularity, attention (& sometimes even prestige) so that while he is willing to fight an unpopular cause, he struggles for personal popularity within the band of common dissidents…The result is that…the dissenter takes over the tactics and procedures of those he opposes.”Harry Zitzler, “From Readers Letters: The Conforming Dissidents,” The Minority of One, May 1962, (Vol 4, No 5 [30]), p.15:
**************************************************************************
“My own personal experience in such groups taught me that dissenters are frequently only inverted conformists…That is to say, he desperately wants popularity, attention (& sometimes even prestige) so that while he is willing to fight an unpopular cause, he struggles for personal popularity within the band of common dissidents…The result is that…the dissenter takes over the tactics and procedures of those he opposes.”
Is that what you really think of researchers, Paul? As a "band of common dissidents, "fighting an unpopular cause?" I would much rather describe those of us who really give a damn, as more like a band of patriots attempting to extract the truth about a black mark that occurred in our political arena and on our society, to the dis-clusion of those "common" people for whom the vote was supposed to have meant something.
We've sure learned a helluvalot about the way this government has been usurped by those who hold the purse strings, and have had a stranglehold on them since 1913, with their establishment of a Federal Reserve, which in all actuality, had nothing "federal," whatsoever involved with it. We've seen and learned about how just one person trying to make a difference, and by that, I mean trying to run this show according to the Constitution upon which this country was built, can be gunned down, in cold blood, at high noon, in front of thousands of people, just so those people who hold those purse-strings might be able to drive their point home to us, and let us know "who's really in charge, here."
And, when we started protesting, and tried to revolt against the tyrannical choke hold they had on us, they proceeded to assassinate our heroes, one by one. Then, they set out to discredit any who were bold enough to speak their mind out in a rage against their machine. Character assassination came into vogue because it was becoming obvious that all this blood-letting going on in the American heartland might lead a trail right back to the perpetrators sitting in the White House, then, as well as today.
You see, Paul. There is no democracy here in America. It was killed by the same fascistic Wall Street, Dixiecratic, oil-profiteering, laissez faire, corporate oligarch that will never be toppled from the marbled halls of U.S. governance, ever again. At least, not without another bloody Revolutionary Civil War action taking place with the common citizens leading the charge. And, what chance of a snowball in hell, does that have when you've got the majority of the populace dumbed down to the level of a thirteen-year-old's mentality, addicted to gas-guzzling SUV's, cellphones literally attached to their ears like hearing aides, who could give a rat's ass about what's happening in Iraq, or any other part of the world, since simple Geography is no longer considered relevant to the core of their high school curriculum.
Tell me something, Paul. Where do you hail from? I haven't bothered to check. It must be the U.K. Maybe you are a genius at satire. But, I seriously don't think what happened to America is anything to joke, or laugh about. Ever.
-
Greer is guilty.
Guilty of breaking SS protocol.
He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!
He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.
Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?
Of course it is natural to think he may of paniced & give him the benefit of the doubt, it also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compasion in there questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man.
Slowing down to let Hill on the back of the limo.
Now isn't it strange he never used that as an excuse in his testimony?
How could he have not thought of that one?
A classic mistake.
It is as obvious as seeing the head-shot itself that the last thing Greer wanted was Clint Hill on the back of his vehicle.
It was not Greer's responsibility anyway for allowing agents on the back of the limo it was Roberts & he told all the agents in the follow-up car to remain where they were at the start of the shooting.
I mean, with the motorcycles pulled back, all the pressmen out of the way & the bubbletop off after all these warnings of threats the SS received doesn't that suggest to you that there was some amount of inside planning for this murder?
Anyway, Greer was much more than a limo driver that day & you only have to read Vince Palamara's detailed research to know that.
Common sense cannot prove his guilt or innocence.
I think it's common sense that the Secret Service were greatly involved that day & if they really were, then Greer became essential & him hitting the brakes at that time makes him as guilty as hell.
I bet Kellerman wanted to strangle him.
***************************************************************************
"Greer is guilty.
Guilty of breaking SS protocol.
He should of been sacked for slowing down the limo to less than 10 mile an hour let alone a near stop!
He should of been sacked for ignoring his superiors command "to get them out of there" & instead just stare at his chief in the back seat until he was dead.
Who would of employed him as a driver after that anyway?
Of course it is natural to think he may of panicked & give him the benefit of the doubt, it's also natural for investigators of a murder to show no compassion in their questioning of people who made mistakes that almost certainly lead to the death of a man."
There should be nothing "natural" about protecting a chief of state such as the POTUS. Anything "natural" about it, might leave a large margin of error for a likely catastrophe to occur. In this case specifically, men such as Greer were "supposed" to be have been trained, at least on the equivalent level of what SWAT Teams, or DELTA Force teams were trained to do, wouldn't you think? There should have been no quarter for something such as "panic" to have been booked as an excuse for having left the POTUS at risk for having his head blown off, while one slowed to a stop to look over his shoulder. What the hell was Kellerman supposed to be riding shot-gun for, if not the specific purpose of taking in a 360 degree perimeter of everything going on around that limo for a minimum of 100 yards within eye shot. Greer's job was to drive, and peel out of there the minute he even heard so much as a firecracker go off. This should have been instinctual, on his part. He should have been well-trained and well-versed in diversionary tactics, as part of the qualifications required to drive a presidential limousine.
Shoulda', woulda', coulda'...
-
No weapons were seen by anyone...
Not sure that's true, Peter...
5. Hugh Betzner, Jr. told the Dallas County Sheriffs Office that he "saw what looked like a fire-cracker going off in the President's car and recall seeing what looked like a nickel revolver in someone's hand in or somewhere immediately around the President's car," 19WCH467.And as for this objection...
...and don't ya think Jackie must might have mentioned it...If you've seen Jackie's full testimony, you're a very privileged soul. Care to share its location(s)?
- or Mrs C or even JC.....JC thought so much of the SS he wouldn't let it near him in 1980. Actions speak louder than words. As for members of the US elite engaging in self-censorship, that's agreeably easy to demonstrate.
...or photo would have seen such a weapon?The film record's a rank fake, with one important exception.
Your right you have a long row to hoe with that one......There's a spaceship at my disposal, don't you know, so distance is no object. And after visiting Planet Knoll (north & south poles), I can confirm there's not a sign of intelligent life...
**************************************************************
Well I, for one, cannot believe this thread has come this far.
The idea of Greer and Kellerman being party to a shoot-out occurring in the limo at Greer's hand is, and for all intents and purposes, remains the most preposterous idea to come down the pike regarding the assassination, to date.
It's just this kind of asinine speculation that libels our asses into being regarded as nothing more than cannon fodder for the likes of the Bugliosis', the Posners', and the McAdams' white-washers.
Who the hell ever thought up such a ridiculous concept and why, is beyond me.
As has been stated, Jackie, Connelly, Nellie, Moorman, Hill, not to mention those closest to the limo as it was passing, would've seen something, or caught it on film. Instead, what we have is idle speculation, or hallucinations brought about by some wise-guy thinking he sees a flash he would love to prove to be muzzle-fire from a pistol, when in reality the flash of light is coming off a piece of metal either on the windshield or the roll bar of the vehicle.
I can't believe we've degenerated down into this form of muck and mire at this stage of the game.
-
Nobody apparently did a lot of research to debunk my theory. JFK had announced his opposition to parochial aid BEFORE the 1960 election so his position as POTUS on the issue could hardly be considered a "doublecross". JFK probably had to oppose parochial aid to prove that the Catholic Church would not dictate policies to him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re David Ferrie and the Old Catholic Church of America, there was a man connected to the investigation of the assassination of RFK who had ties to that same group. Most of you probably remember that story.
+++++++++++++
TIM , THe 1963 POPE was a informant for OSS man JJA in WWII. Now the intel services monitored the RAT LINE that got some hot NAZI's out of Europe. Mark AARONS and John LOFTUS both stated (in the later 1998 edition of UNholy Trinity) that the Church ran the RAT LINE for MONEY. JJA was in position to blackmail the Church.... Wasnt 63 POPE part of RATLINE ?? .... so maybe what you call playfull stimulation "is" a diversion . (Willfull or not). Now everything Ive read of the LIMO driver calls him a strong-strong Catholic...maybe the POPE allowed lower Church officials to be recruited by CIA. Gollly TIM who would think CIA-Church could work together ...right ? .... TO recruit limo driver might be an easy job. +++ JFKs playboy nature will destroy the Church (or something similar)+++As you may know TIM , this 63 Pope not really a 'good' guy...he issued order (secret) saying that any Church offical helping a child molestation case with people outside the church would be excommunicated. FOR MANY PEOPLE JJA IS SUSPECT NUMERO UNO in the DALLAS murder case. THANKS PLAYFULL TIM sg
ps I believe this secret order came out because of the recent BOSTON cases.
*********************************************************************
TIM , The 1963 POPE was a informant for OSS man JJA in WWII."
I believe you're referring to Pope Pius XII, Steve. He was the one who squirreled away the works of art, family jewels, and valuable antiquities belonging to the Jews Hitler was "liquidating" in Aushwitz and Bergen-Belsen. He hid them down in the catacombs beneath the streets of Rome until the war was over, after which they could be "laundered" through the banks of Switzerland.
-
This week, congressional Democrats vowed to investigate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of himself. Gonzales has said he was not involved in the discussions about his firing and that it was "performance-based," but he couldn't recall the specifics.
From "Human Events".
*******************************************************************
"...congressional Democrats vowed to investigate Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' firing of himself..."
He must be a pretty good judge of character, wouldn't you say?
)
)
The 3 Men on the Steps
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
******************************************************************
Bill,
According to you I’m a Fake, Mark Chapman look-a-like, xxxxx, Nutter and a set up man for a prank. Call me what you want… it doesn’t bother me!! Can we end this thread??
It wasn't according to Bill, it was according to me! You're an insufferable baiter and switcher, and if you think you're going to continue to carry on like some loose cannon around here, you've got another thing coming. We're ALL on to you and your happy group of trolling dwarfs. You and your cohorts can carry on with your insults and condescending diatribe, but after all the smoke has cleared [no pun intended] I'm sure the membership will be more than aware of your particular brand of hijinx. Sooner or later you're going to find yourselves, doing just that, talking to yourselves. Because, no one's going to want to stand around and listen to your half-baked attempts at pseudo logistics and skewed analogy. What a crock!
Can we end this thread? By all means.
Kathy, lock it down, right NOW!