Paul Kerrigan
-
Posts
139 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Paul Kerrigan
-
-
It is also interesting to note that Oswald did not wear that to work that day. He wore a rust red shirt to work. He changed into the outfit he was arrested in when he went back to his boarding house.
-
Over the last while I have heard various opinions on Abraham Zapruder being hired to film the assassination and that he had certain ties among conspirators, can somebody elaborate on this, also why would they want footage of the assassination?
Zapruder does seem to have some connection with the CIA, considering his involvement with The Dallas Council On World Affairs and The Crusade For A Free Europe, both CIA backed Domestic Operations in Dallas that included H.L. Hunt, Clint Murchison, and George DeMohrenschildt amongs its members.
Zapruder also worked with DeMohrenschildt's future wife, Jean LeGon at the clothing design firm Nardis in Dallas. Zapruder left Nardis in 1959, the same year that DeMohrenschildt and LeGon married.
-
We do know for a fact that Kennedy's coffin was disposed of in the Atlantic Ocean. I have never heard the theory that he was actually in it!
-
That's too bad. It would be rather exciting to have Gerald Posner here.
-
A better term than the Military Industrial Complex would be "John Kennedy's militant reactionary political opposition"
Perhaps a better name still would be the "intelligence- military-industrial-financial-political-media- criminal" complex" which is what it had become by the time Eisenhower warned the U.S. about it.
-
And he responded with an eloquent:
“It's fun to debunk a hoax!”
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...esg_id=46&page=
Not suprising, coming from a person who has a pathological hatred of all things Jim Garrison and anyone who supports a case against Clay Shaw.
That was an answer from Denis Morisette, not from Reitzes.
Wim
Oh, I see. In a hurry I read the, "RE: DAVE REITZES"
My mistake.
-
And he responded with an eloquent:
“It's fun to debunk a hoax!”
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...esg_id=46&page=
Not suprising, coming from a person who has a pathological hatred of all things Jim Garrison and anyone who supports a case against Clay Shaw.
-
I just finished watching part of The Men Who Killed Kennedy (again). I saw Kantor's testimony and it is very persuading. How could anyone claim Kantor was mistaken when he vividly remembers his confrontation with Ruby? He shook Ruby's hand, Ruby asked Kantor what he thought about his closing of the Carousel Club in respect of the President, Kantor said it was probably "a good idea" and then said something to the effect of "Excuse me, I have to go now." Kantor would then say he was stunned about how the Warren Commission portrayed his testimony and immediately wondered how they had treated other's testimony. He also wondered how many witnesses the Commission chose not to believe and why.
-
I particularly like Mellen's review of Patricia Lambert's "False Witnesses" in the the Baltimore Sun. She said the book had "scant historical merit." Unfortunately, I'm unable to locate the review on the Internet.
-
Paul and Pat,
Thanks for your responses. You both make some valid points.
I'm looking forward to Joan Mellen's book coming out. I'm sure it will have a lot of new information. The fact that she is having difficulty finding a publisher I believe has nothing to do with the quality of the work.
There may be another major development coming down the pike, too. I'm not at liberty to say what that is just yet, but it involves an unsolved murder.
greg
What is Joan Mellen writing? Is it the Jim Garrison biography?
-
My name is Paul Kerrigan and I am a former teacher of history at a small high school in Pennsylvania. My current area of interest is the JFK Assassination, particulary the prosecution of Clay Shaw and the photographic record.
-
Interesting post. I love how McAdams tries to make humans into statistics that he can measure and calculate. I think it is pretty aparent that we can't be judged on what we won't or will do in this way. Reitzes himself as done some dubious research. I quote from another post of mine:
"Reitzes does a lot of questionable things. One of his favorite things to do is to use something to invalidate a witness he doesn't like while using the same thing to promote witnesses he likes. I know that sounds confusing so I have provided an example.
'...polygraphs are a notoriously unreliable indication of dishonesty in the first place, and most courts will not accept polygraph examinations into evidence for precisely that reason. The following is a selection of online articles that might be of interest regarding this topic:...'
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
'Prior to Shaw's preliminary hearing, Garrison ordered a polygraph examination for Perry Russo; the test indicated 'deception criteria' when [Perry] Russo claimed to have known Lee Oswald and Clay Shaw.'
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100okeefe.html
'In March, Garrison had assigned James Kruebbe to administer a polygraph examination to Bundy. Kruebbe's analysis was that Bundy was lying.'
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100bundy.html
In short, Reitzes is a hypocrite. He attacks Perry Russo and Vernon Bundy for failing a polygraph examination while he defends Jack Ruby even though he himself failed exactly the same test."
-
Dale Myers 3D animation response Part Two
Look at the first attachment in this post. When an overlay was done of the actual Zapruder frame that corresponded to that created by Dale Myers - please note the John Connally sitting height to the cross bar in the Myers animation against the same in the actual Zapruder film. This should give a good idea as to the amount of error that is going on in an animation that has said we should believe in the SBT.
The next attachment shows some parallel references found in Myers 3D animation. These were shown in reference to the vanishing point discussion in the Part One post.
Anyone wanting to know more about Myers animation and the critiques pertaining to it can type in the name "Dale Myers 3D animation" in the Lancer forum search engine to find the threads pertaining to this topic.
http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.p...page=&mode=full
Meyer's replied to that contention:
-
Here's another article on the Secret Government:
-
Judyth has answered me about the claims of Dave Reitzes, who is a staunt follower of John Mcadams in my book. I am sure she will answer you once she sees this post. Personally I would not dignify any of Reitszes' claims with a response. His methods are despicable in my view.
Wim,
I do'nt know what you mean by his 'methods' does'nt he pretty much look up things in books?
If Reites is wrong the only thing to do is to say what is right. If you do'nt people will say your 'copping out' and then guess what?-Mcadams wins.
Sincerenly,
Bill
Bill,
I could write a book about Reitzes' methods, but I don't have the time and interest. Let me suffice with one that is enough for me. If you go to the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup and do a serach for Joe West, you will see that he tries to portray Joe West as a conman. Joe West is dead and he can't defend himself. My opinion of Joe West is that he was a great man who tried to do (and would have been succesful had he lived) the only sensible thing in this case as to solving the question if there was a conspiracy involving multiple shooters: exhume the body of JFK.
Wim.
Reitzes does a lot of questionable things. One of his favorite things to do is to use something to invalidate a witness he doesn't like while using the same thing to promote witnesses he likes. I know that sounds confusing so I have provided an example.
"...polygraphs are a notoriously unreliable indication of dishonesty in the first place, and most courts will not accept polygraph examinations into evidence for precisely that reason. The following is a selection of online articles that might be of interest regarding this topic:..."
http://www.jfk-online.com/rubydef.html
"Prior to Shaw's preliminary hearing, Garrison ordered a polygraph examination for Perry Russo; the test indicated "deception criteria" when [Perry] Russo claimed to have known Lee Oswald and Clay Shaw."
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100okeefe.html
"In March, Garrison had assigned James Kruebbe to administer a polygraph examination to Bundy. Kruebbe's analysis was that Bundy was lying."
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100bundy.html
In short, Reitzes is a hypocrite. He attacks Perry Russo and Vernon Bundy for failing a polygraph examination while he defends Jack Ruby even though he himself failed exactly the same test.
-
Almost everyone has their own theory about who killed Kennedy. The Mafia, anti-Castro Cubans, men within the CIA and the FBI. I myself believe that the assassination was carried out by powerful men within a secret government operating alongside the elected one. Here is an article on that government:
"But this apparatus did not seem to function as an effective Shadow Government, able to make and enforce decisions apart from the official government, until it came together to assassinate President John F. Kennedy. That was the watershed event. After that, too many people had too much to hide to allow the situation to return to governance as usual."
http://www.constitution.org/shad4816.htm
I welcome anyone's comments.
-
Recently George Bush promised to overthrow Castro if he is re-elected. Compared to Iraq, it would be very straightforward to invade Cuba. Why have American presidents over the last 40 been unwilling to order the overthrow of Castro? Will Bush really do this? I doubt it. It seems that Castro has got some hold over the Americans.
Maybe the Olympic Games provides a clue. With 103 medals the USA appeared to be the most successfully Olympic nation. This is not so surprising when you consider its superpower status. If you take into account the size and GNP of each country you get a very different result. Cuba tops the economic table with just $1bn of GNP per medal. Well down the table was the UK ($55bn per medal). The USA was near the bottom with over $100bn per medal. It seems that American sanctions against Cuba is having an undesirable impact. Cuba also has a higher literacy rate and a lower infant-mortality rate that the USA. Maybe Bush should send a fact-finding team to Cuba to find out the secret of its success.
Does the United States really care about Cuba? If the US wanted Castro gone, he'd BE gone. If the US wanted Cuba, Cuba would be owned already. In my opinion, all that is transpiring is the same rhetoric that has always been going on between Castro/Cuba and any US President that happens to be in office.
-
Jim believes flight 77 did not strike the Pentagon.
He sent me this to change my mind:
Hey Wim,
Check out this brief presentation and then tell me you still believe a Boeing 757 jumbo jet struck the Pentagon:
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf
Best regards,
Jim
Comments welcome.
Show us the wreckage. Show us the hole where the giant jet
went into the building. Show us debris or any signs that
a plane crashed here. Show the fire that burned for three
days despite being extinguished by 2 firetrucks within 7 minutes.
Jack White
-
"Paul - Nowhere have I ever heard on Arnold's MWKK interview that Gordon said the man with the gun had a shotgun. He gave an exaggerated visual interpretation as to how large the barrel looked and that was all. I believe that you are making a wrongful assuption that is of your own making."
But the gun is clearly not the revolver that Arnold said the first man brandished. I believe Arnold said that one of the men held a revolver. It is most likely we was referring to a large shotgun.
"Try and keep in mind that Ed said nothing - an interpreter tried to relay to the FBI what Ed was trying to say. Those who know Ed understand that he has a poor understanding of the English language. One should alos consider the FBI's attempts to down play many of the witnesses statements. The FBI failed to mention the second man Arnold Rowland had told them about seeing on the 6th floor. The FBI said Mrs. Hartman saw where a bullet had hit the turf and how it lead mack to the TSBD when in fact Mrs. Hartman said it lead back to the knoll. Take Ed's alleged statement as told by the FBI - Ed's position from the RR tracks was about 300 feet. The statement that he was just a few feet south of the RR tracks is a good example of how the facts are quickly lost through interpretation. I have heard Ed's accounting several times and only the FBI version is different, now why do you think that is? I will also say this ... Ed Hoffman has then and still wants to take a polygraph. Someone had told him that such a test can not be given to someone with his disability and I have since discovered that this is false. At tghis time if the expense can be met and Ed can fit the testers criteria - a polygraph will be given to Ed Hoffman in the near furture."
But Hoffman does not describe what is seen in the Moorman photo. He describes a man in a business suit shooting the President. I also believe that he discusses an assassin adjusting his hat in The Men Who Killed Kennedy, I'm not sure. But anyway, Hoffman does not verify Arnold nor does Lee Bowers who had the best view of the Grassy Knoll. He describes policemen on the Triple Underpass, not behind the Knoll area.
-
Now getting back to Gordon Arnold. The mentioning of a RR worker is something that occurred before he was shown the Badge Man images.
We don't know that for certain. Mack and White published their research in 1982. How can we be sure Arnold's account was untainted by them?
-
"Paul - you are making the classic mistake of not bothering to first find out what else Gordon Arnold said that wasn't in the article Golz had written. You see - Earl only printed a few senteces of what Arnold told him. About a year or so ago I reached Earl and we talked about how people are misusing what was stated in his article. They see a staged photo and think that's Gordon replicating where he stood - they read a couple of lines and think that's all Gordon said during the lenghty interview he had with Earl. Earl Golz was baffled by the fact that people should know better and to be honest - so am I. The article was not meant to be a blow by blow description of everything Gordon had said. An officer did approach Gordon and I believe it was said he had a revolver drawn like several other officers did at the time they were ordered to merge on the RR yard. Thinking shots were just fired from knoll - an officer would be a fool not to have their weapon drawn. The second officer who was right behind the first man had a shotgun with him."
It no longer matters what was edited out of The Men Who Killed Kennedy or from Golz's article. Arnold's account does change between them. Arnold described two men for Golz, we don't know if they're assassins or not. The first man kicks Arnold while the second man comes out with a shotgun and is crying. Now for The Men Who Killed Kennedy, one man comes out with a shotgun, is crying, and kicks Arnold. Is it possible that they edited out Arnold's description of the second man? Yes but what would this man be doing? Arnold already has one policeman with a shotgun, doing the kicking, and crying.
"There were RR workers out by the tracks. Ed Hoffman seen one of them take the rifle when the Hat Man tossed it over the steam pipe. The Bell film shows two such RR workers near the RR boxes at the west end of the fence as Kennedy's limo is heading towards Stemmons Freeway. Arnold never says the apparent RR worker in the Badge Man image is the man he saw - he only mentions seeing a RR worker out by the tracks when he tried to get to the overpass. And yes - he told Turner's people about the RR worker before seeing the Badge Man image. Turner's people editied out much of Arnold's interview and it is wrong IMO for someone like yourself to assume things without knowing what all was said during the interview before the editing took place."
Using one suspect witness to defend another is not the best idea. In an FBI report of June 28, 1967 says:
"Hoffman said he was standing a few feet south of the railroad on Stemmons Freeway when the motorcade passed him taking President Kennedy to Parkland
Hospital. Hoffman said he observed two white males, clutching something dark to their chests with both hands, running from the rear of the Texas School Book Depository building. The men were running north on the railroad, then turned east, and Hoffman lost sight of both of the men.
In newer accounts, Hoffman described the assassin as wearing as business suit.
"I cannot make this any clearer - Gordon Arnold never said that the hatless officer who approached him after the assassination was the assassin who fired from behind him. Gordon only questioned it possibly being the man he saw because the police unifomed man in the Badge Man image didn't appear to be wearing a hat either. What Gordon didn't know is that there were other officers in and around the RR yard who were not wearing their hats and they can be seen in some of the images of the RR yard taken after the assassination. You don't seem to fully appraciate Gordon Arnold's mindset. It took a lot of work for Earl Golz to get Arnold to tell his story back in 1978. Earl said that Gordon did not want to be known. Gordon had heard stories of what happened to people that saw or heard too much. When he saw the Badge Man image in the MWKK interview and had realized that he may have seen one of the assassins - he had one of his worst fears hit him all at once and this is why he said that had he of known about the this (the Badge Man image) that he would not have given the interview."
If the two policemen were not assassination conspirators, then why would they take Arnold's film and why was it never returned?
-
Ask Mark Lane. He won a 1985 lawsuit regarding that.
]
That isn't true.
The Liberty Lobby published a magazine called The Spotlight which ran an article in 1976 that claimed that Hunt was in Dallas on November 22 and he participated in the assassination. Hunt won a libel judgement against The Spotlight in 1981 but it was thrown out on appeal. The case was retried in 1985. The jury found that the article was not malicious and they found The Spotlight not guilty of libel. The fact is, the verdict hinged not on whether Hunt was an assassination conspirator, but rather whether the article met a narrow legal definition of “malice.”
-
So Gedney, Dolye, and Abrams sister are all part of the conspiracy?
Despite what you say, I think that they do look very much like the tramps.
-
I'm not sure what you are talking bout when you ask what happen to the first policeman in the MWKK? If you are talking about Gordon being approached over his film, then he was always talking about the first policeman. The whole purpose of that interview was for him to talk about that officer and that is why you don't hear him discussing the other officer. This is not uncommon either. You may recall what Arnold Rowland said to the Commission when asked why he didn't mention the second man on the 6th floor to the FBI. Rowland said words to the effect that 'they were not interested in hearing about that man they had told me. They only wanted to hear about the man with the rifle'. I suspect that this is what Turner's people had said to Gordon Arnold. I can assure you that not everything Gordon had said made it onto the program. I think Gary Mack said that they interviewed he and Jack quite a bit and only a small fraction of their interview made it onto the show.
Then Arnold is not being truthful. In earlier accounts, Arnold was kicked by a policeman and then another policeman came by with a large gun and was crying. In The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Arnold coalesced the two policemen into one, now one policeman is kicking him, holding a weapon, and crying instead of two. The other individual was not simply cut out of the program, his actions are all being performed by one man.
Another new edition to Arnold's story is the description of the man (or, according to his earlier accounts, the second of two individuals) who harrased him on the knoll. In this new account, Arnold says the man didn't wear a hat and had dirty hands. This appears in none of Arnold's earlier accounts but it reminds you of the account of Joe Marshall Smith. It is pretty apparent that Arnold read Smith's story and mixed it in with his own.
Arnold also addded a railroad worker to his account in The Men Who Killed Kennedy. When he is show the "Badgeman" enlargement, supposedly for the first time, he says: “Would this fella back here [the figure with the hardhat] be the railroad man I asked you about this morning? Because when I was walking to the site, and I had never told anybody that I had, when we were out there filming, it reminded me that there was a railroad worker just standing out there by the railroad tracks.”
So now, one of the policemen has not only been subtracted but he has been replaced by a railroad worker who really doesn't do much of anything. It is quite remarkable that this new account fits so perfectly with what Mack and White are about to show him. How can we be sure that Arnold never saw the work that Gary Mack and Jack White discovered, published, and publicized within the Kennedy assassination research community?
The Midnight Canoeist
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted · Edited by Paul Kerrigan
William Colby, Director of the CIA once said "Believe me, if the CIA had anything to do with the murder of our president I would have discovered it in the early seventies and I would have revealed it — I revealed a lot of other things."
William Colby would later die of hypothermia and drowning, canoeing in the middle of the night, at his home in Rockpoint MD. He did not mention any canoeing plans to his wife, nor was it normal behavior for him to engage in nocturnal caneoing adventures. Colby's body is not immediately located.
William Colby's body was then found after the canoeing accident, lacking his usual lifevest. It was found 20 yards from the canoe, after the area had been thoroughly searched multiple times.
Was Colby saying anything to people around him around the time of his death that would suggest the opposite of his above statement? Or was there another reason for his demise?
Perhaps its paranoia but whenever someone in intelligence says anything about the Kennedy Assassination, he seems suspicious to me.