Warren Commission, a "Legal Court," Cross Examination, Penalty for Perjury? One Member's Irony vs. Another's "Truth".

[Guest Tom Scully]

ANYWAY - let's get back to the purpose of this Forum, shall we, namely, the JFK assassination. I was talking about the present state of JFK research after 50 years, and the pitiful state that it finds itself wandering within.

Too many researchers are willing to take pot-shots at President LBJ, at Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, at FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, and at former CIA Director Allen Dulles -- with nothing more than vague suspicions and sarcastic tones.

The notion that the Warren Commission -- supervisedby the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren -- should be respected with the title of a 'Legal Court' is regarded by a few loud members on this Forum to be a negative thing to say!

Therefore we have this thread, dedicated to the mockery of this idea in JFK research.

The idea that LBJ, Hoover, Warren and Dulles are great American heroes of the Cold War, because by means of the Warren Commission they sidestepped World War III, is also regarded by these same few loud members to be a negative thing to say!

Yet these few, loud members are among those who have regarded accepted the 50 year-old prejudice that those who murdered JFK were also the same ones who covered up the murder! Well, this may be the very reason that they've spun their wheels for 50 long years!

My theory, separates those two groups. My theory regards the killers of JFK to be the true criminals, the race segregationists led by ex-General Edwin Walker, Guy Banister and the John Birch Society, the White Citizens' Councils, the State Sovereignty Commissions, the States Rights Parties, the paramilitary Minutemen and the KKK. This group was obsessed with the idea that the USA should impeach Earl Warren, segregate public schools, invade Cuba and KILL FIDEL.

My theory regards those who covered up the truth about the murder of JFK to be wholly separate from the JFK killers. Instead, those who covered up the truth, i.e. all those involved in the selection and management of the Warren Commision, were actually great heroes, because their goal was National Security. By their sacrifice of credibility, they used their authority to avoid a Civil War in the USA, during the Cold War, which would have led to World War III.

Different people, different goals.

Now, this is a new and fresh approach to JFK research -- after 50 years of wheel spinning. One might think that this creative solution to the murder of JFK might be met with some constructive discussion -- BUT NO.

Instead, there has been a flurry of mockery, jeering, sarcasm, and threads like this one -- evidently terrified of new ideas. But I've only begun to share my new and fresh ideas -- I think we should ask a much wider array of readers on this Forum if they really want to censor people who insist upon rational argument and material evidence.

If anything, my detractors only stimulate me to take advantage of the publicity -- because after all, my ideas are based on reason, logic, material evidence and reason. As Freud once said, "the voice of reason is weak, but it does not rest until it gains a hearing."

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Your stubborn insistence on describing the Warren Commission as "a legal court," and prior to that, an extention of the U.S. Supreme Court is not regarded by other forum members as "a negative thing to say," it is regarded as a stoopid, inaccurate, and ill informed thing to say, and then to stubbornly cling to despite the facts presented to you

Paul, have you ever been evaluated as learning disabled?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gamaliel/Sandbox&diff=179725217&oldid=179688412

User:Gamaliel/Sandbox: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:46, 22 December 2007 (edit)

Petrejo (talk | contribs)

(→‎Oswald)

← Previous edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Petrejo#Sandbox

Sandbox

Please don't use my personal user page sandbox for your edits. You can create your own user subpage or use the general Wikipedia sandbox at Wikipedia:Sandbox. Thank you. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 03:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have no idea what a sandbox is, or that you had a sandbox, or that I was in your sandbox. Insofar as I was ever in your sandbox, I have no idea how I got there, as my editing was done as I normally do it. This is Wikipedia, and I'm able to edit a page. That's all I know. Petrejo (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

When you made the "misstep" presented above and reacted as if you were clueless as to how it happened, you had been editing wikipedia articles for more than 18 months and done several hundred edits. 2 May, 2006 - 26, December, 2007:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Petrejo&dir=prev&limit=500&target=Petrejo

Eventually, (a full year later), you discovered your own wikipedia user sand box.:

User:Petrejo/Sandbox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Petrejo/Sandbox‎

In New Orleans, in late July, 1963, Ron Lewis encountered Oswald on Camp Street, ... Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Petrejo/

You created a wikipedia bio article about Ronald L. Lewis in your own sandbox,Paul, last edited on 11 March, 2010, and it has not been published.

,,,and here, you appear to be replying to an automated message:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Petrejo#Disambiguation_link_notification_for_October_11

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Edwin Walker, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Adlai Stevenson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind attitude and your corrections. Yes, I intended to link to Ambassador Adlai Stevenson. --Paul

You posted that "thank you" to a "bot" after editing wikipedia articles hundreds of times over a span of 6 years and 6 months.

This is the edit you made that prompted that automated message:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adlai_Stevenson_II&diff=prev&oldid=533761126

Revision as of 22:32, 18 January 2013 (edit) (undo)

Petrejo (talk | contribs)

(added note about the incessant heckling during his speech)

While attempting to deliver his speech, Stevenson was heckled continuously by rightists organized by resigned Major General [[Edwin Walker]]. Upon exiting the building, he was struck on the [[human head|head]] by [[Cora Frederickson]] who was wielding a picket sign with the message "DOWN WITH THE UN." When he inquired about the reason behind her action, she tartly responded, "If you don't know what's wrong, I don't know why. Everybody else does."

There is no "Cora Frederickson" wikipedia article to wrap [[ ]] around, but you did not understand or did and was not going to let that stop you from attempting a supporting cite to the extent of your ability, after 7 years as an editor.

Almost all of that edit has since been removed by other editors.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adlai_Stevenson_II#UN_role

The unpublished Ronald L. Lewis article in your wikipedia user sandbox displays a deficiency in common with your Adlai Stevenson article edit.

Despite editing wikipedia articles for 7 years now, and describing your background in computer programming and IT database administration and logging perhaps as many as 500 or more wikiepdia edits, your ability to script a supporting citation into a wikipedia edit seems confined to:

[[Edwin Walker]], as an example. Your ability after 7 years of experience is possibly limited to bracketing [[ ]] around the title of an existing wikipedia article title in an effort to provide a supporting citation for the information in your edit.

I will retract what I have presented in this post and apologize to you if you come up with one properly footnoted (by you) article (with working, external hyper links, as you call them) you've authored in your 7 years on wikipedia.org.

As it is obvious your pattern is conducting yourself as a clumsy, arrogant, uncomprehending bull in a china shop, this seems like good advice, Paul.

....................

It is one thing to spitball ideas that interpret evidence. That is welcome and can lead to reassessments.

It is another entirely to insist that evidence exists which you either cannot provide, or when you do provide it, turns out to be worthless. Your posts do little but waste the time of researchers who have better things to do than correct your multiple errors. Seek another hobby. You are terrible at this one.

Edited May 25, 2013 by Tom Scully

[Mark Knight]

"The notion that the Warren Commission -- supervised by the sitting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren -- should be respected with the title of a 'Legal Court' is regarded by a few loud members on this Forum to be a negative thing to say!"--Paul Trejo

Paul, apparently you're still having troubles with definitions. The Warren Commission was set up by an EXECUTIVE ORDER. That makes it a product of the EXECUTIVE BRANCH of the government. If the Warren Commission was a "Legal Court"--YOUR term, not mine--it would have been sanctioned by the JUDICIAL BRANCH of the government.

At MOST, it was a "board of inquiry." Public Law 88-202, which began as Senate Joint Resolution 137 and passed on December 13, 1963, gave the Warren Commission the power to issue subpoenas in order to gather witness statements and evidence. Neither PL 88-202, nor any other statute, gave the Warren Commission the power to issue an indictment, to charge a defendant with a crime, to try a defendant, nor to sentence a defendant...all of which are functions of "legal courts" in this nation.

So PLEASE tell me, and the other forum members: In what manner, OTHER than having the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as its nominal chairman, was the Warren Commission a "legal court" ?? They couldn't indict anyone; they couldn't try anyone; they couldn't convict anyone; and they couldn't sentence anyone. So, other than the power to subpoena witnesses, the Warren Commission had NONE of the powers of a "Legal Court." HOW, then, was the Warren Commission a "Legal Court" ???

I don't think you can answer this question and make your case while sticking to ONLY the facts.

[Edit to add link: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/appendix3.html ]

Edited May 25, 2013 by Mark Knight

[Paul Trejo]

Your stubborn insistence on describing the Warren Commission as "a legal court," and prior to that, an extention of the U.S. Supreme Court is not regarded by other forum members as "a negative thing to say," it is regarded as a stoopid, inaccurate, and ill informed thing to say, and then to stubbornly cling to despite the facts presented to you

Paul, have you ever been evaluated as learning disabled?

Tom, it just doesn't seem to me that a would-be "moderator" of a list should take this tone.

ANYWAY, if you really want to find some dirt on me, you should look beyond Wikipedia and concentrate on the Hegel List on the Yahoo groups back in the 1990s. Though some professors encouraged me, there were a few who just had fits when I posted my carefully studied opinions about Hegel. If you dig, you'll find gold.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

All those who have kidded Tom about his approach to research in this field should reevaluate.

I mean who else would have dug this deep into the talk and edit pages of Wikipedia to find out that Trejo has been a major force in redoing the JFK related pages for years.

I mean to use a colloquialism: Who would have thunk it.

Thanks Tom.

Redoing the JFK pages? Read Tom again, Jim. What I was accused of on Wikipedia was annoying the dedicated fans of Friedrich Nietzsche. (I also edited the Hegel pages on Wikipedia, but I was welcomed there.)

The only JFK-related pages on Wikipedia that I thoroughly revamped were those on ex-General Walker -- which I substantially edited; for which I was well-received.

By referring to the Friedrich Nietzsche pages on Wikipedia to find dirt on me, Tom has gone far beyond the call of duty.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 25, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Tom Scully]

All those who have kidded Tom about his approach to research in this field should reevaluate.

I mean who else would have dug this deep into the talk and edit pages of Wikipedia to find out that Trejo has been a major force in redoing the JFK related pages for years.

I mean to use a colloquialism: Who would have thunk it.

Thanks Tom.

Redoing the JFK pages? Read Tom again, Jim. What I was accused of on Wikipedia was annoying the dedicated fans of Friedrich Nietzsche. (I also edited the Hegel pages on Wikipedia, but I was welcomed there.)

The only JFK-related pages on Wikipedia that I thoroughly revamped were those on ex-General Walker -- which I substantially edited; for which I was well-received.

By referring to the Friedrich Nietzsche pages on Wikipedia to find dirt on me, Tom has gone far beyond the call of duty.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, you, of all people,advising someone else, and an educator at that, to "read....again." as if your comprehension was superior to theirs, is rich, especially in a thread discussing comprehension and analysis of a basic concept. Was the Warren Commission a "legal court". Were there any consequences for perjured testimony, etc.?

Paul attempting to edit the lead in the wikipedia bio of Lee Harvey Oswald:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald/Archive_8#Lead

...........

I've removed the HSCA stuff. Without that info, the lead present a concise overview of the article subject, and should not be altered too heavily. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 20:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Agreed. It was too HSCA heavy, so I chopped the paragraph in half and inserted it again. I believe it's obvious that it leads smoothly into the next paragraph. Petrejo (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Whoever made that final draft did a good job. Thanks. Petrejo (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul, there are strong indications you do not comprehend what you read or you struggle with ADD, but there is also something off in your analytical approach.

I am not seeking "dirt," Paul. I see the signs there is something interesting in your contradictions and the exercises you carry out to attempt to compensate for them. Your participation here and at wikipedia is similar. You demonstrate in both venues that you don't get it. You never taught yourself how to create a wikipedia article with a notes/reference section or even to script footnotes into the 500 wikipedia edits you logged.

Your lack of mastery of the wikipedia basic footnote script resulted in challenges to many of your edits. I'll wait for you to provide a link proving me wrong about your seven years on wikipedia with almost no development of your editing proficiency (provision of footnotes with links).They've tried to make wikipedia script user friendly to a general population, Paul.

You failed to grasp this, the distinction of page view vs. a link, despite my escalating explanation over several posts.:

......................

Tommy, I agree with you completely. The title is intriguing. That's why I thought my contribution was viable, i.e. that the the "CIA" was not the true "Sheep Dip" vehicle to make "Lee Harvey Oswald" into ther "Patsy" to kill JFK.

Instead, as I have repeatedly re-affirmed on this thread, it was (as Jack Ruby and Harry Dean have said all along) ex-General Edwin Walker, the John Birch Society and their many right-wing resources.

But that causes a major conflict with Tom, evidently, who has posted countless hyperlinks of 185,000 pages (by his count) of supporting evidence that the CIA did it. But his evidence is too loosey goosey.

For example, his sources sort of suggest that Priscilla Johnson McMillan was a CIA agent who met Lee Harvey Oswald in Moscow in 1959. So what? Are we to assume that the CIA plotted to kill JFK in 1959, even before JFK became President?

That is, 185,000 pages of hyperlinks can be used to show anything at all, or to give rise to thousands of more questions.

As I've already requested from Tom -- please post one single page of his own text to clearly state his objectives. Tom hasn't done that yet.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

You must have missed it. :

...................

Your obtuseness, feigned or genuine, and your refusal to post the finest example of the contributions you have made to this thread after you have succeeded in stepping on it and stuffing it persuades me to concede. You have pushed me out of here.

Yet,:

Staff & Board - Bridging the Language Gap for Kids - The Overton ...

http://www.theovertongroup.org/staffboard.html‎

Paul Trejo is a published author and a certified ESL instructor. ... is an active volunteer at University United Methodist Church, and maintains this web site.

No, Paul, I am not engaged in finding "dirt" about you. You did not know a link from a page view, a "special court" from a politically appointed Commission, as Lee Farley pointed out, your background was contradictory to the circumstances of the "attack" that prompted "infection" warnings to visitors to your personal website, and this had to be pointed out to you after you had ignored the prompt at the end or your edits.:

You claim to be a computer programmer, and IT database admin., and a webmaster, yet you could not master implementation of a secure, automated, wikipedia signature consisting of typing ~~~~

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Petrejo#Nietzsche_request

.....................

The process as it stands allows two editors to gang up on a single editor. I've discussed this on the Talk pages, and those who delete my contributions are merely emotional in their POV. They won't edit my contribution, which consists only of *quotations* from the subject of Wikipedia article, they simply keep erasing it -- 34 times already. What limits *their* POV? Please advise. --PETREJO TUE23MAY06

quote

Also, I have noticed that you seem to sign your comments by typing the name and date yourself. It is much more preferable to sign by typing four tildes (~~~~)after your comment. — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC) Also you should be aware that the individual who created the account the mirrored your name and struck out all of your comments has been blocked indefinitely. — ßottesiηi ^(talk) 00:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC) All right, let me try that. Petrejo 04:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC) Cool! unquote

I asked you to show I was incorrect about your learning curve during your 7 years on wikipedia and you deflected by pulling the "victim" card.

I was not sure if you were serious after you posted several times that page views were, in your mind, hyperlinks, and that the WC was a court, etc., etc., etc. Marina, Priscilla, blah, blah, blah.... there was the outside chance you were competent and pulling all of our legs. Your struggles seven years as a wikipedia editor was worth the effort to examine because it convinces me that your are as you present yourself and the impression you bring is honed from your coping and compensating.

I have a new respect for you, however unlikely that is for you to accept. You are an unique and interesting man. You could inspire if you were not

so committed to coping and compensating through aggressive competition.

[Paul Trejo]

...I have a new respect for you, however unlikely that is for you to accept. You are an unique and interesting man. You could inspire if you were not so committed to coping and compensating through aggressive competition.

Thank you, Tom, I am confident that this is as close to a compliment as I will ever receive from you. So, I graciously accept.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 25, 2013 by Paul Trejo