Jump to content
The Education Forum

Stu Wexler

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    172

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Stu Wexler

    Edwin Lopez: Oswald never visited embassies in Mexico City

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    Re: Leonov. In an interview with either the Church or Rockefeller Committee, Angleton did everything he could to put a giant arrow above Leonov's head re the assassination. 

    I would add that Leonov was one of three Russians who independently told the same story about Oswald freaking out to them at the Soviet Embassy, only each of the relevant persons put themselves as the person who had to deal directly with Oswald when it happened. So someone was lying or they all were.

    Two other things. Leonov was very close to Che and other Cubans. And he became one of Putin's mentors.

    Stu

    This is what happened to the ARRB concept

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    So you folks know this is not the first ARRB redo. My high school students drafted and successfully lobbied through the Civil Rights Cold Case Records and Collection Act which created the Cold Case Records and Review Board. There was a major delay in nominating and confirming members so we just got an extension amendment passed. We are trying to restore powers to the board that were weakened in the Senate 5 years ago. Specifically: the presumption of release, greater access to state and local records and greater access to grand jury records. 

    -Stu

    Why Are People Here Debating About Debunked Material?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    30 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

    Every single aspect of Bugliosi's worthless door stop was taken apart by me, and by others e.g. Gary Aguilar and David Mantik.

    That book was nothing but a waste of paper.  

    Vince's initial mistake, like Spence's, was to participate in that sham of a mock trial in London.  (I later found out that the consultants were Summers and Hoch.). I spent an entire chapter, well over 20 pages showing that thing was a joke.  (The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp 49-72). I mean Spence had a perfect opportunity to demolish certain witnesses and he did not. Can you imagine Petty  saying, "It would have been nice to have the brain."?  With Say Mark Lane as the defense lawyer? 

    And Bugliosi called Guinn!  Even at that time, Wallace Milam and Art Snyder had started to poke holes in the BS NAA evidence.

    How bad was that shambles of a trial? Bugliosi actually wrote that Hoch leaned toward conspiracy! (p. 70) 

    LOL, ROTF, LMAO.  🤩😘🤧

    That is how desperate Bugliosi was to try and spin that demolition derby.

     

     

    I was routinely debating Rahn at the conferences as were others. The writing was clearly on the wall even before Randich, Grant, Spiegelman, Tobin, et al. made it official.  But defenders chose to double down even as the entire science was crumbling. Their ultimate claim: Oswald apparently chose the only ammunition in the universe fabricated, packaged and distributed to allow for definitive counting and matching.

    To the earlier poster:  the key point is that Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (NAA) cannot be used to "count" the precise number of MC bullets from fragments or connect, precisely, one fragment to a specific bullet or even a bullet box. It is no longer even used as forensic technique in any lab. The SBT, and the shooting scenario as a whole, cannot be verified with CABL/NAA. Any debate to the SBTs validity must rely on other factors and evidence. In that regard, I do not believe it holds up very well.

    To Jim's point, Randich and Grant debunked the supposed uniqueness of MC bullet lead composition much touted by Rahn and Sturdivan. The odd numbers could easily be the result of microsegregation and Guinn's sampling method. Relatedly, they further verified Wallace Milam's point about the heterogeneity issues/math Guinn used and Rahn tried to rectify. What Spiegelman et al. showed was that MC rounds are packaged and distributed like all other bullet boxes, with many of the same exact bullet leads found in multiple bullets within and between boxes.  Together, this destroys the Guinn/Rahn/Sturdivan. But in fact, together, they national attention these studies received almost definitely helped kill the entire forensic application of CABL.

    Stu

     

    Why Are People Here Debating About Debunked Material?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    7 hours ago, Charles Blackmon said:

    Dr. Guinn's own earlier studies on bullet lead had shown that "the quantitative comparison of only three elements was insufficient to characterize individual bullets from different sources."  Guinn only looked at antimony, apparently discarding copper because he assumed the jacket would skew the results, even though the samples were taken from the un-jacketed base of the lead bullet.

    And Silver did not even support his groupings so they (Guinn and Rahn esp) ultimately went with just 1 element. Even before the 2000s the trend was to look for more and more elemental discriminants, not one.  One NAA/CABL expert called the Rahn decision to use one "absolutely ridiculous." 

    Why Are People Here Debating About Debunked Material?

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    I do not know why Randich and Grant always get mentioned and never Spiegelman, Tobin, et al. In fairness I was a part of that paper (also provided materials to Randich and Grant.) But we won an award from the American statistical association for our work too. I say this because the issue is attacked from separate angles in each paper. Between the two sets, literally every single angle is demolished. The "what are the odds" per David issue is DIRECTLY addressed in our paper. As I have tried to explain to people before: the odds of getting 4 aces two hands in a row is remote unless ofcourse the deck is literally stacked with aces before you play. That is the issue and one I was confronting Rahn with for years and should have been apparent to Bugliosi:  you can at best say *at least* two bullets are accounted for in the fragments recovered; 3 is well within statistical reason and 4 is even possible. You cannot say which fragments came from which bullets with any certainty. And you can't-- per Randich's extensive background with all kinds of bullets-- really say these are even Carcano based solely on bullet lead chemistry. Which makes the tiny fragments a big problem.  

    The Vanishing Low Fragment Trail and WC Apologists

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Stu Wexler

    If I recall the high (cowlick) entry has 3 pieces of evidence cited in favor of it beyond the red spot.

    1) The high fragment trail

    2) The 6.5mm roundish metallic fragment in the vicinity 

    3) The radiating fracture pattern near #2.

    I know there are many problems with #2--  I got Sturdivan to expose one of them. Pat has an alternative explanation for #2 as I recall, but I would really want at least one forensic radiologist to confirm it. Sturdivan raised questions about #3 but that fracture pattern helped convince some of the top forensic pathologists and radiologists of the high wound.  

    I do not know what to make of any of it. Randy Robertson believes two rear shots, right?  But there is also good reason to believe in a frontal shot. And all of it (the contradictions) seem to suggest tampering as being possible however much that would normally .

    Stu

    RFK's Influence on Ruby's Nerves, October - November 1963.

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    @Benjamin Cole are you using North's Pearl Street Mafia book?  Or the earlier one?  I think the former deserved much more attention than it got. I still go with Hancock&Boylan, but North's last JFK book is another that gets you into Dallas in Oct and Nov 63--  which to me has become the key separator between theories worth considering and not. They really need to get you into Oswald's orbit, because whether you believe he was a total dupe or you believe he was some kind of lone, hired gun, no group trying to kill JFK is logically going to use Oswald without at least *thinking* they can control his actions. 

    Stu

    The 3 Editions of “Crime Of The Century”

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    13 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

    So if one was to buy his book, it would be the 2013 edition as that contains the most info? And nothing in the 2013 edition inherently contradicts anything in the previous two editions? 

    I guess it could be a matter of opinion regarding Banister and the CIA. Some people might not view Banister in a CIA light but view him more as an independent right-winger whom the CIA interacted with the odd time, like lots of other organizations did such as the FBI. Personally I don't view Banister as a CIA character but more of an independent guy.

    I didn't realize Kurtz interviewed Helms. It would be worth getting the book alone for that interview.

     

    Oh I would argue it comes pretty damn close to contradicting the earlier editions.  The earlier editions suggest Oswald may have been working for Castro and offer very little in the way of support for the idea that Oswald was intelligence connected. They are not friendly to Jim Garrison. The 2013 edition has interviews with Leake, Helms and Gaudet that, if true, would make Jim Garrison blush. No way you can write what he wrote in the earlier editions if you obtained the revelations he supposedly did in the early 80s. Not without a damn good explanation that no one has been able to get.

    The 3 Editions of “Crime Of The Century”

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted · Edited by Stu Wexler

    It would definitely be worth following up to see if he has since deposited the records.

    To add to what Larry is saying. I did a lot of follow up with this, notably with Kurtz's colleagues-- who knew both Hunter Leake and Kurtz. They were pretty strong in their convictions that Leake may well have told Kurtz what Kurtz noted in his later book--  because they swore by Kurtz's integrity. On the other hand, they did not have nearly as much faith in Leake. Eg they suggested Leake was trolling Kurtz.

    I do have questions myself about Kurtz's integrity and it goes to the chronology laid out in the original post. Compare how Kurtz's positions or assertions evolved to when he is supposed to have had these revelatory interviews with people like Leake and Helms. He makes  assertions or dismisses CIA duplicity in pre-2013 books. Those assertions are at best bad faith if not outright deceptions if he had the kind of revelations from Leake and Helms (and others) in the early 80s. In other words, you can't mimimize CIA connections to the assassination if Hunter Leake told you he and Bannister were running LHO as a paid operative, among other things. But he dates those interviews before the earlier editions of his book. That is what he has to explain, imo.

     

    Stu

    New Book!

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    It is a deeply researched book on individuals and radical right networks with whom Larry Hancock and I are very familiar. It adds a lot in that regard. While we do not doubt that people in that milieu were actively considering plots against JFK and others, the book falls short when it attempts to paint Oswald as some kind of right winger and when they attempt to drill down to an actual Dealey Plaza plot.

    Stu

    More Follow on Tucker Carlson

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    Larry,

    Are you still following up on his source?  Any chance we can get someone like Jeff Morley to interview said source, with off the record and anonymity protections, to see if Jeff can at least confirm his or her bona fides? 

    I have reservations trusting Tucker C, but I am willing to keep an open mind.

    Stu

    The Marks on Oswald's Map

    in JFK Assassination Debate

    Posted

    One of the most interesting marks *appears* to be over Mohr Chevrolet ("appears" will be explained.)  I found it interesting for two, potentially connected reasons. The first is it employed, at least in 1962 and possibly into 1963, one Charles Waters. Waters is a good candidate for someone who impersonates Oswald, in both New Orleans and in Texas. The second has to do with Oswald's library card. Recall that it included the name Jack Bowen on it as a reference. Investigators traced that to a coworker at Jaggars who turned out to be a criminal working under an alias, John Grossi. Grossi appears to have mafia connections, although that was not fleshed out in 1963-4.  Grossi ofcourse denied anything suspicious and any substantive connection to Oswald. But he did volunteer that his (Grossi/Bowen) actual library card was in possession of his friend in Dallas-- who was working at Mohr Chevrolet. This was same exact dealership that Waters worked at.  It raised the possibility to me that the library card was a way that LHO could potentially link up with Grossi's friend at Mohr and then, maybe, through that to Waters. All speculative but the coincidence seemed pretty remarkable to me.

    So wht do I say "appears" to be over Mohr Chevrolet. Michael Paine would later do Michael Paine things and say that he thought-- but it was not definitive-- that *he* may have marked the map and that it was for a nearby store, not Mohr. He said he seemed to remember taking Oswald there (the other store) on a job hunt. 

    Stu

×
×
  • Create New...