Jump to content
The Education Forum

Clive Largey

Members
  • Posts

    172
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Clive Largey

  1. The very first page of Rethinking Camelot has a reference to the Reagan emulation, in the introduction, paragraph starts with "By the late 1960s...(If I'm correct then he had yet to coin the phrase "JFK's white paper"), Above that is a reference to the start of protests, you can see where one might think he's talking about all protests everywhere but read it again and he's talking about his experience in Boston, this is the same thing he says in his talks about these times, he talks about what he did and when it started and what he had to do to avoid being beaten up(sort of) and if you didn't know different you would think his attempts were the first but he never actually says that. What's important is the point he is making, there was no one even critising the war against the south let alone protesting against it, not until after the attack of the north became public. Related to that, not long ago I saw this story about 5 draft card burners, well publicized, pictues of them standing together with their cards in a major city, almost beaten to death by those watching, 1965. Almost exactly the scenes Chomsky describes of his first major public protests, cops had to guard them, or else. It's probably part anti civil rights backlash but I have no idea.
  2. NSAM 111 fits the bill but Chomsky never refers to it or any other literal document each time he talks or writes about Reagan attempting to emulate Kennedy, that's why I believe it's just an example and similar to saying "JFK wrote the book on how to get away with it". What was he getting away with? An attack on freedom, ability to self rule and independance free of the US. This is what Chomsky preaches, that this is what it's all about, Vietnam, Cuba, Columbia, etc, even the complete cold war(to put Russia back where it belongs in the third world he says), leaving these people to go their own way would be a complete disaster for US power, wealth and dominance. They'd set bad examples to others and Vietnam surrounded as it is by so many other countries could not be allowed to succeed, it had to be crushed and repeatedly punished to set a good example to those looking on. Perhaps I am confused a little but you have said that JFK knew that Vietnam was about independance, he said as much and got critized for it, I assumed you were talking about the same independance that Chomsky is and I still do, the independance of the real people of Vietnam not the US puppets in the south. So could you provide the evidence for me? I did try reading the 1957 speech but I didn't get very far, it's so long and about a conflict I know nothing about but from what I gathered from scanning it, I think you're correct, so I'd like to see the Vietnam examples. Chomsky would probably have JFK completely withdrawing all support for the Diems, from the very start and making sure that the real Vietnamese got every xxxistance it needed to become a successful union and great friend of the US. Treason.
  3. I think they are following the Officer Tommy, Couch shows him crossing the street IMHO, he seems to slither down around a vehicle parked on the southern side of the extension which his two followers are now approaching(the modern image posted by Bill shows a truck parked beside the tree in a very similar position). If it's Smith then I don't think anyone doubts he went to the RR Yards just probably not directly toward it like these clips seem to suggest. Those frames above are the very last of Darnell's TSBD footage so it's just a continuation of what Couch caught, and a shame it's not as clear but those I believe are from what Robin shared with us and the best available. Calvery or anyone running from the sidewalk could have already "told" this cop and anyone near him exactly where to go, did not think that was possible until the Zwoman was found on the steps but she and her friend must surely be out breath after a run like that.
  4. Jim, The white paper Chomsky is referring too is not a literal document, it's the example he thinks JFK set, just as you quoted, went into Vietnam and attacked the country "without anyone lifting an eyebrow" . According to Noam, Reagan tried to duplicate it and found out very quickly that times had changed and public protest made him retreat and take his own attack on Central America completely underground. That's all it is and no more than a idea. A couple things you two seem to agree on are that the confilct in Vietnam is all about independance not commies, that the Diems and their forces are just US clients repressing a popular movement of the people and that JFK knew this, you say he learnt it early on, Noam says he was told exactly who or rather what the real enemy to the US was shortly after becoming President. You say that's part of the reason he wanted to withdraw because he knew we had no right even supporting Diem let alone being over there. The same events have Chomsky putting him in the dock(he knew but he still went in and with full support. War crime). Where I think you might dissagree strongly is exactly what went on over there during the JFK years. I know what Chomsky thinks the "Military Advisors" were there for and what they might have been doing besides the training of Diems forces(30% of all sortes flown had US pilots for example, or that indiscriminate bombing in the free fire zone after the hamlet programme was underway was okay as long as remained deniable (if it came out)) so do you feel there is evidence enough to believe this 15,000+ group was far more hands on than simply training and advising? Officially the aircraft are escorting and transporting, the advisors are training and consulting and we are over there only to protect these innocent people from terroists controlled by the red menace and support their democratic freedom. So did "counterincergency" mean assassination squads, S&D missions and the like all completely deniable or simply just recon support to help find the enemy? I've heard Chomsky talk about this more than a few times and read a lot of what he has written only because of my interest in JFK, I've never heard him deny the withdrawal plans, if he has done so recently then I would put it down to age. Have you ever heard of McNamara telling his forces in Vietnam in 1964 (before Tonkin)that they should still be preparing to withdraw and that the 1000 men out by December 1963 plan actually went through?
  5. 9:41 in, like Westbrook she's Identified from the back... although the latter gets "confirmation" from Willis5 which almost made me choke, it's so bad. Westbrook also knew the shots came from the building immeadiatly, right after she went there and saw all the commotion.
  6. Okay, look I've just scanned the SFM interview with Westbook and they have done the exact same thing with her. Now Fagin even mentions these very discussions here and how researchers are trying to identifiy those ladies so he must know of the "Darnell" frames with the three girls but does he use them? Of course not, why would he? Or why wouldn't he, chaps? He did the same for Woodward, like I said above, a lovely shot of her face in Altgens but it's not used. Anyone else see a pattern? Okay Tommy yes, no confusion, she's in Algens and on page 6 here Sandy posted a Z gif where she's named and yes agreed, not the woman on the grass in the aftermath, Woodward, I'll still call her that for now, did not move, you can, if you look close, pick her out in Couch reacting to something much later, she's near the lampost with the man in the hardhat, she didn't run like those who were closer to the limo.
  7. I know Sandy for one has problems with Baker going straight inside, I at this time still do not but regardless, if you were him and she was in your reach wouldn't you stop for a second to ask her what she saw at least? As has been pointed out, she must have ran very fast, both of them and stopped right on the steps, as soon as she does he moves toward the entrance. The timing is almost too good. How could you ignore her? She clearly saw something you did not.
  8. Woodward yes Tommy, the journalist, stood just a liitle east of your focus group, the interviewed her on stage a few years back and IIRC as I hope I do, they didn't use the Altgens image which I found puzzling and curious. More info... I haven't seen an image of Woodward that quite matches the face of her in Altgens, could be her though, as for "Westbrook" in "Darnell" on the grass, that too doesn't quite look like the real Westbrook in that HS photo. Not to me at least.
  9. A strange thing happened during the SFM's interview with Woodward, as you know there's a great shot of her in Altgens, full frontal, big as life when you blow it up but they never used it in the interview to ID her, instead they use a frame from Zap'. Why? Who knows? I thought it might be because whilst Kennedy is grasping for his throat(or w/e) she cannot smile wide enough (awkward) but there is another possible reason and I'm not going to push it but, it might be because it's not actually her. So, I'm a bit skeptical of the Wesbrook ID too and I don't see much of a likeness to be frank. Those SFM interviews are too family orientated, too cosy, they rarely discover something they do not already know, unlike us skeptical types who like to fish and dig. Cheers.
  10. Just another opinion. I too believe Sandy and Tommy may have cracked it, with the two on the stairs in Darnell, if you watch the crowd on the sidewalk in Couch in slowmo they are nowhere to be seen. So as others as suggested it is/was possible to move that fast, IF something scared the life out of them. Both Smith and Baker mentioned the screaming woman, it may have been one of them(instead of the first running woman we were focusing on), and since she ran towards that building it may even have given Baker the idea to look at it. Baker did not go straight in like the WC wanted to promote, he parked up and took in the happenings down the street, he even mentions it to them but they ignored that and went with the beeline to the entrance scenario(someone recently referred to it in another thread, it's not true). He stopped, he observed and he listened and again, both he and Smith mention this woman, Smith went to where she came from, Baker took in interest in where she was heading, perhaps.
  11. And I suppose the existence of the sniper's nest verifies Oswald's guilt, no it's actually worse than that, it's like me saying I went to Dallas and there it was, Elm Street itself. So yes folks it all happened just like the books tell us. As to your initial comparison. Did you ever hear of a T3 denier lose a job because of their beliefs? Or get their house or business firebombed over it? Harassed and even beaten up on the street, arrested and thrown in jail for years not only because of what they wrote about the T3 issue but what they were going to or even might say? What about a T3 denier's solicitor also get thrown in jail with them just for defending them? Shops that sold their books having their windows smashed, libraries taking there books off the shelves because of outside pressure? Of course not, thus for those reasons and many others the comparison makes little sense. HD is far, far worse in all respects and if you spent some time looking at the revisionist's work you'd know that. Who outside of the few JFK forums even knows what the T3 issue is? Researchers should be prepared to support their claims with facts when asked to and that's exactly what this forum itself asks for, whether it's on the moon landings, Ringo Starr or UFOs Don't assume all JFK researchers believe in the homicidal gas chambers and don't talk about stuff you don't want to be pulled on. Anyway, I'm satisfied you have nothing of what I asked for so I won't keep you. From one denier to another, I come here on occasion only to hear what people like you are talking about in the JFK case, the case that most of us deny that LHO did alone and nothing else. However, it is rather interesting to me as to why solid JFK researchers use the term "h denier" when it's clear they haven't put half the effort into researching that case. To me it's like hearing an atheist using the term "blasphemer", I don't get it.
  12. I did not ask for a debate I asked for proof of your claim that you went to Dachau and found something that verified the holocaust. Isn't that something you want to share? Surely you have done so already, a book. pamphlet or webpage?
  13. Can you provide details of your visit, why you "had to" visit, what you discovered and what, if anything, you did with this data? It must be rather special because no one has gone to Dachau and found any proof of gassing. quite the opposite in fact, Dachau is one of the reasons exterminationists themselves believe there were no death camps inside Germany. What you saw no doubt was a delousing chamber, built to save lives, that originally had a skull and crossbones motive right on the door visible to everyone going in, a clear warning and the times of each treatment written underneath it. But who needs to understand the funny writing when the skull and cross bones alone tells everyone it's death chamber? Did you catch the modern day notice that said "never used as a gas chamber"? Did you ask the tour guide if the have discovered yet one single proof for it being labeled a gas/death chamber?
  14. I'm reading this part right now, do so with me. I couldn't help but notice it starts by calling Robert Faurisson a "notorious Holocaust denier" which to some readers is akin to rapist, pedophile or even yes, "conspiracy theorist" but when it needs a quote from him to support it's case it refers to him as the quaint "Frenchman" and takes him on his word, So let's say Chomsky was aware of him and his work before he wrote the forward for a controversial book that doesn't mention the subject matter once and could be written for any argument for free speech. So what? Anyone that has looked at all the evidence and is convinced there were actual gassings cannot be taken seriously. If the hard evidence is not then there must be doubt. So, like I suspected he had looked into it, what is he quoted as saying? Rubinstein knows that in his world no gas chambers means no holocaust, he can't gat around it. The above isn't a stain on Chomsky's record but a blessing, he knows the evidence just isn't there and relates the belief in the gassings to those that blindly believe in Jesus. On this at least he's correct. If you know what Irving was up against when he defended himself you'd know he stood no chance. Experts like Van Pelt paid hundreds of thousands just to give evidence and at the end, no jury just one man to decide. If Faurisson was there or others like him, you know, the real revisionists, they may have made a difference but guess who didn't want that? Yes, David Irving his "friend and colleague". Obviously I have problems with this particular part of your piece. I mean. Irving lost his trial so by default the gassings at Auschwitz were real after all? It's that simple? That's how it reads. Millions of man hours spent studying his books to find errors, they came up with around two dozen, from scores of books many of which dealing with manuscripts and documents in German and some in old German script that no one can read and certainly not Browning, Evans or Van Pelt, These errors were dismissed by the judge, all expect six or more. That is, less than one error per book, making Irving the most accurate historian of all time, who says? His former peers who have all shunned him for his involvement in this.
  15. To his credit and like others did to support David Irving and his problems publishing his own research, all Chomsky did was defend the right for people like this to be heard regardless of how tasteless certain people find their opinions. He wrote a forward that could be placed in any controversial book, it was not designed for Faurisson but just happened to be exactly what the book needed, Regarding this affair Chomsky himself said that just by looking into that particular subject and those claims is beneath him but to defend the right to express them? Forever and without hesitation. As for Robert Faurisson himself, if his work was instead related to JFK I feel he would be what we might call, a researcher's researcher. Studious does not even cover it, the man is completely dedicated, meticulous and consistent. It's only the subject matter itself that cripples him, even Chomsky dare not touch it but you know in private he has to have.
  16. One step does seem about right Sandy. Stepping up for a better view or slowly moving out of the woman's way. It's easy to see why someone would think they were having a conversation with the woman completely ignoring everything going on behind her, like dozens of people wanting to use those same steps she's standing in front of. If that's never happened to you then count yourself lucky but I actually think they were both going in and he stopped and turned around to see what was going on. leaving her wondering what he's doing but who knows?
  17. Richard, I don't think everyone agrees but if there is a consensus then they would say that in Altgens(A) and Weigman(W) you have Shelley marked as "Williams", Molina is correct in A but you have him marked as Shelley in W, you missed the real Williams in A who is at the 5 O'clock position from Molina looking toward where Wiegman is with his arm up obscuring his face then in W you have him marked as Molina. If Stanton and Sanders have to be there too then I suppose those figures you point to in W would have to be correct and everyone else seems about right.
  18. If I have this marking right and you're still looking for where the running woman stood like me then you may find that the less documented area east of #6 is a real possibility. Anyway I wanted to work these Wiegman's frames into what Robin provided and it's done fwiw.
  19. I believe this is the gif you were referring to Robert. Still looks like him alright(about to light up a cigarette when he gets those matches out of his pocket?) but IMO the better quality Couch clip with the two men following Smith is winning at the moment, as long as the other guy doesn't have to be Shelley. I say that because the "BL" character appears to moving to his own tune and not along with the other man, so perhaps they came from completely different places, for example, the suited man may have followed Smith from the intersection. I still maintain that all of these people in this immediate area are completely clueless to the assassination and that for me is the most interesting thing about these film clips, the only exceptions being Baker/Smith and perhaps that running woman who is pushing just a little too hard to be just getting back to her desk.
  20. Robin, have you ever tried working this Wiegman frame into the picture? Where does the Croft image end from this perspective? Does it even overlap Croft? Surely it must do below on the left hand side somewhere.
  21. Robert, you seem to have had a similar problem to what I experienced, you try to quote something new and the previous thing you quoted keeps popping up, I solved it by logging out, closing my browser completely and coming back in, if that doesn't work then try cleaning your cookies too, I think the forum software copies what you want to quote to your clipboard or at least it seems that way and it's not refreshing(layman's speak). All the best regardless.
  22. Do you remember pointing to Miss C now Bill? In the post after my reply to the above where I pointed her out in Couch, you continued to fancy her only because of what Linda described in the written obituary and that's exactly what Bob and I were afraid of, we recognized it as a summation and not first hand from Gloria Calvery. Linda Zambinini has done some nice work especially in the recognition of females in the evidence and continues to do so, you can probably find her on Facebook, google her or send her a message here, she posted on page 8. You asked if the story about running behind the cop came from Calvery herself, it didn't, not directly, it comes from Lovelady and Joe Molina and of course what we see in Darnell. Linda put all these together as fact because at that time no one was really questioning it, I guess the wrongly named Calvery in the Elm St images started that ball rolling. Of course she still may yet turn out to be correct, I said "RW is not Calvery" but I can't prove it, it just doesn't have to be her in my world. Funnily enough Linda liked Miss C for Calvery too at one point.
  23. This interview fails to use the the image of Woodward in Altgens despite it being far superior to the one in Zapruder that only shows her from the back. Could it perhaps be that's because she is seen smiling broadly after Kennedy was hit? Maybe it's a little awkward for Fagin's safe zone. If you fast forward to 20:45 she remarks on Mark Lane's interest in her along with Jim Garrison, then shortly after talks about her TMWKK appearance which she still to this day thinks was made by the BBC. Worth five minutes of your time if you're interested. For the record the BBC is responsible for David Attenborough, Monty Python and Dancing with the Stars whereas the group Nigel Turner worked for was an independent company and brought us things like The Benny Hill Show and umm... Mr Bean, that's plenty. So unless Turner used the BBC tag to help secure the interview with her(it seems to work) I don't know why she would be confused.
×
×
  • Create New...