Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kenneth Drew

Members
  • Posts

    952
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Kenneth Drew

  1. Rosemary's tragic story is often cited as an example of Joe Kennedy's poor parenting. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the time, lobotomy was considered a new, potentially "miracle" cure. He had nothing but her best interests at heart, and certainly must have been devastated when it backfired. If anything, Joe Kennedy was an exceptional parent who experienced more tragedy than anyone should ever have to endure. Every word of that is about 180 from everything I've ever heard on that subject. Where did you get that info Don? strange. Joe didn't like Rosemary's relations with boys, he was afraid she wasn't smart enough to stay out of trouble so he decided to take a chance on a completely unproven, brain scrambling technique to make it so that she couldn't or wouldn't be taken advantage of. I don't believe that a parent with 'best interests at heart' would allow someone to stick a knife into her brain and scramble it. Then he shipped her away and never saw her again. He had a stroke in 61 and was incapacitated. Then he died in 69, never having seen Rosemary since the surgery. That doesn't speak of 'love' for his child.
  2. I understood that 3 copies were made day 1. Two copies turned over to Secret Service, Zapruder kept 1. Life Mag got original.
  3. Ernie, just above you said: " I did not state or even hint that the Chicago murders or other crimes are not significant or "not worth mentioning". in 544, you said: "Almost all the murders in Chicago are gang-related black-on-black violence. Nobody except a bigot would try to claim that what happened in our southern states during the 20th century was in any way comparable. The murders, the bombings, the arsons, the lynchings, the castrations were NOT gang-related. And they were NOT black-on-black crimes. And they were NOT motivated by anything other than whites (and in many cases, Klan members and Klan sympathizers) wanting to inflict severe punishment and impose terror upon an entire category of human beings based SOLELY upon their racial identity." You seem to have a short or non-existent memory for the things you have said. In your last comment, you seem to be irretrievably lost. You seem to be trying to turn everything you have said around. Did you stop by the bar on your way home and toss too many? Or is it because your wife cut you off last night? Then just above you said: "I will not respond to any future messages from you." And for that I thank you. I'm not surprised, had I lost the argument, I would have given up also. And I hope you keep your word, but I don't expect you to. Adios,
  4. Well, Kenneth, what I said was that I made a study of the Citizens Councils that began in the mid-1950's in response to the Brown Decision. I didn't say I made a study of the KKK. I've read a lot about the KKK, however, and I agree that they haven't disappeared -- however, their power and influence -- even in the 1960's -- cannot be compared to their vast power and influence at the turn and the early part of the 20th century. I refer to the era of President Woodrow Wilson, who encouraged the KKK in the South, and invited them to a massive march in Washington DC. The 1915 movie by D.W. Griffith, Birth of a Nation, was extolled by President Wilson not only as great art, but as historical fact. We should always remember the roots of the US Democratic Party in the South, as the party that opposed Abe Lincoln's Republican Party, and which quickly bowed to the Dixiecrats in the South. Woodrow Wilson was favored for the Presidency by those who praised his successful efforts to keep Princeton University purely white. The 1910's were the days when the KKK was truly powerful -- because they had the backing of the President of the USA. Matters were sharply reduced for the KKK by the 1950's, because the brutality of arbitrary lynching in the South became widely reported. Things got so bad for the KKK that when Earl Warren passed his Brown Decision, political leaders in the South struggled to distance themselves from the KKK, knowing that their brutal methods would only bring damnation down from Washington DC. So, the Citizens Councils were born in order to torment the NAACP -- without resorting to KKK methods. In no way did I imply that the KKK had vanished. As Larry noted, the 1988 movie, Mississippi Burning (starring Gene Hackman, Willem Defoe and Frances Louise McDormand) offers a graphic portrayal of KKK activity suppressing the Civil Rights movement using murder in 1964. This is precisely what the Citizens Councils were hoping to avoid. Rather, the methods of the Citizens Councils were to telephone the employers of NAACP members, and harass them until each employee was fired, and to telephone the mortgage bankers of NAACP members, and harass them until their loans were called in. Firings and evictions were the methods of the Citizens Councils -- rather than beating, shooting and lynching methods of the KKK. And their slogan was: "Impeach Earl Warren!" As for the geography of the JFK assassination -- I truly believe that too little is made of it. Yes, there were also JFK murder plots in Miami, in Chicago and even in Washington DC. However all those plots were quickly foiled by the FBI and Secret Service. It is historically significant, IMHO, that the FBI and Secret Service were blind-sighted specifically in Dallas -- in the South. Regards, --Paul Trejo As usual, Paul has his facts wrong. In many previous messages, I have pointed out that fiction writers are not constrained by any rules of logic or evidence. Consequently, they can simply invent whatever they want -- and substitute their fertile imagination for fact. Paul often makes bold declarations but please notice that he NEVER directly quotes his sources -- especially primary source documentation to support his contentions. That is because Paul is primarily a fiction writer and he does not want to be constrained by actual factual evidence. FOR EXAMPLE: The "Movement to Impeach Earl Warren" slogan came into usage in January 1961 as a result of a John Birch Society project on its monthly agenda for its members, The precipitating event given as justification for the impeachment campaign was a series of Supreme Court rulings which the Birch Society considered to be damaging "to our Constitution and to our whole system of safeguards which a constitutional republic offers against the powers of demagogues to manipulate majorities..." The JBS claimed that the Warren Court was consciously destroying the established notion of "state's rights". [Check out the JBS "Impeach Warren" packet for details and see info quoted below]. The "Grounds For Impeachment" portion of the argument for replacing Warren does not focus just upon or primarily upon the Brown decision. But Paul does NOT want anybody to know that because it undermines his fictional narrative. The "Impeach Warren" packet refers to the Brown decision as "only a horrible beginning". Most of the "grounds" listed focus upon Smith Act case decisions by the Court. In particular, the JBS discusses the Steve Nelson case, the Koninsberg case, and the Sweezy case. It is therefore, anti-historical to claim (as Paul does) that the Brown decision was the primary motivation behind the Impeach Warren movement. The Birch Society produced a one-page flyer which contains what they considered to be their best anti-Warren arguments. There are six (6) itemized reasons which I am going to quote below---because (unlike Paul Trejo) I believe in primary source documentation. As will be seen below, JBS reasoning was focused upon something quite different from what Paul wants us to believe. (1) "Chief Justice Warren had no judicial experience when appointed to his present position. Many of his decisions have shown abysmal ignorance of, and utter contempt for, the most fundamental principles of law" (2) "In cases involving Communist purposes and personnel Warren has voted as desired by the Communists more than ninety percent of the time." (3) "Among the immediate effects of some of the Warren Court decisions have been: to free known Communists, who had been properly convicted of some crime, from sentences already imposed; to force both local and federal government agencies to re-employ, frequently with huge sums of back pay, employees who had been dropped for supporting Communist purposes; to deprive the separate states of all power to protect themselves against Communist subversion." (4) "Chief Justice Warren has taken the lead in both the decisions and the attitude of the Supreme Court, aimed at doing away with those safeguards of law which would maintain this nation as a constitutional republic, and at converting it into a democracy---in which all individual rights, minority rights, and property rights would be completely subject to the whims and views of demagogues temporarily in power". (5) "Chief Justice Warren has been accused by his fellow Justices of the Supreme Court, in various dissenting opinions, of many different usurpations of power; and of invasions of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of private citizens, of states, and of Congress. These violations of the Constitution by a Supreme Court Justice are certainly impeachable offenses. (6) "Many of the Warren Court decisions, which he has written, or in which he has concurred, have given aid and comfort to our Communist enemies. This is unmistakably proved by the actions of the Communists themselves. After the infamous 'Red Monday' decisions, on June 17, 1957, a leading Communist on the west coast exulted: 'This is the greatest victory the Communist Party ever had'. And in September, 1957, the Communists held a rally in New York 'To pay honor to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent decisions' and to 'Hit out at attempts to undo the decisions.' The closing paragraph summarizes the JBS position -- i.e. the primary reason why the JBS wanted Warren impeached was because of "the incredible distortions of law, precedent and justice required to make such decisions and the gaping holes which those decisions have punched in the Constitution of the United States..." The Citizens Council movement began in 1954. Obviously - they did not need any slogan regarding Earl Warren to energize or justify their movement. Their concern was triggered by one Supreme Court decision that directly affected their entire existence and the underlying arguments which justified the prevailing practices which were extant in our southern states at that time. The Councils correctly understood that overturning "separate but equal" could never be limited to only public education. Over time, the Court would inevitably make comparable decisions about other areas of southern life. 1. " Paul often makes bold declarations but please notice that he NEVER directly quotes his sources" Doesn't matter. I rarely 'quote' anyone. That's mostly because it is way too much trouble to hunt it up and lift the 'exact quote'. I usually just paraphrase, with credit. It's much simpler and doesn't make any difference. It makes no difference to me or to many others as to the 'exact' cause of the desire to impeach Earl Warren. He was way too creative in the many ways to violate the constitution and not just one specific reason is/was necessary. So to give one or more specific quotes from someone that only has an opinion is not of much use. Paul seems to have a reasonable opinion as to why the impeach Warren movement existed. Just a memo, too many elements of History are written by the media or taken from the media. Most persons know that the media has a very poor grasp of reality. If you do not understand WHY someone begins a movement or participates in a movement -- then you cannot speak intelligently or honestly about its origins or development. No surprise that such primary source factual evidence has no importance to someone like yourself. No surprise that such primary source factual evidence has no importance to someone like yourself. If you do not understand WHY someone begins Okay Mr. Ernie, "if you do not understand" So since you have now analyzed me, my thoughts and actions, kindly tell me all about me. You've totally analyzed and summed me up in just about 3 or 4 sets of comments Because then if you can not, does this apply? " then you cannot speak intelligently or honestly about"
  5. So, you listed some 17 persons killed by the Klan from 50 thru 67 and you say that the lives taken in Chicago can't compare with those deaths. Sounds like an opinion of someone from California, or something. I wonder how many of the parents of the 8 persons murdered in Chicago this weekend would agree with you that their child was less valuable and didn't compare to the death of a child in Mississippi. Get me a list of those, would you? This significant event: " Another Klan bombing was averted in Meridian the same year." was really newsworthy, I wonder how many additional murders were averted in Chicago this weekend. I live in a small city of about 10,000 and no one was killed this weekend, so I guess we could say that 'the deaths of 10,000 local citizens was averted this weekend. When you start throwing words like 'ignorant' around, you're only inviting comparisons. Having a different point of view is not necessarily ignorance. I personally think the lives of the folks in Chicago are of the same value as the persons in Mississippi. I guess it's 'who is doing the killing' that makes it unimportant to you. Almost all the murders in Chicago are gang-related black-on-black violence. Nobody except a bigot would try to claim that what happened in our southern states during the 20th century was in any way comparable. The murders, the bombings, the arsons, the lynchings, the castrations were NOT gang-related. And they were NOT black-on-black crimes. And they were NOT motivated by anything other than whites (and in many cases, Klan members and Klan sympathizers) wanting to inflict severe punishment and impose terror upon an entire category of human beings based SOLELY upon their racial identity. Furthermore, the violence and murders and bombings and arsons in southern states were often organized and/or executed by local law enforcement officials OR they knew who committed those actions but did nothing to prevent them or prosecute the perpetrators. That certainly is not true of the crimes in Chicago. Nobody is fooled into believing your bigoted nonsense. If I appear to be laughing it's because it's unavoidable. And "I'm" bigoted? "Almost all the murders in Chicago are gang-related black-on-black violence." Oh well, hell they're not even worth mentioning. If they can't at least be killed by a white person then it's not worth mentioning? That's an interesting point of view. "Nobody except a bigot would try to claim that what happened in our southern states during the 20th century was in any way comparable." Let me be sure I understand that. If you are the mother of a black child and he is killed by a black hoodlum on the streets of Chicago, it's ok, it's understandable, it's just part of life and the fact that your child lost his life is not important because..... what? At least another black child got some experience at killing someone?..... Or something like that? But, if that same child were killed by a white person in the South, it's much worse? Well, ok you said so, so it must be true. I guess every mother should just overlook their children being killed by others as long as it's black on black or gangland related. I guess that's the 'ideal' way for black children to be killed, or something? "Furthermore, the violence and murders and bombings and arsons in southern states were often organized and/or executed by local law enforcement officials" Uh, but I guess if the law enforcement person were black, then it would make it a 'black on black' thing and no one would mind. Right? So let's make sure I understand. Chicago mothers expect their children to be killed by another black person or a member of a gang so that is acceptable, but it would be unbearable for them if that child were killed by a white person just because he happened to live in Mississippi. Would the mother in Chicago even report their child if it got killed by a black on the streets, or would it just be another mark on a tote board? bigoted or not. If my child got killed by another person of the same race or a different race, I would want that person prosecuted. I would not be inviting the killer over for milk and cookies and singing cumbaya. bigoted nonsense? Black on black.....ok white on black.....hell no. interesting perspective, bigoted or not.
  6. Well, Kenneth, what I said was that I made a study of the Citizens Councils that began in the mid-1950's in response to the Brown Decision. I didn't say I made a study of the KKK. I've read a lot about the KKK, however, and I agree that they haven't disappeared -- however, their power and influence -- even in the 1960's -- cannot be compared to their vast power and influence at the turn and the early part of the 20th century. I refer to the era of President Woodrow Wilson, who encouraged the KKK in the South, and invited them to a massive march in Washington DC. The 1915 movie by D.W. Griffith, Birth of a Nation, was extolled by President Wilson not only as great art, but as historical fact. We should always remember the roots of the US Democratic Party in the South, as the party that opposed Abe Lincoln's Republican Party, and which quickly bowed to the Dixiecrats in the South. Woodrow Wilson was favored for the Presidency by those who praised his successful efforts to keep Princeton University purely white. The 1910's were the days when the KKK was truly powerful -- because they had the backing of the President of the USA. Matters were sharply reduced for the KKK by the 1950's, because the brutality of arbitrary lynching in the South became widely reported. Things got so bad for the KKK that when Earl Warren passed his Brown Decision, political leaders in the South struggled to distance themselves from the KKK, knowing that their brutal methods would only bring damnation down from Washington DC. So, the Citizens Councils were born in order to torment the NAACP -- without resorting to KKK methods. In no way did I imply that the KKK had vanished. As Larry noted, the 1988 movie, Mississippi Burning (starring Gene Hackman, Willem Defoe and Frances Louise McDormand) offers a graphic portrayal of KKK activity suppressing the Civil Rights movement using murder in 1964. This is precisely what the Citizens Councils were hoping to avoid. Rather, the methods of the Citizens Councils were to telephone the employers of NAACP members, and harass them until each employee was fired, and to telephone the mortgage bankers of NAACP members, and harass them until their loans were called in. Firings and evictions were the methods of the Citizens Councils -- rather than beating, shooting and lynching methods of the KKK. And their slogan was: "Impeach Earl Warren!" As for the geography of the JFK assassination -- I truly believe that too little is made of it. Yes, there were also JFK murder plots in Miami, in Chicago and even in Washington DC. However all those plots were quickly foiled by the FBI and Secret Service. It is historically significant, IMHO, that the FBI and Secret Service were blind-sighted specifically in Dallas -- in the South. Regards, --Paul Trejo As usual, Paul has his facts wrong. In many previous messages, I have pointed out that fiction writers are not constrained by any rules of logic or evidence. Consequently, they can simply invent whatever they want -- and substitute their fertile imagination for fact. Paul often makes bold declarations but please notice that he NEVER directly quotes his sources -- especially primary source documentation to support his contentions. That is because Paul is primarily a fiction writer and he does not want to be constrained by actual factual evidence. FOR EXAMPLE: The "Movement to Impeach Earl Warren" slogan came into usage in January 1961 as a result of a John Birch Society project on its monthly agenda for its members, The precipitating event given as justification for the impeachment campaign was a series of Supreme Court rulings which the Birch Society considered to be damaging "to our Constitution and to our whole system of safeguards which a constitutional republic offers against the powers of demagogues to manipulate majorities..." The JBS claimed that the Warren Court was consciously destroying the established notion of "state's rights". [Check out the JBS "Impeach Warren" packet for details and see info quoted below]. The "Grounds For Impeachment" portion of the argument for replacing Warren does not focus just upon or primarily upon the Brown decision. But Paul does NOT want anybody to know that because it undermines his fictional narrative. The "Impeach Warren" packet refers to the Brown decision as "only a horrible beginning". Most of the "grounds" listed focus upon Smith Act case decisions by the Court. In particular, the JBS discusses the Steve Nelson case, the Koninsberg case, and the Sweezy case. It is therefore, anti-historical to claim (as Paul does) that the Brown decision was the primary motivation behind the Impeach Warren movement. The Birch Society produced a one-page flyer which contains what they considered to be their best anti-Warren arguments. There are six (6) itemized reasons which I am going to quote below---because (unlike Paul Trejo) I believe in primary source documentation. As will be seen below, JBS reasoning was focused upon something quite different from what Paul wants us to believe. (1) "Chief Justice Warren had no judicial experience when appointed to his present position. Many of his decisions have shown abysmal ignorance of, and utter contempt for, the most fundamental principles of law" (2) "In cases involving Communist purposes and personnel Warren has voted as desired by the Communists more than ninety percent of the time." (3) "Among the immediate effects of some of the Warren Court decisions have been: to free known Communists, who had been properly convicted of some crime, from sentences already imposed; to force both local and federal government agencies to re-employ, frequently with huge sums of back pay, employees who had been dropped for supporting Communist purposes; to deprive the separate states of all power to protect themselves against Communist subversion." (4) "Chief Justice Warren has taken the lead in both the decisions and the attitude of the Supreme Court, aimed at doing away with those safeguards of law which would maintain this nation as a constitutional republic, and at converting it into a democracy---in which all individual rights, minority rights, and property rights would be completely subject to the whims and views of demagogues temporarily in power". (5) "Chief Justice Warren has been accused by his fellow Justices of the Supreme Court, in various dissenting opinions, of many different usurpations of power; and of invasions of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of private citizens, of states, and of Congress. These violations of the Constitution by a Supreme Court Justice are certainly impeachable offenses. (6) "Many of the Warren Court decisions, which he has written, or in which he has concurred, have given aid and comfort to our Communist enemies. This is unmistakably proved by the actions of the Communists themselves. After the infamous 'Red Monday' decisions, on June 17, 1957, a leading Communist on the west coast exulted: 'This is the greatest victory the Communist Party ever had'. And in September, 1957, the Communists held a rally in New York 'To pay honor to the U.S. Supreme Court and its recent decisions' and to 'Hit out at attempts to undo the decisions.' The closing paragraph summarizes the JBS position -- i.e. the primary reason why the JBS wanted Warren impeached was because of "the incredible distortions of law, precedent and justice required to make such decisions and the gaping holes which those decisions have punched in the Constitution of the United States..." The Citizens Council movement began in 1954. Obviously - they did not need any slogan regarding Earl Warren to energize or justify their movement. Their concern was triggered by one Supreme Court decision that directly affected their entire existence and the underlying arguments which justified the prevailing practices which were extant in our southern states at that time. The Councils correctly understood that overturning "separate but equal" could never be limited to only public education. Over time, the Court would inevitably make comparable decisions about other areas of southern life. 1. " Paul often makes bold declarations but please notice that he NEVER directly quotes his sources" Doesn't matter. I rarely 'quote' anyone. That's mostly because it is way too much trouble to hunt it up and lift the 'exact quote'. I usually just paraphrase, with credit. It's much simpler and doesn't make any difference. It makes no difference to me or to many others as to the 'exact' cause of the desire to impeach Earl Warren. He was way too creative in the many ways to violate the constitution and not just one specific reason is/was necessary. So to give one or more specific quotes from someone that only has an opinion is not of much use. Paul seems to have a reasonable opinion as to why the impeach Warren movement existed. Just a memo, too many elements of History are written by the media or taken from the media. Most persons know that the media has a very poor grasp of reality.
  7. Well, Kenneth, what I said was that I made a study of the Citizens Councils that began in the mid-1950's in response to the Brown Decision. I didn't say I made a study of the KKK. I've read a lot about the KKK, however, and I agree that they haven't disappeared -- however, their power and influence -- even in the 1960's -- cannot be compared to their vast power and influence at the turn and the early part of the 20th century. I refer to the era of President Woodrow Wilson, who encouraged the KKK in the South, and invited them to a massive march in Washington DC. The 1915 movie by D.W. Griffith, Birth of a Nation (which adulates the KKK), was extolled by President Wilson not only as great art, but as historical fact. (We should remember the roots of the US Democratic Party in the South as the party opposite Abe Lincoln, which often bowed to the Dixiecrats in the South until the arrival of FDR. Woodrow Wilson was favored for the Presidency by those who praised his successful efforts to keep Princeton University purely white.) The 1910's were the days when the KKK was truly powerful -- because they had the backing of the President of the USA. Matters were sharply reduced for the KKK by the 1950's, because the brutality of arbitrary lynching in the South became widely reported. Things got so bad for the KKK that when Earl Warren passed his Brown Decision, political leaders in the South struggled to distance themselves from the KKK, knowing that their brutal methods would only bring damnation down from Washington DC. So, the Citizens Councils were born in order to torment the NAACP -- without resorting to KKK methods. In no way did I imply that the KKK had vanished. As Larry noted, the 1988 movie, Mississippi Burning (starring Gene Hackman, Willem Defoe and Frances Louise McDormand) offers a graphic portrayal of KKK activity suppressing the Civil Rights movement using murder in 1964. This is precisely what the Citizens Councils were hoping to avoid. Rather, the methods of the Citizens Councils were to telephone the employers of NAACP members, and harass them until each employee was fired, and to telephone the mortgage bankers of NAACP members, and harass them until their loans were called in. Firings and evictions were the methods of the Citizens Councils -- rather than beating, shooting and lynching methods of the KKK. And their slogan was: "Impeach Earl Warren!" As for the geography of the JFK assassination -- I truly believe that too little is made of it. Yes, there were also JFK murder plots in Miami, in Chicago and even in Washington DC. However all those plots were quickly foiled by the FBI and Secret Service. It is historically significant, IMHO, that the FBI and Secret Service were blind-sighted specifically in Dallas -- in the South. Regards, --Paul Trejo Thanks Paul. Unlike you, I've not done a study of the Citizens Councils. As I've said, I was born in south Georgia, grew up there, have lived in Va, NC, SC, AL, FL, Ms and La and I have never seen or known a member of the Klan. Edit: I have also never known a member of a 'citizens council'. end edit. I have known several members of the NRA but it is especially a non violent organization. From what I've read about the Klan of the early century, circa 1915, it seems to have been primarily against the Catholic Church, for some reason. Any or all klan activities I heard of back in the 50's-60's were always somewhere else, not near where I was. The Democratic party of the south prior to 1960 were the racists. They converted over to complete racial pandering with the arrival of the civil rights decisions of the 50's 60's. So while they are still the racists in the South today, they at least hide it well enough to keep the black people voting for them. My opinion is if you didn't have the Democrats with their racial pandering, especially in the South but actually throughout the US, there would be little noticeable racism remaining in the US. Especially with Repubs in the south, race is a non issue except for the Democrat pandering for votes. Back to the issue of Extreme Right Wing. You know that many people refer to Nazi's as 'extremist and right wing', etc? Well, of course they were extremist, but it is all 'left wing'. The very name is National Socialists and very few socialists would come down on the 'right' in politics. As I say though, I know you didn't invent the term, but I think it is a much 'misused' term and is often only repeated without thought being given as to the meaning. Just a casual observation, if I were putting 60's pols in their proper alignment. I would put LBJ on the left, I would put JFK a little to the right. I would think the lefties would have more reason to kill JFK than the righties. It would bring LBJ to the presidency so that he could improve the pandering to the civil rights groups. So, it still remains my problem as to the association of Walker to Extreme Right Wing except as to the benefit to the Extreme lefties that it brought to them by the reference.
  8. So, you listed some 17 persons killed by the Klan from 50 thru 67 and you say that the lives taken in Chicago can't compare with those deaths. Sounds like an opinion of someone from California, or something. I wonder how many of the parents of the 8 persons murdered in Chicago this weekend would agree with you that their child was less valuable and didn't compare to the death of a child in Mississippi. Get me a list of those, would you? This significant event: " Another Klan bombing was averted in Meridian the same year." was really newsworthy, I wonder how many additional murders were averted in Chicago this weekend. I live in a small city of about 10,000 and no one was killed this weekend, so I guess we could say that 'the deaths of 10,000 local citizens was averted this weekend. When you start throwing words like 'ignorant' around, you're only inviting comparisons. Having a different point of view is not necessarily ignorance. I personally think the lives of the folks in Chicago are of the same value as the persons in Mississippi. I guess it's 'who is doing the killing' that makes it unimportant to you.
  9. Well, then, you and Paul are gravely in error. Check out any historian's writings about the Klan and you will notice that there were two major periods during the 20th century when it grew and was potent. The second period began just after the 1954 Brown decision and continued into the 1960's. For example: check KKK scholar, David Cunningham's writings. He served as the major consultant for the PBS 2013 series Klansville USA - which was informed by his book Klansville, U.S.A.: The Rise and Fall of the Civil Rights-Era KKK (Oxford University Press, 2013). Below I copy the text of one summary of Klan growth and activity which accurately reflects the history (despite what you and Paul think). I highlight and underline one key portion. I also recommend that interested parties review the FBI files on the Klan which I donated to Internet Archive. In particular, review documentation regarding the most violent Klan in our nation's history -- i.e. The White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi -- whose Imperial Wizard was Sam Bowers. Also review the extensive 1965-1966 hearings about the Klan by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Also check the FBI monograph about the Klan during the period from 1958-1964 (link below). No serious student of the Klan or of U.S. history believes the conclusion stated by yourself and Paul: https://archive.org/stream/foia_FBI_monograph-Klan_Organizations-Section_III_1958-1964/FBI_monograph-Klan_Organizations-Section_III_1958-1964#page/n0/mode/2up ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ By mid-1956, a marked rise in Klan activity was well underway – new Klan groups were drawing strength from the ferment in the South. They gained members from extremist elements among the White Citizens Councils themselves. These organizing efforts succeeded in mobilizing former Klansmen who had been inactive for years. The strongest of the new groups consisted of klaverns linked under the banner of the U.S. Klans, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc. (generally referred to as the "U.S. Klans"). This group was subsequently chartered and incorporated in the State of Georgia. The leader of the new group was Eldon Lee Edwards, a paint sprayer employed in an Atlanta auto factory. He had quietly begun organizing in 1953, had stepped up his activities in the wake of the 1954 Supreme Court decision, and had incorporated his new organization on October 24, 1955. By September 29, 1956, Edwards was able to stage one of the largest Klan rallies in years, drawing a crowd of approximately 3,000 to Stone Mountain, Georgia, the site from which the Second Klan had been launched in 1915. The crowd came in more than 1,000 cars painted with KKK emblems and bearing license plates from seven states – Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Florida, and Louisiana. At its peak in the late 1950s, Edwards' U.S. Klans had units in nine Southern states. However, the group was beset by internal feuding and challenges to the Edwards leadership. In addition, more than a score of smaller Klans emerged to compete with the Edwards organization. Although the U.S. Klans remained the strongest of the Klan groups in the South during the second half of the 1950s, Edwards was never able to gain a dominant position, nor to unify the competing and fragmented Klan organizations. The New Klan Resurgence and Violence In the early 1960s, the Klans functioned as a clandestine movement that spearheaded the resistance to a national trend toward equality for all Americans. Like their predecessors, the `60s Klans employed terrorism and a form of guerrilla race warfare to carry out their purposes. The Klans and their allies were responsible for a major portion of the assaults, killings, bombings, floggings, and other acts of racial intimidation that swept the South in the first years of the 1960s. The Klans provided the organizational framework and the emotional stimulus necessary to incite members and non-­members alike to violence and terror. The year 1960 was marked by a sharp increase in Klan activities and by the consolidation of some of the previously splintered groups in seven states. The Klan resurgence was spurred by the historic sit-­in movement launched at Greensboro, North Carolina on February 2, 1960, by young Black civil rights activists. A few weeks later, on the weekend of February 27-28, 1960, representatives of splintered Klan groups from seven Southern states met at the Henry Grady Hotel in Atlanta and formed a "National Klan Committee" to coordinate their activities. The Klans represented there had long been opposed to Edwards' U.S. Klans; in fact, this opposition was the chief bond among them. The loose confederation of splinter Klans that emerged came to be known as the "National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Ernie, you don't have a clue. But then you're living in California, so we can't expect much. What you quoted above: There is no there, there. You don't say anything about violent activities of the KKK. Having a membership card has nothing to do with activities. I'm a life member of the NRA and I've never been to a meeting and haven't fired a gun in 10 years. I think if you were to re'read what you wrote above, you would have a difficult time trying to find the 'violent activities' you are implying. I grew up in South Georgia in the 1940's and have lived in the South all my life and I've never seen anyone in a white sheet except in movies, on tv and maybe some photos in newspapers. I've never known anyone that I know to be a member of the Klan. 1. "By mid-1956, a marked rise in Klan activity was well underway – new Klan groups were drawing strength from the ferment in the South." What does that mean? Saying there was a 'marked rise' has nothing to do with actually being increased activity. 2. "This group was subsequently chartered and incorporated in the State of Georgia. The leader of the new group was Eldon Lee Edwards, a paint sprayer employed in an Atlanta auto factory. He had quietly begun organizing in 1953, had stepped up his activities in the wake of the 1954 Supreme Court decision," Wow, sounds 'terrifying' doesn't it. 'quietly begun organizing' I guess he passed the 'membership' cards while whispering. 3. "By September 29, 1956, Edwards was able to stage one of the largest Klan rallies in years, drawing a crowd of approximately 3,000 to Stone Mountain, Georgia," Sounds terrifying. They left out the details on how many people were hanged that weekend. Wow, 3000.....and in over 1000 cars with 'license plates'. 4. "Although the U.S. Klans remained the strongest of the Klan groups in the South during the second half of the 1950s, Edwards was never able to gain a dominant position, nor to unify the competing and fragmented Klan organizations." You probably didn't intend to leave that sentence in did you? Sounds as if they never 'really' got organized. 5. "The Klans and their allies were responsible for a major portion of the assaults, killings, bombings, floggings, and other acts of racial intimidation that swept the South in the first years of the 1960s." Sounds bad? the writer must not have been to Chicago on a typical weekend. I'd like to see some comparative numbers on all these folks that were killed by the Klan in the South in the 60's compared to what happens every week in Chicago. I'm sure you have those numbers at your fingertips. 6. "The year 1960 was marked by a sharp increase in Klan activities and by the consolidation of some of the previously splintered groups in seven states. " Sounds as if most of the 'terrifying' activities of the Klan had to do with organizing and consolidation. Couldn't find a lot of stories about lynchings. I'm sure you have those catalogued. Please tell us about some. 7. There are about as many Klan organizations listed in the North as in the South. Chicago is in the North. Kenneth -- nobody is fooled by your bigotry. You want specific evidence of VIOLENCE? Then read the Klan monograph whose link I provided. Or read the HUAC hearings. Or read the hundreds of books and doctoral dissertations written by our nation's most prominent historians and political scientists. Nobody could possibly be as willfully ignorant as you claim to be. "Kenneth -- nobody is fooled by your bigotry. You want specific evidence of VIOLENCE? Then read the Klan monograph whose link I provided. Or read the HUAC hearings. Or read the hundreds of books and doctoral dissertations written by our nation's most prominent historians and political scientists. Nobody could possibly be as willfully ignorant as you claim to be." Geez, Ernie, did your wife cut you off last night, or something? You wake up with a vendetta this morning? As long as you choose to live in California, I wouldn't bring up the subject of ignorance.
  10. Larry, how well documented are the violent activities in Chicago? There are as many people killed on the typical weekend in Chicago as was claimed to be killed in the entire south by the 'klan' throughout the 60's. There were more black people killed in Chicago this Labor Day weekend than were killed throughout the South by the Klan in the entire decade of the 60's. Which one is the problem?
  11. Well, then, you and Paul are gravely in error. Check out any historian's writings about the Klan and you will notice that there were two major periods during the 20th century when it grew and was potent. The second period began just after the 1954 Brown decision and continued into the 1960's. For example: check KKK scholar, David Cunningham's writings. He served as the major consultant for the PBS 2013 series Klansville USA - which was informed by his book Klansville, U.S.A.: The Rise and Fall of the Civil Rights-Era KKK (Oxford University Press, 2013). Below I copy the text of one summary of Klan growth and activity which accurately reflects the history (despite what you and Paul think). I highlight and underline one key portion. I also recommend that interested parties review the FBI files on the Klan which I donated to Internet Archive. In particular, review documentation regarding the most violent Klan in our nation's history -- i.e. The White Knights of the KKK of Mississippi -- whose Imperial Wizard was Sam Bowers. Also review the extensive 1965-1966 hearings about the Klan by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. Also check the FBI monograph about the Klan during the period from 1958-1964 (link below). No serious student of the Klan or of U.S. history believes the conclusion stated by yourself and Paul: https://archive.org/stream/foia_FBI_monograph-Klan_Organizations-Section_III_1958-1964/FBI_monograph-Klan_Organizations-Section_III_1958-1964#page/n0/mode/2up ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ By mid-1956, a marked rise in Klan activity was well underway – new Klan groups were drawing strength from the ferment in the South. They gained members from extremist elements among the White Citizens Councils themselves. These organizing efforts succeeded in mobilizing former Klansmen who had been inactive for years. The strongest of the new groups consisted of klaverns linked under the banner of the U.S. Klans, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc. (generally referred to as the "U.S. Klans"). This group was subsequently chartered and incorporated in the State of Georgia. The leader of the new group was Eldon Lee Edwards, a paint sprayer employed in an Atlanta auto factory. He had quietly begun organizing in 1953, had stepped up his activities in the wake of the 1954 Supreme Court decision, and had incorporated his new organization on October 24, 1955. By September 29, 1956, Edwards was able to stage one of the largest Klan rallies in years, drawing a crowd of approximately 3,000 to Stone Mountain, Georgia, the site from which the Second Klan had been launched in 1915. The crowd came in more than 1,000 cars painted with KKK emblems and bearing license plates from seven states – Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Florida, and Louisiana. At its peak in the late 1950s, Edwards' U.S. Klans had units in nine Southern states. However, the group was beset by internal feuding and challenges to the Edwards leadership. In addition, more than a score of smaller Klans emerged to compete with the Edwards organization. Although the U.S. Klans remained the strongest of the Klan groups in the South during the second half of the 1950s, Edwards was never able to gain a dominant position, nor to unify the competing and fragmented Klan organizations. The New Klan Resurgence and Violence In the early 1960s, the Klans functioned as a clandestine movement that spearheaded the resistance to a national trend toward equality for all Americans. Like their predecessors, the `60s Klans employed terrorism and a form of guerrilla race warfare to carry out their purposes. The Klans and their allies were responsible for a major portion of the assaults, killings, bombings, floggings, and other acts of racial intimidation that swept the South in the first years of the 1960s. The Klans provided the organizational framework and the emotional stimulus necessary to incite members and non-­members alike to violence and terror. The year 1960 was marked by a sharp increase in Klan activities and by the consolidation of some of the previously splintered groups in seven states. The Klan resurgence was spurred by the historic sit-­in movement launched at Greensboro, North Carolina on February 2, 1960, by young Black civil rights activists. A few weeks later, on the weekend of February 27-28, 1960, representatives of splintered Klan groups from seven Southern states met at the Henry Grady Hotel in Atlanta and formed a "National Klan Committee" to coordinate their activities. The Klans represented there had long been opposed to Edwards' U.S. Klans; in fact, this opposition was the chief bond among them. The loose confederation of splinter Klans that emerged came to be known as the "National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Ernie, you don't have a clue. But then you're living in California, so we can't expect much. What you quoted above: There is no there, there. You don't say anything about violent activities of the KKK. Having a membership card has nothing to do with activities. I'm a life member of the NRA and I've never been to a meeting and haven't fired a gun in 10 years. I think if you were to re'read what you wrote above, you would have a difficult time trying to find the 'violent activities' you are implying. I grew up in South Georgia in the 1940's and have lived in the South all my life and I've never seen anyone in a white sheet except in movies, on tv and maybe some photos in newspapers. I've never known anyone that I know to be a member of the Klan. 1. "By mid-1956, a marked rise in Klan activity was well underway – new Klan groups were drawing strength from the ferment in the South." What does that mean? Saying there was a 'marked rise' has nothing to do with actually being increased activity. 2. "This group was subsequently chartered and incorporated in the State of Georgia. The leader of the new group was Eldon Lee Edwards, a paint sprayer employed in an Atlanta auto factory. He had quietly begun organizing in 1953, had stepped up his activities in the wake of the 1954 Supreme Court decision," Wow, sounds 'terrifying' doesn't it. 'quietly begun organizing' I guess he passed the 'membership' cards while whispering. 3. "By September 29, 1956, Edwards was able to stage one of the largest Klan rallies in years, drawing a crowd of approximately 3,000 to Stone Mountain, Georgia," Sounds terrifying. They left out the details on how many people were hanged that weekend. Wow, 3000.....and in over 1000 cars with 'license plates'. 4. "Although the U.S. Klans remained the strongest of the Klan groups in the South during the second half of the 1950s, Edwards was never able to gain a dominant position, nor to unify the competing and fragmented Klan organizations." You probably didn't intend to leave that sentence in did you? Sounds as if they never 'really' got organized. 5. "The Klans and their allies were responsible for a major portion of the assaults, killings, bombings, floggings, and other acts of racial intimidation that swept the South in the first years of the 1960s." Sounds bad? the writer must not have been to Chicago on a typical weekend. I'd like to see some comparative numbers on all these folks that were killed by the Klan in the South in the 60's compared to what happens every week in Chicago. I'm sure you have those numbers at your fingertips. 6. "The year 1960 was marked by a sharp increase in Klan activities and by the consolidation of some of the previously splintered groups in seven states. " Sounds as if most of the 'terrifying' activities of the Klan had to do with organizing and consolidation. Couldn't find a lot of stories about lynchings. I'm sure you have those catalogued. Please tell us about some. 7. There are about as many Klan organizations listed in the North as in the South. Chicago is in the North.
  12. Well, Kenneth, in 2013 I studied the effect of the 1954 Brown Decision (by Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren) on the Southern US States. Their reaction to the Brown Decision was quite different than the Northern reaction. It was at this time that we saw a sharp revival of the Confederate Flag in the South. Although by 1954 the KKK was already severely curtailed in the South, what history witnessed in Mississippi in response to the Brown Decision was something called the "Citizen Councils," also called the "White Citizen Councils" in some regions. The Citizens Councils recognized that Earl Warren had rendered the Brown Decision in response to political pressure from the NAACP. Therefore, the Citizens Councils targeted the NAACP for special negative pressure. Realizing that the brute force of the KKK was the main cause of its bad reputation in the USA, the Citizens Councils rejected the KKK and its methods, and concentrated instead on Economic Measures against the NAACP. Membership lists of the NAACP were obtained, and then each member was systematically subjected to Bank Loan recalls, Bank Loan denials, employment rejection and employment termination by any means available. The Citizens Councils were extremely successful in the 1950's, so that the Brown Decision was largely ignored in the deep South throughout the 1950's. This is what I call the Extreme Right Wing in the South, Kenneth. It's a resistance to Racial Equality under the Law. I take this to be the same as what Dr. Caufield calls the "Radical Right". President Eisenhower had to respond to this culture in Little Rock Arkansas in 1957, using thousands of Federal Forces to admit thirteen Black American students to Little Rock High School. Eisenhower selected General Edwin Walker to enforce the Brown Decision there, and Walker did that successfully. However, the Extreme Right Wing converged upon General Walker personally in Little Rock, between 1957 and 1959, so that by 1959 General Walker submitted his first resignation to the US Army, even forfeiting his Army pension, citing "a fifth column conspiracy." Eisenhower rejected that resignation and instead rewarded Walker's success at Little Rock with a command over the 24th Infantry in Augsburg Germany. (Yet Walker would soon resign again, and the second time, JFK would accept the resignation.) I digress. My reference to the Extreme Right Wing in the South is simply this movement to "Impeach Earl Warren" because of his Brown Decision. Not until the 1960's did Mississippi submit fully to the Brown Decision -- but again it required JFK to send thousands of Federal Troops to Ole Miss University. This time the resigned General Walker was on the other side of the fence -- leading the charges against Federal Troops. Regards, --Paul Trejo Thanks for that response. I've never made a 'study' of the KKK. However I grew up in the South and have lived here always and I've never seen any KKK activities. Seems as if they're always some other place. Much of it in the North. So I guess I kinda interpret your use of the sentence "Extreme Right Wing of the South" just as a repetition because someone else used it. I certainly don't see any reason to associate the assassination of JFK with the South, yes it did happen there but could just as easily have been in Chicago or some northern city. I think it was unrelated to geography.
  13. Does anyone (besides Paul) believe this statement by Paul? "Although by 1954 the KKK was already severely curtailed in the South..." I certainly do. In fact I'd say most of it was over by 1930. While there are still quite a few chapters listed throughout the US, there are little or no 'racial activities'.
  14. Paul, one quick question before I respond to the major part of your comments. I asked above and still wonder, why do you refer to 'Extreme Right Wing of the South'?
  15. Jon, very good assessment of DVP's belief's. I basically agree with your version of the loss of truth in the country. I don't understand the reason behind DVP's naivety, surely they have done nothing to earn that undying trust. I guess the government has always lied to it's citizens, it's just with the complexity of the world today there is just a much greater need to keep the internals of government a secret. It seems that with the infiltration of the communists back in the 20's and 30's is when the real deception efforts started. Certainly there were massive efforts to keep secrets during the FDR regime'. Look at the character assassination of Joe McCarthy just because he wanted to get the communists out of government. Since the 'grand opening' of the files of the Soviet Union, all those secrets came out. How many was McCarthy wrong about? But already, by the time the WC came out, there were many that were able to detect the outright fraud and lies it contained. I think it was certainly a big part of the plan to get it out as quickly as possible before the other books of the truth starting coming out. Once the other versions started coming out, it was going to be much harder to sell their lies. I think they still had a belief that many would be like DVP and never even think to question them. The government of today and at least since Clinton came into office has been totally about keeping the people off balance. It's almost like. Okay what did the government say and what is the truth? The Obama crowd have taken it to new heights. I will never see the truth revealed by the government because I sure don't see it being revealed at least within the next 15 years and the odds are certainly against me living to be over 90 years old.
  16. You shouldn't have stopped at the second paragraph of my "Oswald Is Guilty" page, Kenny..... One paragraph is usually sufficient to see which direction you are attempting to blow the smoke. But to give you an opportunity, how many pages or paragraphs would I have to read to get to the first actual proof that LHO is guilty? I'm guessing you can't answer that question because I'm quite sure you don't have that proof in that series.
  17. OK, Kenneth, I'm going to reply by the numbers, since you've made several points there. (1) Insofar as you've been reading about the JFK murder since the WR came out, you've got a great handle on the topic. I surely agree with you that all the Lone Nutter (LN) books out there, from Posner to Bugliosi to O'Reilly, were mainly a parade of loyalty to Earl Warren. (2) Perhaps Dr. Cyril Wecht was the first to say, "Who cares who the shooters were, as long as we know there was a conspiracy?" Well, I really care. In fact, I maintain that until we know the Ground Crew, we really can't identify the Lead Plotters. (3) I also maintain that the most central error of all JFK CT's is jumping to the conclusion that the JFK Cover-up Team "must have been" working for the JFK-Kill Team. (4) The second most central error claims that the JFK-Killers "got away with it," simply because they were never publicly charged. IMHO the US Government figured out who the JFK Killers were within one hour of the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald -- and dealt with them behind closed doors. They could never be made public, because riots would have erupted in US streets during the Cold War -- and actually the JFK Killers would have received far more support from the US Right Wing that we can even imagine today. (5) My evidence that the JFK-Killers failed to "get away with it" begins with the fact that Fidel Castro is still alive today, and Cuba is still "Communist" today. (6) You totally got me between the eyes, Kenneth, by pointing out the grammatical error in my sentence, "...that book only proves that the US Government lied about the JFK Cover-up." I should have said that the US Government "lied by using" the JFK Cover-up. (6.1) Still, the US Government didn't lie about lying to us -- they admitted that the JFK Truth must be withheld for 75 years. (7) As for your imaginary scenario of the JFK plot, Kenneth, IMHO you repeat the common error of most JFK CT's, namely, you presume that the people who killed JFK also planned the JFK Cover-up. It's really easy to disprove that theory. (7.1) The people who killed JFK spent six solid months trying to make Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) look like an FPCC Communist. That was critical to their plan. They planned to blame the FPCC Communists for the murder of JFK. It was supposed to look like a team effort, with multiple shooters. The USA was supposed to think the Communists killed JFK, so that we would invade Cuba. (7.2) The people who covered-up the JFK murder had only one hour to devise their response. J. Edgar Hoover shone brightest on this day. When LHO was arrested at 2pm on 11/22/1963, the officials in Dallas told the FBI that LHO was a leader of the FPCC and a Communist. Hoover broke out his fat file on LHO and discovered this: (i) LHO was not on his list of card-carrying Communists; and (ii) LHO's FPCC in NOLA was a Fake operation run by Guy Banister, a former FBI agent. (7.3) With that information, J. Edgar Hoover quickly figured out that Guy Banister and the Extreme Right Wing in the South was behind the JFK murder. He also figured out that their plan was to blame the FPCC Communists by having set-up LHO as their Patsy. The killers' plan was to frighten the USA to spur us to invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro right away. We have FBI records today that prove that J. Edgar Hoover called RFK around 3pm to announce that LHO was not a Communist and was not a leader in the FPCC. (7.4) So, it only took one hour for Hoover to figure this out, and to tell the FBI about his plan, famous today as the "Lone Nut" theory. If LHO was a "Lone Nut," then there was no need to follow the Extreme Right Wing in their planned invasion of Cuba. (7.5) It was a matter of National Security -- so Hoover got the message through to LBJ (probably through McGeorge Bundy) and then to Allen Dulles and then from LBJ to Earl Warren and most of the senior members of his Commission. The Truth about the JFK murder was quickly a matter of National Security. It will remain so until Thursday 26 October 2017. (8) Then, Kenneth, you asked about Harry Dean's January 1965 announcement of an Extreme Right Wing plot to kill JFK featuring the resigned Major General Edwin Walker. You asked, "Is it possible it took him a full year to come up with that story?" (8.1) The way Harry explained the delay to me -- and I believe him -- is that he truly hoped that the Warren Report would print the full Truth about the JFK murder, and lay to rest the ridiculous rumors in the Mass Media that LHO was the "Lone Nut" killer of JFK. (8.2) When the Warren Report was made public on 27 September 1964, the Mass Media was confirmed in their rumors -- LHO was the "Lone Nut." (8.3) Harry Dean then decided he would have to go public as soon as he could. It took him some time to arrange an appearance on the Joe Pyne Show, which aired in January 1965. (8.4) Harry Dean also claims that he had already told the FBI his side of the story in 1963. If this is true, then Harry simply kept faith in the FBI, that they would investigate his claims and learn the full truth, and then surprise the world in September 1964 with the real truth -- that the Extreme Right Wing led by the resigned General Walker was the true killer of JFK (just as Jack Ruby told Earl Warren in June 1964). (8.5) People today still dispute Harry's claim that he told the FBI in 1963. If so, they demand, then where are the FBI records to prove that he did? Instead, we only find Los Angeles FBI records about Harry in which the FBI dismisses Harry as a "mental case." (8.6) IMHO, the jury is still out -- until we finally see all the top secret records on the JFK murder still held by the ARRB -- promised to be released by Thursday 26 October 2017, I, for one, still expect to see official confirmation of Harry Dean's claims. (9) The evidence that links Edwin Walker to the JFK murder is very convincing to me, Kenneth. For example, did you know that Edwin Walker was the leader of the group that humiliated UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson in Dallas only 30 days before the JFK murder? (9.1) Furthermore, Walker just walked away from that scandal, laughing his head off. General Walker was untouchable in Dallas. Regards, --Paul Trejo Thanks for that response Paul. Some interesting points, most of which I agree with. Some not entirely but mostly with small differences. I'll use your numbers. (2)"Who cares who the shooters were, as long as we know there was a conspiracy?" I don't think it's particularly useful to know exactly who it was as long as we know who they represented. If they were involved in other ways, then it increases the importance of knowing. What I'm saying here is, say the CIA were responsible for supplying the shooters. So they imported 6 persons from, oh, say France. Does it matter what their names were? Not to me. But say that the CIA did something like using JD Tippit as Badge Man and Roscoe White and a few SS men to provide security for the shooters. That would matter. One thing we do know is that there were more than one shooter so there had to be at least a two man conspiracy. I do agree that knowing who the shooters were would make it easier to know who the plotters were. (3)conclusion that the JFK Cover-up Team "must have been" working for the JFK-Kill Team. If not, how would they have known which rifle to use in the BYP to match the type of rifle in the sniper's nest? I consider the construction of the BYP as part of the planning (which the killl team had to be responsible for) I can accept that the kill team may have had a plan to 'cover their activities' but not to cover the assassination itself. Then JEH could have discovered that line and chose to cover the whole operation. (4)Government may have figured out who? They may have already known, might have been doing the planning. I think you're assuming that 'if it had become known, there would have been riots" I think that is assuming it was a foreign government would have been involved. Maybe, but I've never seen any evidence of that. (5) Seems to be an assumption that it was known that Castro was not responsible. I'll agree that Castro most likely had nothing to do with it. I've never thought Cuba was involved. (6) (6.1) I certainly think the US government knows who was responsible for the assassination, who did it and are covering it up. But I think that was their plan all the time. (7) It's really easy to disprove that theory. Ok, Why was there a MC rifle in the BYP and in the sniper's nest when there was no MC rifle fired in Dealey Plaza that day? J. Edgar Hoover quickly figured out that Guy Banister and the Extreme Right Wing in the South was behind the JFK murder. I know you are just repeating terminology that others have used, but I take exception to it. First why is it "Extreme" why is it "right wing" and why are they "in the South"? My lifetime experience would tend to blame the evils of the world on the 'left wing' liberals and socialists. But that's a separate issue. I disagree that JEH quickly figured out. I think he already knew who was behind it. Whereas you see his brilliance, I see his complicity. (8)General Walker was untouchable in Dallas. If someone could just show me the evidence that Walker had control of the CIA, SS, FBI, LBJ and all the generals and admirals in the military, then I'm all in. Somehow, I think it's going to be awhile before that evidence is put together.
  18. who seem to think that owners of gun stores in Texas in 1963 kept NO RECORDS at all. But that's just not true. No, it's even worse, they only kept the records that they chose to keep. Nothing about the WC records of the transaction prove that LHO had anything to do with buying a rifle from Kleins. The MO was out of sequence for MO sold in Dallas for March 63. There were no endorsements, which were required, on the back of the MO. The MO was not mailed from the PO where it was purchased, in fact, it was mailed from quite a distance in the opposite direction from where LHO was working at the time and the employer records show that LHO was on the job at the time, not miles away buying a MO and mailing it. I didn't notice all that info in the WC report. Do you think they might have been 'selective' in what they put in their report, knowing that those like DVP, who are not free to believe what they choose, would believe just what they wanted him to believe.
  19. Wonder why nobody has ever taken Barry Krusch's money on his bet?
  20. I don't agree with that proposition. Kennedy may have been having meetings with them, but the Soviets with their heavy investment there and with dozens of Nukes there were not about to let the US move them out of Cuba. Yes, I know they were supposed to have all the nukes out, but how many years did it really take to get them all out?
  21. Good assessment Greg. JIm, I read the entire series and it does contain some interesting situations. Clearly the most influential event in the story of the photos and camera was the session that Marina had on the importance of her full cooperation with the investigation and the influence it may have on the determination as to whether she could stay in the US. It certainly refreshed her recollection on things that she seemed to have no previous memory. It seems as if the photos may well have been created sometime about March or April based on the plant growth in the photo, however it might have been taken as late as November, after the plant had lost it's leaves. . If I were to give my assessment. The photo of the location, the house and yard were taken with no one in them. A separate photo was made with someone posing and the face of Oswald was laid onto that body, both then transposed onto the yard. The brown image photos that have been shown show the plant growth and boards and grass through LHO's legs and shoes. If they were never there, i.e., blocked by the actual legs and shoes, then they could never be seen 'through' the man. There is no doubt that the photos are fake, so, many of the other questions asked have to have creative answers. How did they know a MC rifle was going to be used? How did they know there was going to be an assassination? How likely is it that the body in the photo is Roscoe White, who was also likely the badge man shooter and did have knowledge there was going to be a shooting. How did the Reflex camera leave marks on negatives that were not used in that camera. Why did Roscoe White have a BYP in his possession at Headquarters on the evening of the shooting? Did he also have that photo in his possession prior to Nov 22? Very likely. If there had been a trial of LHO, the BYP's would never have been allowed to be introduced as evidence (assuming the Court system in Dallas had not been fixed).
  22. Just my opinion, --Paul Trejo And a very good opinion, I sure have no problem with it. But a few comments. I have been reading about the JFK murder since the Warren Report came out, then especially started reading a lot about it with Rush to Judgment and 6 Seconds in Dallas. I have never thought that LHO killed JFK. I have seen absolutely no evidence of it since 1963. All LN books follow the same pattern, they all believe the WCR hook line and sinker. No questions asked. I have no idea how many JFK books I have read, very very many, and, in fact, have forgotten many that I've read. I've started a few that are so silly and ridiculous that I didn't bother to finish them. O'Reilly's book, Killing Kennedy fits in that category. Warren Report all the way. The book DVP assisted on this year was like that. Complete waste of time. I don't know who I think was responsible for the killing and it doesn't seem to be very important exactly who it was because he/they totally got away with it, apparently with the approval of many very high people in the US government. (Which includes the military.) Think about your statement: "However, that book only proves that the US Government lied about the JFK Cover-up" Did the US Government 'lie' about the cover-up? Let me make a simple statement of the scenario, it goes something like this: Ok, fellows, we are going ahead with our plan to kill JFK. Here's how it's going to be done. We are going to have 6 shooters all around Dealey Plaza. Firing will begin on signal. There will be about one shot every 3 seconds until it is clear that JFK is dead. Once we see some sign (his brains splattering all over the street) we will cease firing. Depending on the situation, how many shots and from where, we will have several different scenarios to feed to the public about who was responsible, We have a couple of Patsy's set up to take the fall. Here is the story that will be fed to the public, any questions?". Then say that script plays out exactly as it did. Who is lying? Aren't they just following the script? If an actor in a movie tells a story about what he is doing in the movie, is he lying? Or is that part of the planned activities? Yes, I know it's all semantics, but they are serious players and likely would not consider themselves to be acting or lying, just following their plan. "January 1965 to be exact -- Harry Dean shocked the American public on the Joe Pyne Show when he announced that he attended a September 1963 John Birch Society meeting in Southern California along with sundry secret JBS members," As you noted that this was said in Jan, 1965. Is it possible it took him a full year to come up with that story? Could it have had a purpose? This whole effort to say that it was Edwin Walker that headed up the assassination is a relatively new thing. I know that Walker has been named in association with the murder for a long time, but not until more recently as the 'leader' of the plot. I think it is just that, though, just one of the cover stories for who might have done it. The odds that Walker had an organization that could control all the high ranking military, J E Hoover, LBJ, the CIA, the Secret Service is somewhere between slim and none. And most likely much closer to the ' none' than to the 'slim'. And for those Lone Nutters, the odds that LHO could get all those people to cover for him are much slimmer than Walker's chances (which as you recall are 'none'). So, yes.... some people can write interesting novels, with scenarios that can be quite believable if it were in a vacuum, but when people with a good knowledge of all the facts that have gone before it start reading, it often doesn't take long to realize they are reading crap. Such as the Bug Man's book. I read some of that and skimmed the rest of it and there just is nothing there. This new book, I will start. Wonder how far I will get. Just my opinion Kenneth Drew
  23. "Common sense (to me) dictates otherwise." Common sense? Does common sense tell you that guilt is not judged on 'common sense'? It's judged on evidence and facts.
×
×
  • Create New...