Jump to content

JOACHIM JOESTEN How Kennedy Was...


John Dolva
 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul/lee

The average marine is not taught Russian .

Did all of his intake become technicians?. There are many levels of understanding

Of a subject take his politics ,he was either a born again instant communist

Capable of getting on radio and tv all in a week all under his own unfunded steam

That puts him up there with Baldrick for cunning plans ,how did he pull that one off.

Or was he a good old southern boy who joined the marines and got led down a short

Painful road by those who would not normally give him the time of day.

He must have been just smart enough to leave the TSBD but not smart enough

To avoid the theatre.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Michael,

I see you are up to your favourite game again.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Michael Hogan, Nov 22, 2010: But when you claim Armstrong said something he clearly did not... [emphasis mine]

Michael Hogan, Nov 23, 2010: Anyone familiar with Armstrong's work would recognize that he would never claim that Marina Oswald said those exact words. [emphasis mine]

Michael Hogan, Dec 13, 2010 after another poster verified that Armstrong did make the quote in question, did you apologise for your statements above which accuse me of making false claims? No. You came up with this lie instead: I was always willing to be convinced.

I promise you this quote is going to come to bite you on the arse, as well:

George de Mohrenschildt's manuscript clearly indicates that he respected Oswald, yet there is no mention of this by you. You refrain from commenting on his reasonable reasons (and apology) for telling Jenner what he did. And you ignore all the good things he wrote about Oswald in his manuscript. [emphasis mine]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

I see you are up to your favourite game again.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Michael Hogan, Nov 22, 2010: But when you claim Armstrong said something he clearly did not... [emphasis mine]

Michael Hogan, Nov 23, 2010: Anyone familiar with Armstrong's work would recognize that he would never claim that Marina Oswald said those exact words. [emphasis mine]

Michael Hogan, Dec 13, 2010 after another poster verified that Armstrong did make the quote in question, did you apologise for your statements above which accuse me of making false claims? No. You came up with this lie instead: I was always willing to be convinced.

I promise you this quote is going to come to bite you on the arse, as well:

George de Mohrenschildt's manuscript clearly indicates that he respected Oswald, yet there is no mention of this by you. You refrain from commenting on his reasonable reasons (and apology) for telling Jenner what he did. And you ignore all the good things he wrote about Oswald in his manuscript. [emphasis mine]

I'm glad to see you posting again, Greg. Welcome back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Your disguised and uncalled "gotchas" are the only reason I'm here. When you get it wrong, as you did with me, and as you have here, I'll be back to let you know.

Your oft-repeated refrain that "Of course the fault does not rest with me, I am not the one making claims about XYZ" is cowardly bullxxxx which you use as a loophole. When you quote someone followed by another quote which does (or just seems to) contraindicate the first quote, you are implicitly making a claim about that first statement.

You better start covering up better than that, Emperor. You're living in a glass house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul/lee

The average marine is not taught Russian .

Did all of his intake become technicians?. There are many levels of understanding

Of a subject take his politics ,he was either a born again instant communist

Capable of getting on radio and tv all in a week all under his own unfunded steam

That puts him up there with Baldrick for cunning plans ,how did he pull that one off.

Or was he a good old southern boy who joined the marines and got led down a short

Painful road by those who would not normally give him the time of day.

He must have been just smart enough to leave the TSBD but not smart enough

To avoid the theatre.

Ian

Ian, I think I take your point. Lee Harvey Oswald was no dummy. I have always acknowledged that Oswald was a capable radar operator, and he was among a rare few who wanted to learn to speak Russian (while still a teenger).

So, yes, he was smarter than average. But how far can we take this? He also had trouble spelling ordinary English words.

Hey -- nobody's perfect.

But things are not so one-sided -- things are not so Either/Or with Lee Harvey Oswald.

Oswald was never a Communist. Period. We know this because he personally insisted that he wasn't -- many times.

But could he fake being a Communist? That's a matter of opinion. The Communist Party USA never thought so. Nor the did Fair Play for Cuba Committee. They directly told Oswald to refrain from starting a FPCC branch in New Orleans. Oswald faked that FPCC branch. For what reason? He had no members in that branch. What was the reason he faked it?

Many people thought Oswald faked being an FPCC officer very well. They were fooled by his arrest on Canal Street for fighting with his buddy, Carlos Bringuier. They were fooled by the radio spot he was given. They were fooled by the TV spot he was given with Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler (both fiercely right-wing Cuban Exiles), all arranged by Ed Butler.

But that whole FPCC charade started in August 1963 and it ended in August 1963. After that, in September 1963, Oswald took all his newspaper clippings as "street credentials" to Mexico to try to convince the Cuban and USSR Consulates there to accept him as a genuine FPCC leader, so that he could enter Cuba immediately.

The Consulates were not fooled. Oswald did not get his immediate passage to Cuba. Nor could he play it cool enough to wait even two weeks for an answer -- but he lost his temper -- an immature behavior. (The Cubans immediately perceived Oswald as a provacateur).

So, it depends on who you ask. If you ask me, Oswald was a fake Communist, and it isn't very hard to fake something like that if you have an experienced coach (like Guy Banister, or Ed Butler).

As for having the necessary scholarly background to read a classic like Das Kapital -- gimme a break. Half the people on this FORUM couldn't get past the first ten pages -- and some of them are professional technicians.

Oswald was such a fake that it amazes me that he ever fooled anybody.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

de Mohrenschildt's book about Oswald pretty much presents him as Oswald presents himself. I think entirely too much is made of De Mohrenschildt's background. If he was part of a set up of LHO surely it wasn't to kill a president or to be a patsy. It just doesn't make sense. These guys did not hate JFK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul do you understand the class system?.

Oswald could not just go

Over jackies for coffee like uncle George.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Your disguised and uncalled "gotchas" are the only reason I'm here. When you get it wrong, as you did with me, and as you have here, I'll be back to let you know.

Your oft-repeated refrain that "Of course the fault does not rest with me, I am not the one making claims about XYZ" is cowardly bullxxxx which you use as a loophole. When you quote someone followed by another quote which does (or just seems to) contraindicate the first quote, you are implicitly making a claim about that first statement.

You better start covering up better than that, Emperor. You're living in a glass house.

Greg, I hope you consider posting more often. The Forum hasn't been the same without you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Oswald was a fake leftie at all. His writings are pretty consistent, not Communist but more aligned with Trotsky...

...de Mohrenschildt's book about Oswald pretty much presents him as Oswald presents himself. I think entirely too much is made of De Mohrenschildt's background. If he was part of a set up of LHO surely it wasn't to kill a president or to be a patsy. It just doesn't make sense. These guys did not hate JFK.

Paul B., if Oswald was a follower of Trotsky, we would have clear evidence. He called himself a Marxist-Leninist, based on obviously shallow-reading.

Speaking of Trotsky, however, it is interesting that Michael Paine's father was a so-called leader of the American Trotsky movement. Michael Paine's testimony about Oswald to the Warren Commission reminds us of George De Mohrenschildt's testimony to the Warren Commission -- it was largely insulting to Oswald.

That is, Michael Paine probably knew a lot about Trotsky, since his father was a Trotsky leader. Yet Paine was unimpressed with Oswald, according to his WC testimony. Nor did Oswald ever ask Michael about his father.

About George De Mohrenschildt, one problem I have with his booklet, I'm A Patsy! I'm A Patsy! is its mixture of truth and fiction. George knew very well that Volkmar Schmidt was German, but George pretended he forgot Volkmar's name and nationality, and recalled only that he was some Jewish fellow. Yet Volkmar Schmidt confirmed that George De Mohrenschildt, penniless in 1977, had only weeks beforehand begged Volkmar to move in with him. Volkmar declined as George was obviously unstable and Volkmar had to care for his own family.

In his 1977 booklet, George pretends to be very close and tender towards Oswald. It is virtually the opposite of the picture he told to the Warren Commission under oath in 1964. The truth is somewhere in-between. George exploited Oswald and Marina for his own reasons, but he was always aware of Oswald's poverty and lack of formal education, and of his cruelty towards Marina.

I do agree with you this far, Paul B., that George De Mohrenschildt himself had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. George was interested in the profits he could make in the status quo, i.e. a Haiti oil deal.

We should try to remember that although George's booklet tries to portray Oswald as an innocent lamb, George is also trying to absolve hiimself of any guilt in corrupting Oswald with regard to General Walker -- so his booklet (which was not testimony under oath) is partly a self-serving fiction; it is valuable as evidence, but not necessarily as the unvarnished truth.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the American Trotskyist movement? Really. This seems to me one of the least informed discussion about significant matters that assumes so much it becomes irrelevant.Was Lymar really a leader? Was he a member of a splinter group? Did he have anything to do with Agencies? Off hand it sounds a bit like calling the splitter fringe irrelevant LaRouche a leader of the SWP. What a joke. He was pally with the FBI and he was never regarded as any relevance by the leadership of the SWP. The kindest they had to say about him was that he was an annoying crackpot.

edit typo

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the American Trotskyist movement? Really. This seems to me one of the least informed discussion about significant matters that assumes so much it becomes irrelevant.Was Lymar really a leader? Was he a member of a splinter group? Did he have anything to do with Agencies? Off hand it sounds a bit like calling the splitter fringe irrelevant LaRouche a leader of the SWP. What a joke. He was pally with the FBI and he was never regarded as any relevance by the leadership of the SWP. The kindest they had to say about him was that he was an annoying crackpot.

edit typo

Well, that's right, John. The left-wing parties play a nearly insignificant role in the JFK assassination, except that they were slated to be the scape-goat for the entire plot. Discussion about the left-wing in the JFK assassination literature, beginning with the Warren Commission, tends to be superficial in the extreme.

All the American press wants to hear is that it is all very boring -- we don't want to discuss any details. Just using the buzz-words were enough for most people -- and that is how Lee Harvey Oswald came to be associated with the American left-wing -- he used the buzz-words.

These facts are useful though -- they demonstrate that the left-wing was not truly involved, and that therefore the right-wing was involved up to their necks.

I agree that LaRouche was friendly with the FBI, and more than that, he hired an extreme right-wing racist as a political consultant, and at one point he began to spout nonsense about the so-called Holocaust Myth. LaRouche was an opportunist who hid his fealty to the right-wing fairly well. I'm sure he was an annoyance to the SWP -- and I called him a SWP 'leader' sarcastically.

It is significant that Michael Paine's father was a Trotsky ideologist, and had a leadership role in a local Trotsky club -- a book club, basically. This means that Michael Paine was exposed at a young age -- by his own father -- to concepts and vocabulary that most people never hear. Michael Paine himself chose to avoid the Trotsky movement, and he sort of pitied his father, but at least he knew what he was talking about. In his WC testimony about Lee Harvey Oswald, Michael Paine expressed dismay that Oswald held simplistic, unsophisticated ideas. Paine would know.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, I hope you consider posting more often. The Forum hasn't been the same without you.

You can continue being smarmy, Michael. You may even succeed in getting a rise out of me. But nothing will change the facts I've posted.

Your disguised and uncalled "gotchas" are the only reason I'm here. When you get it wrong, as you did with me, and as you have here, I'll be back to let you know.

Your oft-repeated refrain that "Of course the fault does not rest with me, I am not the one making claims about XYZ" is cowardly bullxxxx which you use as a loophole. When you quote someone followed by another quote which does (or just seems to) contraindicate the first quote, you are implicitly making a claim about that first statement.

You better start covering up better than that, Emperor. You're living in a glass house.

I see you are up to your favourite game again.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Michael Hogan, Nov 22, 2010: But when you claim Armstrong said something he clearly did not... [emphasis mine]

Michael Hogan, Nov 23, 2010: Anyone familiar with Armstrong's work would recognize that he would never claim that Marina Oswald said those exact words. [emphasis mine]

Michael Hogan, Dec 13, 2010 after another poster verified that Armstrong did make the quote in question, did you apologise for your statements above which accuse me of making false claims? No. You came up with this lie instead: I was always willing to be convinced.

I promise you this quote is going to come to bite you on the arse, as well:

George de Mohrenschildt's manuscript clearly indicates that he respected Oswald, yet there is no mention of this by you. You refrain from commenting on his reasonable reasons (and apology) for telling Jenner what he did. And you ignore all the good things he wrote about Oswald in his manuscript. [emphasis mine]

your assertions are in error.

he was not led by Jenner into dumping all over Oswald. He had been doing it privately and in writing to friends well before is WC appearance. In one letter writen from Haiti in Dec '63, he says "we all knew Oswald was a crackpot" and goes on to suggest that in hindsight, he may have put himself in danger when he rescued Marina from this wife-beater because Oswald may have come after him.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=146392&relPageId=7

Now go to your loopholes and try and find one to slip through.

edit: correct link put up - but for those with little kids, Auskick is a great game...

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we might return to the theme of this thread, namely, Joachim Joesten and his 1968 book, How Kennedy Was Killed.

Insufficient attention has been paid, IMHO, to his opening criticism of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) in chapter one. According to Joesten, the DPD sealed off the area behind the picket fence of the Grassy Knoll at Dealey Plaza, and so anybody who traveled behind that fence would have been immediately known to them.

The DPD was in chrage. The DPD was responsible.

Railroad worker Lee Bowers saw two men standing behind the picket fence at the time that the JFK motorcade drove by, and he also saw a flash of light at the picket fence at that moment. Yet the Warren Commission didn't pursue the problem of how these two men bypassed the DPD blockade of that area.

Did they sneak in? Or were they (like Jack Ruby would be later in the week) allowed to wander in?

According to Joesten, Chief of Police Jesse Curry ordered a search of the TSBD building immediately after the assassination. Why? Because, Curry claimed, the sounds seemed to him to come from that building. Yet most observers (including the Secret Service men) thought the shots came from the grassy knoll. (Curry himself years later admitted that he suspected that as well.) The motorcade was loud, the crowd was loud -- why an immediate search of the TSBD building? Joesten suspected that Jesse Curry was following a script.

Joesten also thought J.D. Tippit was involved -- and not an innocent bystander and victim. Tippit's actions suggest some underground activity to Joesten.

Finally, Jack Ruby killed Oswald while literally surrounded by DPD officers. Jack Ruby was also armed and present the night before -- when Oswald was paraded before the press.

I believe this question still has energy. I'd like to hear further opinions about the possible role of the DPD in the JFK assassination.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

My opinion is that the Dallas Police Dept. was deeply involved in the cover up of the JFK assassination, but not the crime itself.

It is natural for Joesten to suspect Curry because of his ridiculous remarks about hearing shots in the TSBD. I think that was more a part of the cover up process, and blaming it all on Oswald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...