Michael Griffith
-
Posts
1,736 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Michael Griffith
-
-
Good for Senator Klobuchar. I wish she had gained more traction in the Democratic presidential primaries in 2020.
-
5 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:
MIke, John passed away something like four years ago.....and the price is set based on the size of the book and the amount of work that went into it. Lancer is well aware that it will sell relatively few copies but has been working on actually getting it into publication since John's death, an effort that involved Stu Wexler recovering the draft from John's laptop, Stu and I working on configuring a book that John envisioned as well over one thousand pages into something that would even be feasible as an EBook, then Gary Murr spending months editing it, and finally Gabriella doing heroic labor to format and publish it.
I say all that just to convey that the book is a labor of respect in regard to John's commitment and work, certainly not a commercial effort per se.
I will mention Kobo and Smashwords to the Lancer folks, both are totally new to me...thanks for the tip.
Thanks for the info. Just to give you some idea of prices on Kindle books, Dr. Mantik's new book JFK Assassination Paradoxes and Monika Wiesak's new book America's Last President both sell for under $10 as Kindle books, even though both are hundreds of pages long (and Mantik's book includes numerous graphics as well).
Based on the excellent content in the free Kindle preview of the book that I just read, I hope the book sells really well and gets wide distribution. I'm just afraid that $19.95 will lose the book quite a few would-be buyers.
-
Larry, if you know John Hunt, you might tell him that he should consider lowering the price. $19.95 is rather high for a Kindle book. Also, he should consider putting it on Kobo and Smashwords as well.
Anyway, the book looks excellent. I just finished reading the free Kindle sample of the book. I'll add it as a recommended book on my RFK assassination website.
-
On 12/25/2022 at 4:56 PM, James DiEugenio said:
There is a difference between saying he was not there and there is no evidence or proof he was there.
But all in all, Phillips agreed with Danny and Eddy in the Lopez Report. Namely, that Oswald did not visit either embassy.
Which makes the three KGB guys, and their book, kind of dubious.
As does this fact: if Oswald really talked to Kostikov why did it take that cable 7 days to get to Langley? It should have been there in 24 hours.
Exactly. Hardway and Lopez were and are convinced that Oswald did go to Mexico City, but that he did not visit the Cuban Embassy or the Soviet Consulate. Richard Case Nagell was adamant that Oswald went to Mexico City because Nagell met up with him there.
Also, it's highly doubtful that the "Oswald" who called the Soviet Consulate was the real Oswald, since the man spoke atrocious, barely intelligible Russian.
-
On 12/26/2022 at 1:40 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:
This coming from someone [Gil] who announced to the world earlier this year, right here on this forum, that "only God" can decide the sex of a child and that "he never makes mistakes" -- an "extreme" view if ever I've seen one, and one that imposes your personal religious beliefs on the lives of other people.
I don't see what's "extreme" about that belief. It is the standard Catholic-Protestant teaching about gender. Well into the 1960s, it was the belief accepted by the majority of Americans. Nor do I see how holding this belief imposes it on other people's lives.
As I've said, my Christian church teaches something a bit different from this. It teaches that gender is a part of our eternal identity but that we were born male and female as spirits in our pre-mortal life, and that our gender is based on the gender with which we were born as spirits before we came to Earth.
Now, as for the topic of this thread, I think the evidence is indisputable that a sizable and vocal minority of Republicans in the 1960s held radical views about JFK, i.e., viewed him as a traitor, as a willing communist sympathizer (if not an actual communist), as dangerously inept in foreign policy, as weak on national defense (a wholly unfounded charge), and as a socialist in dealing with the economy and the budget (a very odd charge given his tax-cut proposal, his farm policy, his monetary policy, and his conservative approach to the budget).
-
23 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:
This coming from someone [Gil] who announced to the world earlier this year, right here on this forum, that "only God" can decide the sex of a child and that "he never makes mistakes" -- an "extreme" view if ever I've seen one, and one that imposes your personal religious beliefs on the lives of other people.
My religious belief is that God does not decide the gender of a child because each person's gender is a part of his or her eternal identity. In my church's teaching, a child is born a male because he was a male in heaven before he was born on Earth.
I had a son who dabbled for about two years with transgenderism. He decided he wanted to be, or that he really was, a female. He changed his name and began taking gender-transition hormones. After about two years, he decided he was making a big mistake, stopped taking the hormone prescription, halted his transition, and returned to acknowledging his birth gender.
-
28 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:
But the notion of a dark and mysterious conspiracy is also strangely appealing, isn't it?
Not in the least bit, at least not to me.
The lone-gunman theory does not call into question the validity of our form of government and does not cause us to doubt our intelligence agencies, our law enforcement agencies, and our news media. The conspiracy theory does all of these things.
-
17 hours ago, Simon Andrew said:
Whether you are a hardcore researcher or casual reader, the information you learn along the way via the research community can be a heavy weight.
It’s an incredibly dark topic. When you delve into the world of Angleton and Dulles, there is no light, it’s just feels evil.
This is one reason that I find it so very odd, if not bizarre, that WC apologists claim that many people embrace the conspiracy view of JFK's death to avoid facing the supposedly deeply disturbing implications of the lone-gunman theory. This turns reality on its head. I would truly love to believe that JFK was killed by a lone, disturbed assassin, and that there was no conspiracy of any kind behind his death. That would be a comforting thing to believe. The idea that JFK was killed by some lone nut is far less disturbing than the idea that a powerful, high-level conspiracy murdered him in a public execution and then launched an extensive cover-up.
-
For many years, I regarded JFK's handling of the Bay of Pigs as cowardly and shameful, even for a number of years after I came to believe he'd been killed by a conspiracy. Many, if not most, conservatives still feel this way. This is one of the first things that most conservatives will mention to support their claim that JFK was weak and timid in dealing with communism.
-
On 12/24/2022 at 6:40 AM, Lori Spencer said:
I’m not familiar with this guy, thanks for the link. From what I’m hearing so far he’s a typical anti-commie whack job of the period who thought Kennedy was a communist.
Oliver was actually very well educated, but that didn't prevent him from turning into a radical, fringe right-winger. He was a professor of classics and languages at the University of Illinois. He was one of the founders of National Review. But, starting in the '60s, he became increasingly radical and fringe. William F. Buckley parted ways with him in 1964 over an article he wrote about the JFK assassination. Oliver proved to be so radical that he got kicked out of the John Birch Society in 1966 after claiming that the world would be a better place if all Jews were "vaporized."
In the last years of his life, his rabid anti-Semitism even led him to reject his long-time belief in Christianity. He concluded that Christianity was a Jewish plot and part of his imaginary worldwide Jewish conspiracy.
-
18 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Somehow, in the coverage of the JFK Records Act, President Joe Biden and CIA Director William Burns are getting 100% passes.
The "somehow" is that Biden is a liberal Democrat and most of our news networks are dominated by liberal "journalists." Just compare their coverage of Biden with their coverage of Joe Manchin. Even though Manchin's voting record is about 70% liberal, most liberals view him as a traitor and a closet Republican. The folks who wear "tolerance and inclusion" on their sleeves and lecture everyone else about being "tolerant and inclusive" are very intolerant and biased toward anyone who disagrees with them.
-
5 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:
What is really left in the files?
Redactions, Redactions, Redactions... (onthetrailofdelusion.com)
If this is true, then one wonders why the CIA and the FBI have so fiercely objected to releasing all the files.
On most JFK-case issues, I find Litwin to be a dogmatic, unconvincing WC apologist. I find it incredible that he still denies that Oswald worked with Banister, Ferrie, and Shaw.
However, I agree with Litwin on many historical issues and enjoy and agree with most of his posts in the USMB's History subforum. It's too bad he has such a gaping blind spot when it comes to the JFK case.
-
3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:
If Weisberg was suggesting Tague's wounding and the mark on the curb were widely discussed and known to the FBI prior to a 12-13-63 newspaper article in which Buddy Walthers described Tague's wounding, he was mistaken. (I just glimpsed through Tague's book, and he says he gave a statement to the DPD on the day of the shooting, but there is no record of this in the WC's files--or anywhere, from what I can tell. In any event, he also says a scar on the curb near where he'd been standing was photographed and published in the Dallas Morning News, but that it incorrectly placed the scar on Houston Street.)
As a result, there was no acknowledgement of Tague in the FBI's 12-9-63 summary report or in the WC staff's discussion of the shooting scenario prior to their development of the SBT and writing of the WC's report. They were either ignorant of the early FBI report regarding Tague or were trying to ignore Tague entirely, and only interviewed him so they could claim they'd covered all the bases. To wit, the WC's file on Tague shows Specter first showed an interest in him on 6-11-64, 6 days after a story broke about Tague's wounding, and the WC's failure to acknowledge him.
Tellingly, this was after Specter's chapter on the shooting, and the single-bullet theory, had been submitted. This chapter was later re-written to include references to Tague, but that was just window dressing.
The FBI was monitoring news stories out of Dallas from 11/22/63 onward for quite some time. Memos and files don't always tell the whole story, and sometimes they tell a false story. I find it hard to believe that the FBI and others in the cover-up "missed" the Dallas newspaper and TV stories about the Tague curb shot. I suspect they tried to avoid generating any paperwork on it, and to avoid acknowledging it, for as long as possible.
I am not disputing that the perceived timing problem of the non-fatal hits on JFK and JBC appears to have played the driving role in the formation of the SBT, but I also suspect that at least a few folks knew about Tague's wounding early on and that this may have also played a role.
-
On 11/18/2022 at 11:49 AM, Pat Speer said:
Slight correction. The SBT was created as a response to the WC staff's study of the Zapruder film, which showed Kennedy and Connally respond too close together in time to have been hit by separate shots fired from a bolt-action rifle. Although Tague was mentioned in an early FBI report, the WC was gonna ignore him until they couldn't. The SBT was developed in March, proposed in April, and tested on May 24...while the first article on Tague didn't appear until June 5. He was then interviewed, on July 23, long after the chapters on the shooting had been completed and approved.
Harold Weisberg documented that the Tague curb shot was known and reported much earlier than June 5:
As we have seen, Tague's wounding . . . and the fresh "hole," "scar," or "mark" as it was variously referred to, was known immediately and reported immediately, first by the police and the sheriff, and during the next two days by the newspapers and TV. (Never Again, pp. 505-506; cf. pp. 454-463)
-
23 hours ago, Joseph Backes said:
Every news story on this latest release has gotten everything wrong, even the most basic elements of the assassination. NBC's Andrea Mitchel thinking she's reciting the WC version of the event said shots came from the 3rd floor of the TSBD.
Michael Beschloss has decided to blame the FBI for the assassination. He thinks they knew all about LHO and didn't tell the SS. I don't think that's true. It's certainly not accurate. And it's not that simplistic.
On one NBC segment he asked why didn't they use "preventive detention," and arrest Oswald? Well, because he hadn't committed any crime and "preventive detention," didn't exist back then. It's an unconstitutional thing that people turn a blind eye to now as the excuse for doing is it fights terrorism. There's a famous clip of RFK ( nothing to do with the assassination of JFK ) mocking the very idea.
Beschloss doesn't even bring up his own book, the first on the LBJ tapes that he did, where LBJ talks to Sen. Richard Russell about how he ( LBJ ) used the story of Mexico City to get Earl Warren to chair his commission looking into the assassination. And in the telling of that story LBJ ends with surprising Russell that he ( Russell ) will serve on that commission too.
On the good side Beschloss does bring up that the FBI started destroying records right after Oswald is shot. This is what FBI agent James Hosty said once we learned LHO sent him a note weeks before the assassination. But, we didn't learn that until the 1970's.
One of the first things I realized a few years after I began to study the JFK case was that "professional historians" are frequently uninformed and unreliable--and very biased.
-
17 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:
With control of the House shifting to GOP in 2023, this was an important platform to begin the process of pressing incoming chair of the House Oversight Committee to hold oversight hearing on the failure of the Executive Branch to comply with the JFK Act. I also exposed NBC for its complicity in the coverup by refusing to turn over assassination records to the ARRB. Judge Tunheim discussed this at the MFF press conference on December 6th.
This is good exposure, since Fox News has the largest audience of any of the cable TV networks. Bravo to Tucker Carlson for having you on.
I'm sure that Tucker's stance is distressing to fellow Fox News analyst Sean Hannity. Hannity is a decent and sincere neocon, but he swallows the lone-gunman myth hook, line, and sinker.
I still can't believe that Fox lets Mark Fuhrman have his own show on Fox Nation. I get that people can repent and change and turn over new leaves in life, and perhaps Fuhrman has done so. However, he's never publicly admitted and apologized for his brutalization of certain black suspects when he was with the LAPD, nor has he confessed to planting evidence in the OJ Simpson case. I think Fuhrman should have done some serious jail time for his crimes, and I would never even consider giving him his own show until he confessed his crimes.
-
On 12/16/2022 at 6:40 AM, Matt Allison said:
The CIA, Joannides, the whole enchilada. The entire panel as angry as we are. I imagine it will be available online sometime today.
Good for them. Perhaps they were emboldened by Tucker Carlson's pro-conspiracy primetime monologue a few days ago. Whatever the case, the more media figures who speak out, the better.
-
David Lifton uncovered a great deal of crucial evidence, and for that alone he deserves great praise. I think Doug Horne has the better of the argument regarding when the pre-autopsy surgery was done, but Lifton deserves high praise for making the first case for pre-autopsy tampering. Lifton also merits high praise for developing the evidence of a casket switch, of multiple caskets, and of a decoy ambulance.
-
On 12/8/2022 at 9:23 PM, Michaleen Kilroy said:
I'm not at all surprised that The American Conservative (commonly called TAC) would publish this article. TAC is a right-of-center journal that rejects neo-conservatism and embraces the original American principle of non-intervention in foreign affairs. TAC was sharply critical of George W. Bush's foreign policy. I don't always agree with TAC's articles, but I respect TAC as a serious and thoughtful political journal.
-
Joe,
Allow me to humbly suggest that you lower the price of the Kindle version of your book. $30 for a Kindle book is unusually high. To give you some idea of a standard price, Dr. Mantik's new book, JFK Assassination Paradoxes, which is very long and contains numerous photos and graphics, sells for only $9.76 as a Kindle book. Monica Wiesak's new book, America's Last President, which is over 300 pages long, sells for only $8.99 as a Kindle book.
Anyway, I read the sizable free Kindle preview of your book on Amazon and was very impressed with it. Judging from the segment I read, your book appears to be an excellent, informative work on the media's poor and harmful handling of the JFK case.
-
On 12/10/2022 at 5:04 AM, Lori Spencer said:
Totally agree with you about Roger Stone’s shameless grift and posthumous defamation of LBJ.
That being said, I like Judge Nap and am glad he’s on the bandwagon with us. It’s a big tent, always room for more.
Napolitano is no doctrinaire right-winger, and I've always regarded him as a straight shooter. He's much more of a libertarian than a Republican. He attacked several of Trump's foreign policy moves as unconstitutional. However, as you probably know, he was fired by FoxNews after multiple allegations of sexual misconduct.
I'm curious about your comment regarding the "defamation of LBJ." LBJ was an utterly, thoroughly corrupt man and politician, and there is evidence that suggests he had advance knowledge of the assassination.
-
On 10/31/2022 at 6:58 PM, Pat Speer said:
While Mantik has told audiences that the wing of bone's being the white spot is "Speer's theory" I can not take credit for it and his claiming it as such is a weaselly argument from authority, IMO. He expects people to believe him as it's his word against mine and he has a neato keeno degree.
Only it isn't his word against mine...
The "wing" argument was actually proposed long before I first proposed it.
From chapter 18b at patspeer.com:
In 1996 Doug Horne showed the x-rays to three outside experts, two of whom commented on the white patch. Forensic Anthropologist Douglas Ubelaker, upon viewing the lateral x-rays, noted "overlapping bone fragments" in the "temporal-parietal region of the lateral x-rays." This is almost certainly a reference to the white area noted by Mantik. More specifically, however, Forensic Radiologist John J. Fitzpatrick, a man with far more expertise on these matters than Mantik, confirmed that "overlapping bone is clearly present in the lateral skull x-rays" and that "the red flap above the ear" in the autopsy photos "equates with the overlapping bone in the lateral skull x-rays."
(Well, I'll be. Although Mantik summarized the findings of Ubelaker and Fitzpatrick in 2013 presentation, he failed to report that they'd both foreshadowed and offered strong support for what he chose to call "Speer's theory." It's hard to believe this was an oversight.)
And they weren't the only ones telling Horne and the ARRB the white patch represented overlapping bone.
On 10-21-97, Edward Reed, one of the two x-ray techs to assist in the autopsy of President Kennedy, testified before the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). When examining the lateral x-rays, Reed noted "The dark spot that I am pointing to right now is a less dense area. There's hardly any bone there. And there's only one side intact. Whereas here, posteriorly, where I'm pointing to now is--the white area--is where the bones overlap."
So no, Michael, it is not I who is pushing silly conclusions at odds with the conclusions of radiology professionals...
Well, I think you are way, way off base here. I honestly can't fathom what you are looking at in the skull x-rays and head photos. First of all, the overlapping bone does not cover the area that is occupied by the white patch. This isn't even a close call. And, good grief, if the overlapping bone corresponds with the red flap above the ear, how in the world can you believe that it constitutes the white patch?
Have you replied to Dr. Mantik's response to your critique. Here is some of what he says therein:
Does the overlapping bone (on the lateral X-ray) explain the “White Patch”?
No, it does not—nor could it even do so in principle. First, these are two distinctly different areas, as should be obvious from the right lateral X-ray—the White Patch is much more posterior than the overlap area. See my image of the White Patch in [i]Assassination Science[/i] 1998, p. 160, or slide 5 in my Dallas lecture, or my Figure 5 just below. . . .
In my Figure 2, I have identified the external auditory canal, which Speer ignores; that structural feature clearly locates the external ear—without any ambiguity. Speer also ignores the evidence of the AP X-ray (my Figure 1). Notice there how the wing lies far out in space, quite detached from the skull. On the other hand, if the wing had extended far posteriorly (as Speer wants to believe), then some part of it would be seen much more medially in the AP X-ray, but it is not there. This argument is so powerful that little else need be said. But there is more.
Second, the ODs of these two areas are quite different: on the right lateral X-ray, the mean OD of the white patch (0.625 ±.055) is almost the same as the petrous bone (0.55), whereas a typical OD (1.33) for the overlap site is noticeably higher (than the White Patch), and it does not appear nearly so white to the eye. That visible difference is dramatically obvious in Figure 5 (especially on the right sided image). Speer claims that the White Patch was caused by three overlapping layers of bone. Despite his unrelenting caricature to the contrary, I have always accepted three layers of bone at the overlap site, although I have never emphasized this because no one (before Speer) had offered such a novel explanation for the White Patch.
Incidentally, the three layers of overlapping bone should be obvious to anyone after viewing the AP X-ray (an image that Speer overlooks). He also argues that, because the ARRB experts (p. 10 and also Chapter 19b, pp. 26-27) noticed such bone overlap, they therefore support his conclusion that the overlap explains the White Patch. But that is simply absurd. . . .
Third, the White Patch is so dense that whatever physical object it represents must appear somewhere on the AP X-ray film. I made this argument from the very beginning, even at our first press conference in New York City (1993). That transcript is reproduced in [i]Assassination Science[/i] 1998 (p. 155) and warrants a quote here:
On the frontal [AP] X-ray, such an extremely dense [physical] object should have been as visible as a tyrannosaurus rex in downtown Manhattan at noon. However, when I looked at the frontal X-ray, there was no such beast to be seen.
No one has even tried to explain this paradox. Even worse, Speer seems oblivious to it. Let’s next focus on the OD issues for overlapping bone, a quantitative exercise that Speer totally neglects. For these JFK skull X-rays, here are the pertinent OD changes (∆ODs) across various layers of bone: one layer = 0.45; two layers = 0.90; three layers = 1.35. The difference for one layer is easily measured at fracture lines; amazingly enough, Speer believes that I ignore these fracture lines (p. 9). If an extra bone layer truly explained the White Patch, then sites just outside the White Patch should yield ODs that are higher by about 0.45 (one layer).
But that is not the case—on the contrary, the ODs suggest a difference of more than just one layer of bone. Of special interest is the OD over the occiput, at the very back of the skull (very close to the White Patch), where the bone is viewed tangentially: the data there suggest a ∆OD (compared to the White Patch) of not just more than one layer, but actually about two bone layers (i.e., it is much less white). In other words, the White Patch is truly an anomaly (much too white and with ODs that are far too low). It cannot possibly arise simply from overlapping bone. On the other hand, of course, a deliberate superposition of this area in the dark room could easily explain this paradox. That the ODs of the White Patch and the petrous bone are not nearly so identical (to one another) on the left lateral X-ray should also raise some doubt that not all is well in OD land.
Now recall that three layers of bone yield a ∆OD of 1.35. Since the measured OD (cited above) in the overlap area is already 1.33, the OD without the three layers of bone would be 1.35 + 1.33 = 2.68. The ODs in the maxillary sinuses (mostly air) are 2.89, so this value of 2.68 clearly suggests substantial missing brain in the overlap area. But the site in question (medial to the overlapping bone on the lateral X-ray) lies near the middle of the brain, where the autopsy photographs show no missing brain tissue! ([url=https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf]https://themantikview.org/pdf/Speer_Critique.pdf[/url])
-
3 hours ago, Matthew Koch said:
Mr McBride in your book how did you deal with Ray Epps or the 22 Fbi informants in the Oath Keepers and 8 FBI informants in the proud boys organization including it's head Enrique Tarrio?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-reportedly-had-eight-informants-153404947.html
It should be added that some of the 1/6 rioters were not Trump supporters but were leftist agitators dressed as Trump supporters. Although they were wearing pro-Trump buttons, hats, etc., they stood out like a sore thumb and many Trump supporters who were near them suspected they were not who they were pretending to be.
Anyway, all this being said, and taking due notice of the presence of FBI informants, this does not in any way excuse the conduct of those Trump supporters who took part in the storming of the Capitol. Their actions were inexcusable, and I have no problem with their being prosecuted (although I think some of the sentences that have been handed down have been excessive).
-
18 hours ago, Bill Brown said:
Oswald's motive for shooting at General Walker was the same as he had for assassinating the President. Marxism and Cuba. Oswald wanted the United States Government to keep it's hands off of Cuba.
Oswald told Capt. Will Fritz that he was a Marxist, that he belonged to the Fair Play For Cuba organization and that he was in favor of Fidel Castro's revolution.
Before the revolution, Castro, with his Marxist beliefs, condemned social and economic inequality in Cuba. He adopted the Marxist view that meaningful political change could only be brought about by proletariat revolution.
While Castro was imprisoned for the failed attack on the Moncada Barracks in Cuba, his wife took employment with the Ministry of the Interior. Castro was enraged and insulted. His Marxist beliefs were so strong that filed for divorce. Mirta (Castro's wife) took custody of their son Fidelito. The thought of his son growing up in a bourgeois environment further enraged Castro.
Oswald agreed strongly with the Marxist beliefs of Castro.
During the revolution, the U.S. Government feared that Castro was a socialist.
In early January of 1959, Batista was overthrown by the rebels and he fled.
The revolution was a crucial turning point in relations between the U.S. and Cuba. Originally, the U.S. government was willing to recognize Castro's new government. However, the U.S. government would eventually fear that Communist insurgencies would spread through Latin America, as they had in Southeast Asia.
On March 5, 1963, Major General Edwin Walker gave a speech where he called on the White House to "liquidate the (communist) scourge that has descended upon the island of Cuba." Walker was obviously referring to Fidel Castro. Oswald ordered his rifle seven days later.
Captain Fritz told the Warren Commission:
"I got the impression that he was doing it because of his feeling about the Castro revolution, and I think that he felt, he had a lot of feeling about that revolution.
I think that was the reason. I noticed another thing. I noticed a little before when Walker was shot, he had come out with some statements about Castro and about Cuba and a lot of things and if you will remember the President had some stories a few weeks before his death about Cuba and about Castro and some things, and I wondered if that didn't have some bearing.
I have no way of knowing that other than just watching him and talking to him. I think it was his feeling about his belief in being a Marxist, he told me he had debated in New Orleans, and that he tried to get converts to this Fair Play for Cuba organization, so I think that was his motive. I think he was doing it because of that."This stuff is at least several decades behind the informative curve. It is surprising to see anyone who claims to be a serious student of the assassination repeating the myth that Oswald was any kind of a radical leftist.
And the case against Oswald in the Walker shooting is downright pathetic and flimsy. Walker's own description of the bullet that was fired at him contradicts the claim that Oswald fired at him.
Spectacular Glenn Greenwald Follow-on to Tucker Carlson
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
In other words, Greenwald drags his partisan politics into the JFK case. Gee, who was president from 2008-2016? What was his name again? I'm fairly certain he was a liberal Democrat named Barack Obama, right? And, umm, who had huge majorities in Congress from 2008-2010? Did Greenwald sharply criticize Obama and the 2008-2010 Congressional Democrats for doing absolutely nothing to release those JFK assassination records?
I think that's ridiculous.