Terry Mauro
-
Posts
1,791 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Terry Mauro
-
-
Last night I received an email from Google that E. Howard Hunt had died. (Google let me know on a daily basis any article that is published on the CIA). I then did a search to discover how the American press was reporting his death. Virtually every newspaper carried the same article provided by the AP.
These newspapers reported that in June, 1995, Hunt filed for bankruptcy protection from his creditors. They did not explain why he was so short of money.
Before the internet we would have to accept the version of events being portrayed by the media. Now we can use search-engines to find out about characters like E. Howard Hunt. Wikipedia is first and my page on Hunt is second. His own website is third. The Wikipedia account of Hunt is very similar to the one provided by AP (maybe that is where they got it from).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._Howard_Hunt
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntH.htm
There is a very good reason why the newspapers, Wikipedia and Hunt's own website do not explain why he went bankrupt in 1995. In August, 1978, Victor Marchetti published an article about the assassination of John F. Kennedy in the liberty Lobby newspaper, Spotlight. In the article Marchetti argued that the House Special Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) had obtained a 1966 CIA memo that revealed that E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis and Gerry Patrick Hemming had been involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. Marchetti's article also included a story that Marita Lorenz had provided information on this plot. Later that month Joseph Trento and Jacquie Powers wrote a similar story for the Sunday News Journal.
The HSCA did not publish this CIA memo linking its agents to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Hunt now decided to take legal action against the Liberty Lobby and in December, 1981, he was awarded $650,000 in damages. Liberty Lobby appealed to the United States Court of Appeals. It was claimed that Hunt's attorney, Ellis Rubin, had offered a clearly erroneous instruction as to the law of defamation. The three-judge panel agreed and the case was retried. This time Mark Lane defended the Liberty Lobby against Hunt's action.
Lane eventually discovered Marchetti’s sources. The main source was William Corson. It also emerged that Marchetti had also consulted James Angleton and Alan J. Weberman before publishing the article. As a result of obtaining of getting depositions from David Atlee Phillips, Richard Helms, G. Gordon Liddy, Stansfield Turner and Marita Lorenz, plus a skillful cross-examination by Lane of Hunt, the jury decided in January, 1995, that Marchetti had not been guilty of libel when he suggested that John F. Kennedy had been assassinated by people working for the CIA. It was this virtually unreported court case that resulted in Hunt’s bankruptcy.
The newspapers mentioned that Hunt’s memoirs were to be published in March, 2007. They did not say what Hunt will argue in the book. It includes a claim that Lyndon Baines Johnson might have been involved in ordering the assassination of John F. Kennedy. "Having Kennedy liquidated, thus elevating himself to the presidency without having to work for it himself, could have been a very tempting and logical move on Johnson's part. LBJ had the money and the connections to manipulate the scenario in Dallas and is on record as having convinced JFK to make the appearance in the first place. He further tried unsuccessfully to engineer the passengers of each vehicle, trying to get his good buddy, Gov. (John) Connolly, to ride with him instead of in JFK's car - where... he would have been out of danger."
Hunt suggests that senior CIA official, William K. Harvey could have been involved in the plot to kill Kennedy: "Harvey was a ruthless man who was not satisfied with his position in the CIA and its government salary... He definitely had dreams of becoming (CIA director) and LBJ could do that for him if he were president.... (LBJ) would have used Harvey because he was available and corrupt."
The newspapers also reported that Hunt’s wife Dorothy had died in a plane accident on 8th December, 1972. Also on the plane with Dorothy Hunt was Michelle Clark, a journalist working for CBS. According to Sherman Skolnick, Clark was working on a story on the Watergate case: "Ms Clark had lots of insight into the bugging and cover-up through her boyfriend, a CIA operative."
As Lalo J. Gastriani, pointed out in the Fair Play Magazine (November, 1994):
It was at 2:29 p.m. on Friday, December 8, 1972, during the height of the Watergate scandal that United Airlines flight 553 crashed just outside of Chicago during a landing approach to Midway Airport. Initial reports indicated that the plane had some sort of engine trouble when it descended from the clouds. But the odd thing about this crash is what happened after the plane went down. Witnesses living in the working-class neighborhood in which the plane crashed said that moments after impact, a battalion of plainclothes operatives in unmarked cars parked on side streets pounced on the crash-site. These so-called 'FBI types' took control of the scene and immediately began sifting through the wreckage looking for something. At least one survivor recognized a "rescue worker" - clad in overalls sifting through wreckage - as an operative of the CIA.
One day after the crash, the Whitehouse head of Nixon's "plumber's" outfit - Egil Krogh, Jr. - was made undersecretary of transportation, a position that put him in a direct position to oversee the National Transportation Safety Board and the Federal Aviation Agency which are both authorized by law to investigate airline crashes. Krogh would later be convicted of complicity in the break-in of Daniel Ellsberg's Psychiatrist's office along with Hunt, Liddy and a small cast of CIA-trained and retained Cuban black-bag specialists...
Ostensibly traveling with Mrs. Hunt on flight 553 was CBS news corespondent Michelle Clark who, rumor had it, had learned from her sources that the Hunts were about to spill the proverbial beans regarding the Nixon whitehouse and its involvement in the Watergate burglary; Clark also died in the crash.
A large sum of money (between $10,000 and $100,000) was found amid the wreckage in the possession of Mrs. Hunt. It was during this time that Dorothy Hunt was traveling around the country paying off operatives and witnesses in the Watergate operation with money her husband had extorted from Nixon via his counsel, John Dean. Hunt had threatened Nixon and Dean with exposing the nature of all the sordid deeds he had done.
Could it be that the fuel for Hunt's blackmail of the president had little to do with the so-called "third-rate burglary" of the Democratic headquarters? Could it have had more to do with the fate of John F. Kennedy and of Nixon's awareness of who was really behind the planning and deployment of his demise? In the Watergate tapes, Nixon displays a malignant paranoia to his chief-of-staff, H. R. Haldeman, concerning E. Howard Hunt and the Bay of Pigs operation. He decides to use this paranoia to force the CIA to help cover up the Watergate affair.
******************************************************************
"The newspapers mentioned that Hunt’s memoirs were to be published in March, 2007. They did not say what Hunt will argue in the book. It includes a claim that Lyndon Baines Johnson might have been involved in ordering the assassination of John F. Kennedy. "Having Kennedy liquidated, thus elevating himself to the presidency without having to work for it himself, could have been a very tempting and logical move on Johnson's part. LBJ had the money and the connections to manipulate the scenario in Dallas and is on record as having convinced JFK to make the appearance in the first place. He further tried unsuccessfully to engineer the passengers of each vehicle, trying to get his good buddy, Gov. (John) Connolly, to ride with him instead of in JFK's car - where... he would have been out of danger." "
That cinches it for me. Operation Mockingbird's ["The newspapers...claim...LBJ might have been involved"] pure, unadulterated bullxxxx! ["Having Kennedy liquidated...a very tempting and logical move..."] And, still fomenting their same successful ploy at disseminating disinformation to the masses of dumbed-down Bush voters, who've helped to make this country the great bastion of assholes it's become today. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Too bad he couldn't have been strung up by his nuts, first.
E.H. HUNT, MAY HE ROT IN HELL WHERE HE BELONGS!!!
-
Hi Terry,
Happy birthday. I didn't get the chance to call you today I'm afraid. I was in work until 7 and the nspent the last few hours preparing for my trip to London tomorrow. I had to book a different hostel this time around as the one I usually stay in (located ight beside the venue where we meet) is booked out. I had to get the London tube map out, which isn't all that much fun.
If any time next week or next weekend suits, just let me know.
All the best,
John
****************************************************
Thanks, John.
You name it, and I'll claim it. BTW, did you get the PM I sent you from this forum?
And, like I always tell Dawnie, don't sweat the nickle/dime stuff. Whenever we get the time, is going to be the right time. I'm glad you're making it over to London, though. Will you be anywhere near Griggs, or Simkin?
In any event, be sure to take some pictures and post them when you get back.
Bon Voyage and have a ball!
Ter
-
Mr. FRAZIER - I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.
Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the fragments first, what did your examination disclose?
Mr. FRAZIER - We found three small lead particles lying on the rug in the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in the area which would be underneath the left jump seat.
Mr. SPECTER - Have those particles been identified during the course of your prior testimony?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; they have not?
Mr. SPECTER - Will you produce them at this time then, please? May we assign to this group of
particles Commission Exhibit No. 840?
Mr. DULLES - These have not been discussed before, have they?
Mr. SPECTER - They have not.
Mr. DULLES - It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 840.
(Commission Exhibit No. 840 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?
Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tentahs of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments.
Mr. SPECTER - Has that comparison been made with a whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399 which in of her proceedings has been identified as the bullet from the Connally stretcher?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; the comparison was made by comparing Exhibit 399 with a bullet fragment found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine and then comparing that fragment with these fragments from the rear seat of the automobile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly glad that everyone was not, again, watching!
Assume:
1. CE399 is item "A".
2. Bullet fragment found in front seat of automobile is item "B".
3. Three separate fragments found in left rear floor/under jumpseat is item "C".
Now, "A" was compared to "B", and "B" was thereafter compared to "C" (which actually had three components).
The comparing of "A" which was a virtually intact bullet, with almost half of another bullet which was found in the front seat was certainly an item which would tell us something.
Of course, all that one has to do is look at the two items and apply the old common sense to know that little is served by comparison of "A" to "B", since they quite obviously have no bearing one each other.
Lastly, although comparing "B" (large fragment from front seat) with "C" (3 fragments from left rear floor/under jump seat) is admirable, one would think that comparing "B" to "C1" and then comparing "B" to "C2" and then comparing "B" to "C3" would have a proper means of evaluation of the evidence.
And, when one considers ALL of the evidence, which includes:
Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.
Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?
Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK! So a logical person would assume that as an "entity", CE 840 COULD NOT have come from CE399.
However, CE840 is not a SINGLE ENTITY!
It WAS in fact three separate fragments of lead which weighed respectively, "nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively".
In that, one should also notice that Specter & Company did not bother to ask the seemingly and logical question, were it possible or likely that ANY ONE of the three fragments contained in CE840 may have come from CE399?
And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?
A most pertinent question when ALL circumstances are taken into consideration.
**********************************************************
"Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains."
"Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing."
But, you can bet your sweet bippy that Dulles and Specter would add that 158.6 grains to the 2.3 grains and conclude that it all added up to 160.9 grains, rounded it off to 161 grains and Voila! It came from the "magic bullet. No?
"And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?"
Exactomundo! Like, show me what chemical analysis was made, at what time, and on what date, between the copper-cladded lead contained in CE399, with respect to the lead in EACH AND EVERY FRAGMENT of CE840. Even if it came down to Carbon 14 dating of the samples of CE399 and CE 840. Prove that those fragments were made from the exact same batch and control number. What kind of an oversight was that, to assume and document without having gone through the steps involved in the performance of basic forensic protocol? Even if they were to prove a match.? At least quantify it, qualify it, and document it. Was that ever done?
Was that ever done
Actually, it was!
I am still digging for some of the information necessary to continue with this topic, however.
In my multiple discussions with FBI Agent John Gallagher, we discussed his NAA work quite extensively.
* It is unknown as to whether Agent Gallagher is or is not still living. His home was in Beltsville, MD and his telephone number was 301-937-2167.
Just in case anyone wants to actually attempt to get "first-hand" information.
Agent Gallagher and I had, one might say, a little "extra" in common.
This was a result of my having once toured the facilities at Oak Ridge, my Nuclear Weapons backgound, supervision of a lab which conducted destructive flame spectrographic analysis; and the old "Purvis" name and Melvin Purvis kinship.
Therefore, I honestly believe everything which John Gallagher told me.
(but them too, I am obviously gullible enough to believe in a "Lone Assassin" also.)
Gallagher, (according to him) ran NAA comparison data on everything which was provided.
The problem here being two items.
1. Due to the number of comparisons run, he could not honestly recall exactly how many fragments were tested and compared with either CE399 or with the lead fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential Limousine.
He knew that he had run NAA on multiple fragments which reportedly included fragments removed from JBC's wrist; fragments removed from JFK's head; and fragments found inside the vehicle.
But, he had no way of recalling exactly how many of what was tested and compared.
Nevertheless, the data was all insufficient in which to draw a conclusion anyway.
Back in 1963, there were none of the wonderful hand-held computers which we now take for granted. And, those of us who are old enough, recognize that "Slide Rule" was a pre-requisite course for all engineering majors.
And, any one who has ever taken "Slide Rule" is fully aware that it's "interpolation" is frequently a BEST GUESS!
According to Gallagher, the NAA numbers were of such small decimal equivelants that the only way to effectively work with them was through the usage of logarithm functions and the slide rule.
Both of which (& I fully recognized and understood) induced a margin of error for which one could not account for.
With this information, Agent Gallagher explained that even though there were some differences in the lead samples which he had subjected to NAA, that the differences were in fact so small, and with the induced errors as a result of utilization of slide rules, etc;, that none of the lead fragments could absolutely be tied directly to any other lead fragments.
This appears to be basically where Frazier gets his statement:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. FRAZIER - That examination was performed by a spectrographer, John F. Gallagher, and I do not have the results of his examinations here, although I did ascertain that it was determined that the lead fragments were similar in composition.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, after some goodly long distance telephone bills, it was found that even had the true NAA data been given and presented, it is unlikely that at the time in the science/math world, that we would have been able to state anything definitely in regards to comparison.
And, without Gallagher's full test reports, one can not even state exactly what fragments were tested, and as all who have sudied this matter are aware, there is considerable discrepancies in the weight accountability for all of these fragments as received by the HSCA and later when accurate NAA was conducted on the "REMAINING" fragments.
Tom
P.S. I was "cut" out of slide rule class due to skipping/cutting class to attend Mardi Gras in NO, which I made it a point to never miss.
One most definitely must have his priorities in life well defined as to what is and what is not important.
***********************************************************
"P.S. I was "cut" out of slide rule class due to skipping/cutting class to attend Mardi Gras in NO, which I made it a point to never miss."
I still have my old slide rule from my SUNY Trig class in 1962. It was almost a foot long. Then, when I started in Nuclear in 1976 there was a smaller model out that was half the size of my 1962 model. Luckily, Texas Instruments came out with their first handheld calculator, with its forerunner of the red LCD, just in time for us to sit for the ARRT (N) boards, otherwise I'd have been xxxx outta luck, as that saying goes.
Yep, miss one class in any college math program and you'll end up playing "catch-up" for the rest of the term. Miss two or three and you might as well sign up and audit the class for the rest of the semester. Then re-enroll for it before the next class fills up. I did that once for a class in statistics I was enrolled in, saved my notes and started over the next semester. Was finally able to understand the principles of permutations and managed to get somewhat of a fair grasp of the null hypothesis. But, what is statistics, really? An educated guess to the random nature of things? The ability to eyeball millions of small events occurring along a certain parameter and estimate a ballpark figure as to how many may have, in fact, occurred, or are expected to occur if certain conditions are met, or not met? And, 3.179 will help you figure out the answer to the "nth" degree, which is the only certainty that remains the same.
-
"Re: To Terry who has "The True Life Story of Will Purvis" - Rosemary Purvis-
Lesher 5/15/06"
Now, I'll be darned if I didn't just read a last name like that one in the "Miami" link back there?
This is getting more interesting by the minute, Purv. Thanks.
Ter
-
James;
Was attempting to respond and got bumped off line.
The "Smathers" connection is an important one as it takes an individual who was extremely close to JFK, to the extent of apparantly been involved in some of the "women parties", and thereafter ultimately makes the direct connections to such as William Pawley as well as the "automatic vending" connection.
http://www.lagorcecc.com/fw/main/History-2.html
1945: The “New” La Gorce is born
Within 24 hours the “old” La Gorce Country Club was to be sold to real estate developers and a colorful era in Miami Beach was about to close. But that did not occur because several civic-minded men quickly raised $1 million and purchased the club. It was April 1945, and the “new” La Gorce was born; a colorful era was underway.
Among those leaders were former Governor James Cox, William Pawley, Frank Smathers, Hugh Purvis, Paul Scott, George Sally, Carl Fisher, Arthur Pancoast, Van Kussrow, Dan Mahoney, James Buchanan, Oscar Dooly, and of course, Dr. John Oliver La Gorce.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among this grouping we find:
1. Frank Smathers
2. George Sally:-------------------------------Top lawyer for the sugar industry.
3. James Cox:-----Former Governor and and co-involvment in the Talisman Sugar Company Land of which Pawley was involved and of which was later sold to the US Government in order that the american taxpayers could pay for the environmental cleanup left behind by the sugar industry.
http://www.miamibeachfl.gov/NEWCITY/DEPTS/...oto_gallery.asp
Circa 1925 - B&W photo taken on the deck on the old Roman Pools, 23rd Street and the Ocean, showing George Smathers, chairman of the board of the First National Bank in the 1960s, and his brother George, U.S. Senator at that time. Left to right are Frank Smathers, Lillian Eberwine, Billie Hutchinson, Charles “Tiny” Gound, Warren Locke, George Smathers, Ann Booker and Stanley Pederday.B&W photo taken on the deck on the old Roman Pools, 23rd Street and the Ocean, showing George Smathers, chairman of the board of the First National Bank in the 1960s, and his brother George, U.S. Senator at that time. Left to right are Frank Smathers, Lillian Eberwine, Billie Hutchinson, Charles “Tiny” Gound, Warren Locke, George Smathers, Ann Booker and Stanley Pederday.
Now!
Were there any way to make a direct tie between good ole George "D" and the Polo Club of La Gorce, then one just may have come up with something of importance.
**************************************************************
"Among those leaders were former Governor James Cox, William Pawley, Frank Smathers, Hugh Purvis, Paul Scott, George Sally, Carl Fisher, Arthur Pancoast, Van Kussrow, Dan Mahoney, James Buchanan, Oscar Dooly, and of course, Dr. John Oliver La Gorce."
Hey Purv,
That name I bolded up there, has a familiar ring to it. Anybody we might know?
Curiously,
Ter
Nah!
They are about like them damn rats. Keep showing up all over the place:
In LHO's notebook; in association with William D. Pawley; and here on this forum attempting to confuse everyone with the facts.
Note: See Medal of Honor Winner "Hugh Purvis" and or the USS Hugh Purvis if you want info on the Hugh Purvis side.
They were apparantly the "good side" of the family, and unlike the hog-stealing bunch, were not chased until they ended up in Alabama; Mississippi; and Louisiana.
Since I know exactly where I was on 11/22/63, I would presume that the "Purvis" in LHO's notebook is most probably one of the New Orleans crowd (mostly from just up the road at Purvis, MS).
Or from the Texas pack, who are actually mostly a derivitive of the Louisiana crowd.
Whatever, this relative always comes to mind also.
http://www.ntx-asis10.org/Our%20Chapter.htm
Floyd Purvis, CPP 1957
1963 Floyd E. Purvis, CPP
**************************************************************
"They were apparantly the "good side" of the family, and unlike the hog-stealing bunch, were not chased until they ended up in Alabama; Mississippi; and Louisiana."
Anything else on the Mississippi and Alabama boys, Purv? Hog-stealing, huh? My Aunt Dorthy raises them in Wealty, outside of what used to be called Stepville, now known as Hanceville.
Interesting.
Ter
-
Mr. FRAZIER - I examined the car to determine whether or not there were any bullet fragments present in it, embedded in the upholstery of the back of the front seat, or whether there were any impact areas which indicated that bullets or bullet fragments struck the inside of the car.
Mr. SPECTER - With respect to the fragments first, what did your examination disclose?
Mr. FRAZIER - We found three small lead particles lying on the rug in the rear seat area. These particles were located underneath or in the area which would be underneath the left jump seat.
Mr. SPECTER - Have those particles been identified during the course of your prior testimony?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; they have not?
Mr. SPECTER - Will you produce them at this time then, please? May we assign to this group of
particles Commission Exhibit No. 840?
Mr. DULLES - These have not been discussed before, have they?
Mr. SPECTER - They have not.
Mr. DULLES - It shall be admitted as Commission Exhibit No. 840.
(Commission Exhibit No. 840 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?
Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tentahs of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments.
Mr. SPECTER - Has that comparison been made with a whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399 which in of her proceedings has been identified as the bullet from the Connally stretcher?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; the comparison was made by comparing Exhibit 399 with a bullet fragment found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine and then comparing that fragment with these fragments from the rear seat of the automobile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certainly glad that everyone was not, again, watching!
Assume:
1. CE399 is item "A".
2. Bullet fragment found in front seat of automobile is item "B".
3. Three separate fragments found in left rear floor/under jumpseat is item "C".
Now, "A" was compared to "B", and "B" was thereafter compared to "C" (which actually had three components).
The comparing of "A" which was a virtually intact bullet, with almost half of another bullet which was found in the front seat was certainly an item which would tell us something.
Of course, all that one has to do is look at the two items and apply the old common sense to know that little is served by comparison of "A" to "B", since they quite obviously have no bearing one each other.
Lastly, although comparing "B" (large fragment from front seat) with "C" (3 fragments from left rear floor/under jump seat) is admirable, one would think that comparing "B" to "C1" and then comparing "B" to "C2" and then comparing "B" to "C3" would have a proper means of evaluation of the evidence.
And, when one considers ALL of the evidence, which includes:
Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?
Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.
Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe the three pieces of metal which are contained within this vial, please?
Mr. FRAZIER - The three pieces of metal are lead. They were weighed immediately upon recovery and were found to weigh nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively. Since that time small portions have been removed for spectrographic analysis and comparison with other bullets and bullet fragments
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK! So a logical person would assume that as an "entity", CE 840 COULD NOT have come from CE399.
However, CE840 is not a SINGLE ENTITY!
It WAS in fact three separate fragments of lead which weighed respectively, "nine-tenths of a grain, seven-tenths of a grain, and seven-tenths of a grain, respectively".
In that, one should also notice that Specter & Company did not bother to ask the seemingly and logical question, were it possible or likely that ANY ONE of the three fragments contained in CE840 may have come from CE399?
And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?
A most pertinent question when ALL circumstances are taken into consideration.
**********************************************************
"Mr. FRAZIER - I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is--its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains."
"Mr. FRAZIER - Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall--2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing."
But, you can bet your sweet bippy that Dulles and Specter would add that 158.6 grains to the 2.3 grains and conclude that it all added up to 160.9 grains, rounded it off to 161 grains and Voila! It came from the "magic bullet. No?
"And if so, what testing if any was done in which a direct comparison of CE399 to EACH and every fragment contained within CE840 was done?"
Exactomundo! Like, show me what chemical analysis was made, at what time, and on what date, between the copper-cladded lead contained in CE399, with respect to the lead in EACH AND EVERY FRAGMENT of CE840. Even if it came down to Carbon 14 dating of the samples of CE399 and CE 840. Prove that those fragments were made from the exact same batch and control number. What kind of an oversight was that, to assume and document without having gone through the steps involved in the performance of basic forensic protocol? Even if they were to prove a match.? At least quantify it, qualify it, and document it. Was that ever done?
-
James;
Was attempting to respond and got bumped off line.
The "Smathers" connection is an important one as it takes an individual who was extremely close to JFK, to the extent of apparantly been involved in some of the "women parties", and thereafter ultimately makes the direct connections to such as William Pawley as well as the "automatic vending" connection.
http://www.lagorcecc.com/fw/main/History-2.html
1945: The “New” La Gorce is born
Within 24 hours the “old” La Gorce Country Club was to be sold to real estate developers and a colorful era in Miami Beach was about to close. But that did not occur because several civic-minded men quickly raised $1 million and purchased the club. It was April 1945, and the “new” La Gorce was born; a colorful era was underway.
Among those leaders were former Governor James Cox, William Pawley, Frank Smathers, Hugh Purvis, Paul Scott, George Sally, Carl Fisher, Arthur Pancoast, Van Kussrow, Dan Mahoney, James Buchanan, Oscar Dooly, and of course, Dr. John Oliver La Gorce.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among this grouping we find:
1. Frank Smathers
2. George Sally:-------------------------------Top lawyer for the sugar industry.
3. James Cox:-----Former Governor and and co-involvment in the Talisman Sugar Company Land of which Pawley was involved and of which was later sold to the US Government in order that the american taxpayers could pay for the environmental cleanup left behind by the sugar industry.
http://www.miamibeachfl.gov/NEWCITY/DEPTS/...oto_gallery.asp
Circa 1925 - B&W photo taken on the deck on the old Roman Pools, 23rd Street and the Ocean, showing George Smathers, chairman of the board of the First National Bank in the 1960s, and his brother George, U.S. Senator at that time. Left to right are Frank Smathers, Lillian Eberwine, Billie Hutchinson, Charles “Tiny” Gound, Warren Locke, George Smathers, Ann Booker and Stanley Pederday.B&W photo taken on the deck on the old Roman Pools, 23rd Street and the Ocean, showing George Smathers, chairman of the board of the First National Bank in the 1960s, and his brother George, U.S. Senator at that time. Left to right are Frank Smathers, Lillian Eberwine, Billie Hutchinson, Charles “Tiny” Gound, Warren Locke, George Smathers, Ann Booker and Stanley Pederday.
Now!
Were there any way to make a direct tie between good ole George "D" and the Polo Club of La Gorce, then one just may have come up with something of importance.
**************************************************************
"Among those leaders were former Governor James Cox, William Pawley, Frank Smathers, Hugh Purvis, Paul Scott, George Sally, Carl Fisher, Arthur Pancoast, Van Kussrow, Dan Mahoney, James Buchanan, Oscar Dooly, and of course, Dr. John Oliver La Gorce."
Hey Purv,
That name I bolded up there, has a familiar ring to it. Anybody we might know?
Curiously,
Ter
-
This exchange has gotten to the point where any attempt to respond meaningfully hits the forum's arbitrary limits on quote blocks. I think the limitations are as useless as teats on a boar hog, but be that as it may, I have to resort to absurd conventions to "quote" previous exchanges:CHARLES MATTHEWS: Page moves happen all the time. They can be requested or contested at Wikipedia:Requested moves, if they are contentious. In other words, a forum is provided to discuss the point.
ASHTON GRAY: What I described was not a "page move." It was a significant title change to propagate a CIA fiction. Propaganda by redefinition of terms is also a CIA gimmick.
CHARLES MATTHEWS: 'Title changes' are only carried out by 'page moves' on Wikipedia. You can't edit titles. I'm using the correct terminology, and you are not. Can you support your contention?
You just made my case for me conclusively. Thank you for stipulating that the title was changed. Allow me to read your sentence back to you: "'Title changes' are only carried out by 'page moves' on Wikipedia."
A title change was effected, period. I don't really care whether Wikipedia changed the title to fiction by "moving" the page, sprinkling it with fairy dust (which there seems to be no shortage of these days), or rattling gourds at it. As you have admitted, the original title of the article has been changed.
Since you've made an issue of this non-issue of how the title change was done, though, let's explore it further:
Of course, anyone can move a page from one directory to another on any server anywhere without effecting any slightest title change. Ipso facto, "moving" a page on the web does not equate to changing a title anywhere in cyberspace except in the Wikipedian universe and Wikispeak.
Getting past the Wikispeak to the real world effects of what was done, I'll thank you again for admitting that the title of the article was changed, thereby supporting my contention for me. You did a fine, fine job.
What you haven't yet admitted, though, is that the title it was changed to is a gross fiction, which is the seminal issue—not Wikipedia's doublespeak nomenclature.
So let's get down to bedrock and find out directly and specifically: do you contend that there actually was a "first break-in" at the Watergate on Memorial Day weekend 1972?
Turning to the discussion of the gang-bang WikiWhacking of the Remote Viewing Timeline:
ASHTON GRAY: As was pointed out in the discussion, there were many longer articles on Wikipedia at the time (on less controversial issues, of course), and it violated no hard and fast rules on length, so that was an entirely specious issue used as an excuse.CHARLES MATTHEWS: What was said was that the length put it in the top 100 articles. Therefore leaving 99.99% of articles shorter.
Thank you again for stipulating my point: there were as many as 100 articles on Wikipedia that were as long as, or longer than, the Remote Viewing Timeline. Ipso facto, the complaints against its length were an infamous double standard used as one more bludgeon in a travesty of "due process" in order to suppress the information the timeline contained and eradicate it from Wikipedia.
If you keep making my case so well for me, I may have to nominate you for whistleblower status.
So what steps will be taken to close the door on the possibility of any future such abusive double standards at Wikipedia?
CHARLES MATTHEWS: The issue of sources was aired: it was felt that the cited sources didn't adequately support the claimsASHTON GRAY: Not a single actual example was given, only claims that the sources "didn't adequately support the claims." So post an actual example instead of simply repeating a false claim, and I'll be happy to discuss and document facts, not answer recitations of generalized and unsupported allegations. That's what injustice thrives on. You don't want to champion such egregious injustices, surely.
CHARLES MATTHEWS: I had a look. One book was cited 24 times, without a single page reference. That's creating a labyrinthine task for anyone. That was reference 94 cited.
That wasn't the issue being discussed. You're attempting to change the subject. The issue being discussed was false, generalized, and unsupported accusations against the Remote Viewing Timeline falsely claiming that the cited sources "didn't adequately support the claims." (Couched in the passive generalized terms, "it was felt.")
You still haven't given a single valid example to support any such accusation. I'm not going to be finessed by you into changing the subject, but I am going to address your attempt to change the subject.
In that attempt, you didn't disclose the following from Wikipedia's own references on sources and cites for articles:
First, from Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style:
Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is asecondary detail, and there is currentlyno consensus on a precise prescribed citation formatin Wikipedia.And from Citation:
Citations to a book generally include at leastauthor(s), book title, publisher and date of publication.So in fact, there's not a single firm requirement anywhere in the entire length and breadth of Wikipedia that a book reference include page numbers, is there?
And in fact, there are plenty of books referenced in Wikipedia articles where no book page numbers are supplied, aren't there? (I am prepared to list examples if you want to continue down this path with me. I wouldn't advise it if I were advising you, but I'm not, so you do what you think best.)
Therefore the "issue" that you attempted to change the subject to is a non-issue, and just another infamous double standard, isn't it?
So back to the actual issue: you still have not supplied even a single example wherein the sources cited in the Remote Viewing Timeline "didn't adequately support the claims," have you?
Here's my opinion on why you haven't, and why you won't: because at all relevant time such accusations were never anything more than the most scurrilous falsehoods hurled like chum into a feeding frenzy without a shred of integrity or truth, and with the sole malicious intent of discrediting a very well researched and well cited artcle that exposed dirty truths utterly destroying the party line of fictions about Remote Viewing that Wikipedia represents and propagates.
I mean, that would seem to me, on its face, to be the most obvious reason why you don't post a single example backing up the accusations that you posted here as being "felt," and instead tried to change the subject. Maybe you have another explanation? I'd be happy, of course, to hear it.
I next addressed your claim that the Remote Viewing Timeline "was tarnished with 'original research.'" (Gotta' love that Wikispeak. Where else in the world can you find a sentence that contains "tarnished with original research"?):
ASHTON GRAY: Another false and unsupported allegation. Repitition of false generalized charges don't make them any more true today than they did in Salem in the seventeenth century. Same tactics, different day.CHARLES MATTHEWS: Come now. I was merely summarising the relevant page and what was said there. I thought we had a truce on religious allusions, also.
I had correctly predicted you would attempt to muzzle me once in a discussion of Wikipedia censorship, but I have to admit that I didn't think anybody could have reservoirs of chutzpah deep enough to try it a second time in a discussion on censorship. You continue to amaze me, and not only with your candid admissions.
Allow me, though, to recommend that you do a refresher course on early American history: in the first place, witchery was extra-religious. I think you'll find that was the crux of the problem leading to the tactics so in evidence at Wikipedia in the instant matter.
In the second place, the warrants were issued by the secular county magistrate.
In the third place, the secular Governor, Sir William Phips, is the one who set up the "court of oyer and terminer" where the accused witches were tried.
Is there anything else you'd like to try to censor me from saying?
CHARLES MATTHEWS: Looking at the article I see plenty of 'asides' that would likely count as OR.Oh, good! Then it should be nothing for you to quote a few examples here. (Of course, I hope you have a copy of the original Wikipedia article, because the webbed version has since been expanded and added to with quite a lot of images and captions, as well as new timeline entries. You wouldn't want to be building a "case" on material that wasn't even in the Wikipedia version, I just know in my heart. That would be the intellectual equivalent of jumping from a high ledge, and nobody wants to see that.)
And now to the last matter you've raised, which has amazed me most of all:
ASHTON GRAY: But here are my personal opinions about that in general, and the Remote Viewing Timeline article specifically:- Generally, on certain controversial subjects there is a core of "Wikipedians" who can be counted on to industriously attack any article that strays from "The Official Story" that the government's Operation Mockingbird has invested millions in shoving down people's throats.
CHARLES MATTHEWS:Looking into it, the nominator for the RVT article is interested in 'pseudoscience' deletions, not CIA-related material. So, in my view, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Well, well. At last we drill down far enough through layers of false accusations and non-issues to hit the nerve. At last we find out what was at work all along: a crusade to protect the world from "pseudoscience" by a group of self-appointed, self-annointed High Priests of the Cult of Final Arbitration on Science vs. Pseudoscience.
Aren't we all fortunate to have such benign protection through censorship.
Let me express, though, just personally, one tiny little reservation I have about such a noble crusade: that crusading "nominators" should not be countenanced who are so tree-stump stupid that they don't know the difference between an article on history and an article on science.
Tell me, please, that you and I at least agree that this is a reasonable dividing line on levels of stupidity and ignorance: able to tell the difference between history and science. Work for you?
The Remote Viewing Timeline is, and always was, a history of the development of CIA's remote viewing program. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with being an article on either "science" or "pseudoscience." It has everything to do with being an account of historical events that actually happened, laid out in chronological order.
So I'm not sure why you raised this point at all, given that it's totally irrelevant. Did you think that perhaps I was so tree-stump stupid that I don't know the difference between an article on history and an article on science? If so, I'm sorry if I've disappointed you.
In fact, a simple search on the long timeline only turns up a grand total of five uses of the word "science" in any form, and two of those are in the titles of cited references, so couldn't be avoided under any circumstances.
The remaining three instances where the word "science" turned up at all are as follows (the word "science" put in bold):
-
(An entry regarding the slang name of a Soviet facility): "Special Department No. 8" is established at the Institute of Automation and Electrometry in Academgorodok, ("Science City"), near Novosibirsk, Siberia.
-
(An exact quote from a publication of the Defense Intelligence Agency [DIA]): "The Soviet Union is well aware of the benefits and applications of parapsychology research. The term parapsychology denotes a multi-disciplinary field consisting of the sciences of bionics, biophysics, psychophysics, psychology, physiology and neuropsychology."
-
(An entry from an article in a CIA publication that includes the name of a CIA department): Hal Puthoff and Russell Targ brief senior CIA officials at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia on their remote viewing research. The officials include Office of Technical Services (OTS) chief John McMahon and Deputy Director for Science and Technology Carl Duckett.
That's it.
That's the totality of uses of the word "science" in any form or context in the entirety of the Remote Viewing Timeline. It is an article exclusively on the HISTORY of CIA's remote viewing program. It makes not a single claim about anything being "science" or not.
And yet your "nominator" had to save the world from "pseudoscience" by mounting an hysterical (and maliciously false) crusade for eradication of an article that was exclusively on HISTORY related to CIA and its remote viewing program?
Does Wikipedia allow, support, condone, and defend "nominators" who are too ignorant to know the difference between an article on history and an article on science? Is that really what this boils down to?
If so, it makes "1984" read like a bubble gum comic.
If so, it makes Joseph Goebbels look like a sophomore high school newspaper editor.
If so, I personally think that Wikipedia, with its worldwide reach and impact, has managed to plumb a stunning new nadir in the annals of censorship and suppression of knowledge, one that I hope will find eternal life
in the infamy it richly deserves.That's just how I see it.
Ashton Gray
************************************************************
That deserves a commendatory
BRAVO!!!
to you, Ash.
Ditto and unabashedly 'attaboy-ing
- Generally, on certain controversial subjects there is a core of "Wikipedians" who can be counted on to industriously attack any article that strays from "The Official Story" that the government's Operation Mockingbird has invested millions in shoving down people's throats.
-
Page 3 (hopefully)
************************************************************
Hey Purv,
That's really commendable of you to do this. I gather you never got a bite from the gov. either, right?
"Secondly, let me state that this "End-of-Course" Exam was offered to John McAdams as well as Ken Rahn, both as a means for them to earn "real" credit on the subject matter, as well as to give it a shot at "debunking"."
And, you already know what I think of those two misinfo/disinfo assholes. Their cases have been shot full of holes so many times it should've been slammed shut in their faces years ago. And, they call themselves educators? The book "Pedagogy Of The Oppressed" by Paulo Freire could've been written with them in mind.
Keep on pushin', though.
Thought perhaps that would rattle your chain somewhat.
Always nice to see and hear from my favorite (& only one I ever met-directly/indirectly) Bunny.
As I have stated, in many areas I have appreciation for the work of McAdams, especially in his "debunking" work.
However, no one has the right to install "blinders" and merely see/look at the living trees while ignoring the infestation of dead trees which are throughout the forest, yet claim to be a researcher into the subject matter of pine beetles.
Lastly, few politicians are willing to even "touch" the subject matter of the JFK assassination, even with a 10-foot pole.
Sometimes, one has to literally "buy" his way into the house before the subject matter can be broached, and even then one had best have a sack full of introductory letters which demonstrate that at least, the person is not another complete "loon"!
*************************************************************
"Sometimes, one has to literally "buy" his way into the house before the subject matter can be broached, and even then one had best have a sack full of introductory letters which demonstrate that at least, the person is not another complete "loon"!"
And, you certainly proved that to me, awhile back, Purv. Especially, with the amount of research you've done on New Orleans' "deeper" connections. It's truly amazing what one would've found if they'd actually taken the time to climb some of those [family] trees. Kind of like "the acorn not falling far from the proverbial you-know-what."
Yep!
And although I am most certainly too old to enjoy the nightlife of NO, and it certainly is not the fun it was in the early 60's, with my nosing around there I feel considerably more secure if I wear some sort of disguise even on the antiques shopping excursions.
When one digs too deeply into certain family trees, and thereafter makes it public knowledge, one could end up as one of the most recent statistics from that area, even if one does have relatives who live there.
P.S. Notice that I did qualify that as not being a "complete" loon!
**************************************************************
"P.S. Notice that I did qualify that as not being a "complete" loon!"
Hell, I never thought of you as a "complete" loon, nor as the resident L.N.'er, Purv because I took the time to read your posts in their entirety. Besides, I could read the messages and inuendos between the lines of your well-organized research on the New Orleans connection. Then again, unless one has actually lived in N.O., they're not going to be as familiar with the local patois, other than what's been thrown around by Madison Avenue in the way of advertizing slogans and sound bytes, such as in referring to her as, "The Crescent City," or "The Big Easy," or at worst, "Nawlins" and/or "...blackened crawfish, guaranteed!" I prefer to remember her the way my Mama, and Grandma used to call her by name, "New" Awlins.
So Purv, whereas some folks might've tried to write you off as a "complete" loon, they were more than likely trying to put their Evelyn Woods speed-reading skills to work, and therefore overlooked the finer nuances, and satirically laced inferences I had always found to be so entertaining, yet informative at the same time. There's always another story inside the story.
And, speaking of just that, on another thread they're debating the "two" Ozwalds. I thought there there had to have been closer to six or more "cut-outs" running around in different parts of the globe, all at that same time. Your work seems to have drawn a bead on the original, along with his immediate family of ancestors and their deeper connections in N.O. And, one of the "cut outs" in that Miami radio interview of 1963 (?) actually pronounced his "supposed" hometown's name as New OrLEANS. A dead give away for a Yankee, or foreign interloper's accent as there was definitely no "French" take on that pronounciation. A tree of a whole 'nother root system, further "East," if you will.
Well, back to the "ole country boy" attitude:
One squirrell jumping around on a lot of trees will confuse all but the best of squirrel dogs.
Multiple squirrels in the same area, jumping on multiple trees, will send even the best of squirrel dogs into hysteria to the extent that he may appear to be chasing his own tail.
When one considers the efforts to which someone went in order to make LHO appear as the Lone Squirrel/Lone Nut gatherer, it would only be reasonable to consider that they were smart enough to have had a few other nut gatherers as well.
Therefore, the highly convincing evidence which points to LHO, could have just as easily been the intentional work of those who knew exactly how to cause the dogs to chase a rabbit instead of treeing the squirrel that they were supposed to be hunting.
The full background and history of NO produced many who were capable of and experienced in such matters.
P.S.
Received a few "attaboy's" from what I would consider one of the true experts in the people background & connections department.
For whatever that may or may not be worth.
P.P.S. Few are aware of the simple fact that it was primarily the "Yankee" money which was invested in New Orleans which kept it from lighting the night as did Atlanta, GA.
P.P.P.S. Lastly, for anyone who has wasted their time in looking for the "Lost Treasury of the Confederacy", they just may want to look towards the New York Stock Exchange.
**************************************************************
"P.S.
Received a few "attaboy's" from what I would consider one of the true experts in the people background & connections department.
For whatever that may or may not be worth.
P.P.S. Few are aware of the simple fact that it was primarily the "Yankee" money which was invested in New Orleans which kept it from lighting the night as did Atlanta, GA.
P.P.P.S. Lastly, for anyone who has wasted their time in looking for the "Lost Treasury of the Confederacy", they just may want to look towards the New York Stock Exchange."
WELL, HELLO AND HOWDY!!!
I knew my man in N.O. was "on the money" from the git-go. Hooray and halleujah!
And, that's my "atta-boy" for you, Purv.
-
(2) Page moves happen all the time. They can be requested or contested at Wikipedia:Requested moves, if they are contentious. In other words, a forum is provided to discuss the point.
What I described was not a "page move." It was a significant title change to propagate a CIA fiction. Propaganda by redefinition of terms is also a CIA gimmick.
'Title changes' are only carried out by 'page moves' on Wikipedia. You can't edit titles. I'm using the correct terminology, and you are not. Can you support your contention?
What was said was that the length put it in the top 100 articles. Therefore leaving 99.99% of articles shorter.As was pointed out in the discussion, there were many longer articles on Wikipedia at the time (on less controversial issues, of course), and it violated no hard and fast rules on length, so that was an entirely specious issue used as an excuse.
Not a single actual example was given, only claims that the sources "didn't adequately support the claims." So post an actual example instead of simply repeating a false claim, and I'll be happy to discuss and document facts, not answer recitations of generalized and unsupported allegations. That's what injustice thrives on.The issue of sources was aired: it was felt that the cited sources didn't adequately support the claimsYou don't want to champion such egregious injustices, surely.
I had a look. One book was cited 24 times, without a single page reference. That's creating a labyrinthine task for anyone. That was reference 94 cited.
and that the article was tarnished with 'original research' (WP term for synthesis going beyond the sourced material).Another false and unsupported allegation. Repitition of false generalized charges don't make them any more true today than they did in Salem in the seventeenth century. Same tactics, different day.
Come now. I was merely summarising the relevant page and what was said there. I thought we had a truce on religious allusions, also. Looking at the article I see plenty of 'asides' that would likely count as OR.
But here are my personal opinions about that in general, and the Remote Viewing Timeline article specifically:- [*]Generally, on certain controversial subjects there is a core of "Wikipedians" who can be counted on to industriously attack any article that strays from "The Official Story" that the government's Operation Mockingbird has invested millions in shoving down people's throats.
Looking into it, the nominator for the RVT article is interested in 'pseudoscience' deletions, not CIA-related material. So, in my view, you are barking up the wrong tree. Wikipedia is a diverse place.
*********************************************************
"Wikipedia is a diverse place."
Obviously.
-
Happy birthday there, Terry. Hope it's a good one.
*******************************************************
Thanks, Stan. It will be a good one, now that I got my phone ringer set back to "on." Damn if it didn't get knocked off when I put it back on the dresser. Must of hit against the lamp, or something. Hey, someone tell John Geraghty that my phone wasn't ringing. We were going to hook up and talk, but it never rang, and now he must think I'm some kind of a ditz for missing his 2:00 PST phone call. Rats!!! And, my brother Steve probably thinks I went out, too.
Also, what's up with the Spartacus page coming up all weird-looking instead of the picture of JFK with the red and blue background, and The JFK Assassination Debate coming up underneath the picture that I click on to get into the threads?
-
Ditto.
Just kidding (private joke): Happy Birthday, Terry!
Ashton
****************************************************
Yes, Ash. I'm the main ditto-head around here, I admit it. But, whatever happened to Myra?
Haven't seen hide nor hair of her in weeks. Maybe, she's on vacation, or sabbatical, or something.
Thanks again, Pal. Here's a punch for you.
-
Just wanted to publicly wish my dear friend and adopted sister Terry a very happy
birthday!!! Wish you were here!!!
Much Love from Austin, Tx.
Dawn, Erick and Teka
***********************************************************
Thank you, Honey. Boy, I sure wish I was there. I want to be on the CD, too!
-
Page 3 (hopefully)
************************************************************
Hey Purv,
That's really commendable of you to do this. I gather you never got a bite from the gov. either, right?
"Secondly, let me state that this "End-of-Course" Exam was offered to John McAdams as well as Ken Rahn, both as a means for them to earn "real" credit on the subject matter, as well as to give it a shot at "debunking"."
And, you already know what I think of those two misinfo/disinfo assholes. Their cases have been shot full of holes so many times it should've been slammed shut in their faces years ago. And, they call themselves educators? The book "Pedagogy Of The Oppressed" by Paulo Freire could've been written with them in mind.
Keep on pushin', though.
Thought perhaps that would rattle your chain somewhat.
Always nice to see and hear from my favorite (& only one I ever met-directly/indirectly) Bunny.
As I have stated, in many areas I have appreciation for the work of McAdams, especially in his "debunking" work.
However, no one has the right to install "blinders" and merely see/look at the living trees while ignoring the infestation of dead trees which are throughout the forest, yet claim to be a researcher into the subject matter of pine beetles.
Lastly, few politicians are willing to even "touch" the subject matter of the JFK assassination, even with a 10-foot pole.
Sometimes, one has to literally "buy" his way into the house before the subject matter can be broached, and even then one had best have a sack full of introductory letters which demonstrate that at least, the person is not another complete "loon"!
*************************************************************
"Sometimes, one has to literally "buy" his way into the house before the subject matter can be broached, and even then one had best have a sack full of introductory letters which demonstrate that at least, the person is not another complete "loon"!"
And, you certainly proved that to me, awhile back, Purv. Especially, with the amount of research you've done on New Orleans' "deeper" connections. It's truly amazing what one would've found if they'd actually taken the time to climb some of those [family] trees. Kind of like "the acorn not falling far from the proverbial you-know-what."
Yep!
And although I am most certainly too old to enjoy the nightlife of NO, and it certainly is not the fun it was in the early 60's, with my nosing around there I feel considerably more secure if I wear some sort of disguise even on the antiques shopping excursions.
When one digs too deeply into certain family trees, and thereafter makes it public knowledge, one could end up as one of the most recent statistics from that area, even if one does have relatives who live there.
P.S. Notice that I did qualify that as not being a "complete" loon!
**************************************************************
"P.S. Notice that I did qualify that as not being a "complete" loon!"
Hell, I never thought of you as a "complete" loon, nor as the resident L.N.'er, Purv because I took the time to read your posts in their entirety. Besides, I could read the messages and inuendos between the lines of your well-organized research on the New Orleans connection. Then again, unless one has actually lived in N.O., they're not going to be as familiar with the local patois, other than what's been thrown around by Madison Avenue in the way of advertizing slogans and sound bytes, such as in referring to her as, "The Crescent City," or "The Big Easy," or at worst, "Nawlins" and/or "...blackened crawfish, guaranteed!" I prefer to remember her the way my Mama, and Grandma used to call her by name, "New" Awlins.
So Purv, whereas some folks might've tried to write you off as a "complete" loon, they were more than likely trying to put their Evelyn Woods speed-reading skills to work, and therefore overlooked the finer nuances, and satirically laced inferences I had always found to be so entertaining, yet informative at the same time. There's always another story inside the story.
And, speaking of just that, on another thread they're debating the "two" Ozwalds. I thought there there had to have been closer to six or more "cut-outs" running around in different parts of the globe, all at that same time. Your work seems to have drawn a bead on the original, along with his immediate family of ancestors and their deeper connections in N.O. And, one of the "cut outs" in that Miami radio interview of 1963 (?) actually pronounced his "supposed" hometown's name as New OrLEANS. A dead give away for a Yankee, or foreign interloper's accent as there was definitely no "French" take on that pronounciation. A tree of a whole 'nother root system, further "East," if you will.
-
Nonetheless, I believe Wikipedia's editorial anonymity policy must be superceded if Wikipedia wishes to gain long-term credibility as a bona fide venture - a venture that at least attempts to uphold principles of accountability even though clandestine forces may get involved in the project (just as they are involved in academia and the mass media)
At the grand strategy level, Wikipedia is putting its faith in systematic referencing of all its content, to improve quality and thereby credibility. I can't see it moving to 'real names only' as a policy for editors. I use my real name, but I respect the reasons others have for not doing that.
Ah well, Charles. I think we'll have to agree to differ on editorial anonymity.
Wikipedia shall, no doubt, keep its golden egg. I'll keep my suspicions.
In any event, thank you for responding to the points I raised.
I'm intrigued by the case of the 16 year old from New Jersey who's Wikipedia's no 1 expert on European artistocracy.
It gives new meaning to the notion of mis-spent youth
***********************************************************
"I'm intrigued by the case of the 16 year old from New Jersey who's Wikipedia's no 1 expert on European artistocracy."
I might be more impressed and less intrigued to find out if the 16 year old was a "gifted" child in his freshman year at Harvard, or even Columbia, rather than some high school student in New Jersey.
In any event, thank you for your time.
-
Page 3 (hopefully)
************************************************************
Hey Purv,
That's really commendable of you to do this. I gather you never got a bite from the gov. either, right?
"Secondly, let me state that this "End-of-Course" Exam was offered to John McAdams as well as Ken Rahn, both as a means for them to earn "real" credit on the subject matter, as well as to give it a shot at "debunking"."
And, you already know what I think of those two misinfo/disinfo assholes. Their cases have been shot full of holes so many times it should've been slammed shut in their faces years ago. And, they call themselves educators? The book "Pedagogy Of The Oppressed" by Paulo Freire could've been written with them in mind.
Keep on pushin', though.
Thought perhaps that would rattle your chain somewhat.
Always nice to see and hear from my favorite (& only one I ever met-directly/indirectly) Bunny.
As I have stated, in many areas I have appreciation for the work of McAdams, especially in his "debunking" work.
However, no one has the right to install "blinders" and merely see/look at the living trees while ignoring the infestation of dead trees which are throughout the forest, yet claim to be a researcher into the subject matter of pine beetles.
Lastly, few politicians are willing to even "touch" the subject matter of the JFK assassination, even with a 10-foot pole.
Sometimes, one has to literally "buy" his way into the house before the subject matter can be broached, and even then one had best have a sack full of introductory letters which demonstrate that at least, the person is not another complete "loon"!
*************************************************************
"Sometimes, one has to literally "buy" his way into the house before the subject matter can be broached, and even then one had best have a sack full of introductory letters which demonstrate that at least, the person is not another complete "loon"!"
And, you certainly proved that to me, awhile back, Purv. Especially, with the amount of research you've done on New Orleans' "deeper" connections. It's truly amazing what one would've found if they'd actually taken the time to climb some of those [family] trees. Kind of like "the acorn not falling far from the proverbial you-know-what."
-
What kind of credentialed academicians do you have overseeing the contributions being made by these high school students, or other non-qualified contributors?
What Quality Assurance measures or controls do you have in place to ensure that the data being distributed by Wikipedia is of sound or quantifiably researched information, and not merely something shot off from the whim or opinion of a supermarket tabloid reader?
None and none, is the straight answer. We have plenty of qualified people (we have academics at the equivalent of Nobel Prize level); but there is no _institutionalised_ structure giving them an oversight role.
**********************************************************
"None and none, is the straight answer. We have plenty of qualified people (we have academics at the equivalent of Nobel Prize level); but there is no _institutionalised_ structure giving them an oversight role."
Surely your editors, or those who might be thought of as censors should be required to, or at least carry enough weight, say that of a Nobel, to qualify as an overseer? I would be hard- pressed to believe, or even want to venture that for one moment you might have some high school student contributor, or "tabloid reader" making those kinds of calls, especially at a site advertizing itself as an internet encyclopedia. That would be a sham, wouldn't you say?
Thank you for your time in answering these questions.
-
Operation Red Cross was a CIA op having nothing whatsoever to do with either Cuba or any Soviet defectors, while having everything to do with the arrival of the DeMohrenschildts and Clemard Joseph Charles in Haiti
Utter Bosch?
That "Operation Red Cross" ever was aimed at Cuba? Yes, utter bosch.
That there ever were any "Soviet defectors" to be expatriated? Yes, utter bosch.
That CIA continuously, obsessively, compulsively, inescapably uses "documented" stories of "failed" operations to cover up their actual dirty business? No: not utter bosch. They do that as regularly and predictably as they pull on trousers to cover up their shorts. It is yet one more bloody hand print.
Ashton
*******************************************************
And, there's a whole lot about Zapata Oil and the family jewels all the way back through Prescott, Allen Dulles, Harriman and a few other names you guys might recognize in it, too.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...ntary&hl=en
The broken record skips, then skips, again...
-
While anything Hunt says is immediately suspect, he could actually be telling us something. Are there any indications Harvey knew Johnson? They both hated RFK, that's for sure. Maybe Hoover introduced them. They both had friendships and/or connections to Marcello, Rosselli, etc. Harvey was in Rome at the time of the shooting, was he not? Might he not have had a few meetings with a few Corsicans by the Colosseum? Might he not have had a talk with Lansdale, Phillips, Morales, etc. and asked them to make it look like a Cuban thing? Hmmm.
*************************************************************
Sorry to keep harping on this but LBJ was nothing more than a country bumpkin, hayseed stooge, who was easily manipulated by those who kept him doing their bidding, with promises of keeping him secure in his Senate Majority post, replete with all the prestige someone born of his caliber was only likely to be able to attain in his lifetime.
I still say this video covers it all. It's long, but worth the viewing.
-
I'll bet Tim is busy down in Key West, perhaps with a federal grant, trying to figure out what happened to the 2006 hurricane season. (Nature's dirty tricks.)
Perhaps he's in Cuba, researching the Castro Government's highly effective hurricane survival strategies?
Here's another quote from Oxfam's fascinating report Weathering the Storm: Lessons in Risk Reduction from Cuba:EXECUTIVE SUMMARYCuba’s achievements in risk reduction come from an impressive multi-dimensional process.
Its foundation is a socio-economic model that reduces vulnerability and invests in social capital
through universal access to government services and promotion of social equity. The
resulting high levels of literacy, developed infrastructure in rural areas and access to reliable
health care and other created capital function as “multiplier effects” for national efforts in
disaster mitigation, preparation and response.
At the national level, Cuba’s disaster legislation, public education on disasters, meteorological
research, early warning system, effective communication system for emergencies, comprehensive
emergency plan, and Civil Defense structure are important resources in avoiding
disaster. The Civil Defense structure depends on community mobilization at the grassroots
level under the leadership of local authorities, widespread participation of the population in
disaster preparedness and response mechanisms, and accumulated social capital.
Cuba’s impressive work at the national level has created measures, structures and assets thatare fundamentally necessary in the long run. However, this analysis of Cuba’s risk reduction
model also demonstrates that much can be accomplished through a focus on the local
level. It is precisely through Cuba’s reliance on far more intangible assets such as:
• local leadership;
• community mobilization;
• popular participation in planning;
• community implementation of lifeline structures; and
• the creating and building of social capital that the nation’s tangible assets
in risk reduction are enhanced and made far more effective.
Indeed, we have argued in this report that, in the absence of these locally-focused
measures for popular participation, national level assets would have minimal effectiveness.
Cuba’s example, therefore, offers rich lessons for work in risk reduction at the local
level in other countries even in the absence of national political will or resources.
If I lived in Florida, with criminal incompetents like FEMA ultimately responsible for my safety in climatic disasters made ever more likely because the Dubya gang are in charge of US climate change policy... well, a trip to Cuba might seem like a very good idea.
Perhaps, for his safety and well-being, he might decide to stay?
********************************************************
"...well, a trip to Cuba might seem like a very good idea."
Hey, don't be knockin' Cuba. That's where I want to retire.
-
Page 3 (hopefully)
************************************************************
Hey Purv,
That's really commendable of you to do this. I gather you never got a bite from the gov. either, right?
"Secondly, let me state that this "End-of-Course" Exam was offered to John McAdams as well as Ken Rahn, both as a means for them to earn "real" credit on the subject matter, as well as to give it a shot at "debunking"."
And, you already know what I think of those two misinfo/disinfo assholes. Their cases have been shot full of holes so many times it should've been slammed shut in their faces years ago. And, they call themselves educators? The book "Pedagogy Of The Oppressed" by Paulo Freire could've been written with them in mind.
Keep on pushin', though.
-
There are currently 100 videos and 42 members. I will continue to invite youtube users based on comments that they leave on videos.
John
**********************************************************
Hi John,
I just wanted to take this time to thank you for all the good work you've been doing and contributing to The Education Forum.
Do you think you'll be returning to D.C. or anywhere in the States come next summer break from your studies at university? If you're anywhere near SoCal, you can hang your hat here with us in Culver City, you know? That's an open invitation extended to you.
Best regards,
Ter
-
So where is Tim? Usually by now he would have had 10 new threads and 50 new posts.
Is he actually back here? Does he even want to be? Or is he even aware that he's been re-admitted?
Dawn-
trying to stay warm here in a rare freeze and ice storm in Austin, TX.
*********************************************************
Dawnie, T.G.'s probably just soaking up the rays down there in Key West before heading in-doors to put his final editorial note in his newspaper column. Lucky stiff.
-
T.G.
Your "femme nikita" awaits the return of her "favorite Fascist she just loves to hate."
I'll be here to defend your right to defend yourself.
There hasn't been the high caliber of thought-provoking debate carried on here since you left the place [well maybe Simkin has carried on a few, but it's a tough job trying to keep that ball rolling].
Look at all the folks on site here, right now! I haven't seen that tray filled with so many names here before, EVER!
Come back, Gratz! I miss you.
Ter [freezing her ass off in SoCal]
in the infamy it richly deserves.
Ted Kennedy
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
**********************************************************
I've got nothing to add to this already great post, but to say that I'm glad to see your name pop up again, Myra. I'm always elated to find your valuable input here on the forum.
And, if that's what some folks might consider to be an " 'attaboy" to you? I don't give a rat's ass. It's how I feel and what I meant it to be.
Ter