Silvia Odio and Other Inconvenient Witnesses

[Vanessa Loney]

Hi Ken

I've tried to copy your posts in here but I keep getting the error message that I've copied too many blocks of text so I'm putting the comment here.

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I was at work today. Here are two of the comments made by David about people from down under. He made a third slur on Australians which I can’t find at the moment.

DJ: “Maybe it’s just that you speak a different English down under?”

DJ: “Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...”

I’m a bit puzzled as to why you think these comments might not be offensive to Australians. They are not compliments, they are meant to insult. What if we substitute some other countries in there say “India’ or ‘America’. Are you getting my drift now?

In regards to your other comment about there being more Australians than Americans involved in the JFK assassination debate I doubt that’s actually the case, certainly not on here, JFKFacts or ROKC. In fact I’d be surprised if that were true of any site.

But if you’re really asking “Why do Australians care so much when it wasn’t their President?” then I would say I can only speak for myself but in case you’ve forgotten the American President and his foreign policy has a huge impact on the rest of the world. Jim di Eugenio on CTKA has written some great articles on this issue.

Just as one example, Australia fought in Vietnam and lost soldiers there, not to mention the social division that war caused in this country and the terrible impact it had on Vietnam itself (including the outflow of refugees to Australia). A country which IS actually in our region of the world. There is plenty of documentation now to say that JFK would never have sent ground troops to Vietnam and was looking for a way to extricate the USA from that war.

Secondly, I would say that Australia (and the rest of the Western world), is in general, a few steps to the left of America politically so the loss of a visionary, liberal President such as JFK resonates. President Obama has always had consistently higher approval ratings in Australia (75% at one point) and the rest of the world, than America.

And thirdly, the Warren Commission Report was an incredibly inadequate investigation of the President’s murder. At the most basic level its conclusions are not supported by the evidence contained within the Report. I’m not going to go into the evidence any further than that because I’ve taken up enough time on this thread as it is.

These are just my thoughts, but does that answer your question?

[Paul Brancato]

It seems to me, in trying to read through the back and forth between David and Greg, that there is plenty of sarcasm by both, and that neither one has earned the right to take the high road and blame the other. It's tedious to read, and I have pretty much given up on that. Vanessa - I just don't see where David's sarcastic comments about Australians rise to the level of racism. David is obviously quite frustrated in his dealings with Greg, and feels ganged up on. I mostly agree with Greg and others that Harvey and Lee is an overstated theory. But so what?

Greg - I have read your first volume and look forward to succeeding ones. I wish you would spend more time on this forum expounding on your own theories and research, and less time tearing down Harvey and Lee. You might find that engaging with others prior to going to print with volume two will enrich your research and increase your sales. I know I am always interested in original research, even though I generally agree with Salandria and Burnam and others that we already know it was an inside job.

[David Josephs]

Ok then Greg...

how about we just illustrate the misrepresentation of evidence that has become your signature here

From earlier in this thread:

Odio was all over shop.

Mr. LIEBELER. After looking at this picture, are you more convinced, or less convinced, or do you still have about the same feeling that you had before you looked at it that the man who was in your apartment late in September was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. I have to be careful about that, because I have the same feeling that it was, but at the same time I have been looking at papers for months and months of pictures, and these help you to remember too much. I wish I could isolate the incident without remembering the other pictures. I have a feeling there are certain pictures that do not resemble him. It was not the Oswald that was standing in front of my door. He was kind of tired looking. He had a little smile, but he was sunken in in the face that day. More skinny, I would say.

--------------------

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?

I included the "----" and the next section of your post to show that you did not include the very next 2 Q&As: wonder why???

(Your post)

Mr. LIEBELER. After looking at this picture, are you more convinced, or less convinced, or do you still have about the same feeling that you had before you looked at it that the man who was in your apartment late in September was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. I have to be careful about that, because I have the same feeling that it was, but at the same time I have been looking at papers for months and months of pictures, and these help you to remember too much. I wish I could isolate the incident without remembering the other pictures. I have a feeling there are certain pictures that do not resemble him. It was not the Oswald that was standing in front of my door. He was kind of tired looking. He had a little smile, but he was sunken in in the face that day. More skinny, I would say.

(the next line)

Mr. LIEBELER. Well, do you have any doubts in your mind after looking at these pictures that the man that was in your apartment was the same man as Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. I don't have any doubts.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have any doubt about it then?

Mrs. ODIO. I kept saying it can't be to myself; it just can't be. I mean it couldn't be, but when my sister walked into the hospital and she said, "Sylvia, have you seen the man?" And I said, "Yes." And she said, "That was the man that was at the door of my house." So I had no doubts then.

your next one?

would say.

--------------------

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. She says she doesn't recall. She could not say that it is true. I mean, even though she said she thought I had mentioned the name very clearly, and I had mentioned the names of the three men.

Mr. LIEBELER. But she didn't remember it?

Mrs. ODIO. No;

So here was the next section of your reply trying to prove the surname OSWALD was never used..

But please don't post the sentences just prior to this statement or just after explaining that by the time Annie arrives at the door they are talking about him as "the/an American"... and that she too was sure who it was.

And he said, "We wanted you to meet this American. His name is Leon Oswald." He repeated it twice. Then my sister Annie by that time was standing near the door. She had come to see what was going on. And they introduced him as an American who was very much interested in the Cuban cause.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. She says she doesn't recall. She could not say that it is true. I mean, even though she said she thought I had mentioned the name very clearly, and I had mentioned the names of the three men.

Mr. LIEBELER. But she didn't remember it?

Mrs. ODIO. No; she said I mentioned it, because I made a comment. This I don't recall. I said, "I am going to see Antonio Alentado," which is one of the leaders of the JURE here in Dallas. And I think I just casually said, "I am going to mention these names to him to see if he knows any of them." But I forgot about them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister see the men?

Mrs. ODIO. She saw the three of them.

Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this with her since that time?

Mrs. ODIO. I just had to discuss it because it was bothering me. I just had to know.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did she think it was Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. Well, her reaction to it when Oswald came on television, she almost passed out on me, just like I did the day at work when I learned about the assassination of the President. Her reaction was so obvious that it was him, I mean. And my reaction, we remember Oswald the day he came to my house because he had not shaved and he had a kind of a very, I don't know how to express it, but some little hairs like if you haven't shaved, but it is not a thick moustache, but some kind of shadow. That is something I noticed. And he was wearing--the other ones were wearing white dirty shirts, but he was wearing a long sleeved shirt.

You see Greg, you hide the info that does not suit your answers in hopes no one would look.

You continue to make absurd comments like: "Are you claiming that a man of the cloth lied to the authorities when he told them that she never heard the name Oswald used by the men?" when the evidence is right there... (all these quotes are from your posts on this thread)

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you tell Father McKann that the name Oswald was never used in your presence by any of these men?

Mrs. ODIO. Never was used except to introduce me, and the time when they left. They did not refer to him as Oswald.

Mr. LIEBELER. But they did in fact, introduce him as Leon Oswald?

Mrs. ODIO. And I shook hands with him.

On the follow-up day's phone call she repeatedly said they did not refer to him as Oswald... but that they only introduced him as such at the front door. Once again you must twist the woman's words to fit your square peg in the round hole. While making your point with cherry-picking right down the the sentence right before the contradiction to your conclusion.

Shabby amateurish work Parker...

Your points are so poorly supported by the evidence you have to resort to this?

But that's not lying or misrepresenting the evidence... it's NOT I'm saying.

that 's just you speculating about why she said what the evidence says she did in a manner which supports your view of things... without exposing all the pertinent facts... or that the gist of the sources of your supporting evidence mean the exact opposite of what you show in your posts...

That's what you do and what you've been doing since you've returned to attack anything not to your liking.

Half-truths you post as facts and build upon as if a solid foundation had been established and yet even the most cursory of looks shows them for the house of cards they are...

And you honestly believe you're fooling anyone...

ok... shhhhh! I'll keep your secret.

bump (Parker - you just like to forget about this stuff, don't ya?)

[Kenneth Drew]

Hi Ken

I've tried to copy your posts in here but I keep getting the error message that I've copied too many blocks of text so I'm putting the comment here.

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I was at work today. Here are two of the comments made by David about people from down under. He made a third slur on Australians which I can’t find at the moment.

DJ: “Maybe it’s just that you speak a different English down under?”

DJ: “Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...”

I’m a bit puzzled as to why you think these comments might not be offensive to Australians. They are not compliments, they are meant to insult. What if we substitute some other countries in there say “India’ or ‘America’. Are you getting my drift now?

In regards to your other comment about there being more Australians than Americans involved in the JFK assassination debate I doubt that’s actually the case, certainly not on here, JFKFacts or ROKC. In fact I’d be surprised if that were true of any site.

But if you’re really asking “Why do Australians care so much when it wasn’t their President?” then I would say I can only speak for myself but in case you’ve forgotten the American President and his foreign policy has a huge impact on the rest of the world. Jim di Eugenio on CTKA has written some great articles on this issue.

Just as one example, Australia fought in Vietnam and lost soldiers there, not to mention the social division that war caused in this country and the terrible impact it had on Vietnam itself (including the outflow of refugees to Australia). A country which IS actually in our region of the world. There is plenty of documentation now to say that JFK would never have sent ground troops to Vietnam and was looking for a way to extricate the USA from that war.

Secondly, I would say that Australia (and the rest of the Western world), is in general, a few steps to the left of America politically so the loss of a visionary, liberal President such as JFK resonates. President Obama has always had consistently higher approval ratings in Australia (75% at one point) and the rest of the world, than America.

And thirdly, the Warren Commission Report was an incredibly inadequate investigation of the President’s murder. At the most basic level its conclusions are not supported by the evidence contained within the Report. I’m not going to go into the evidence any further than that because I’ve taken up enough time on this thread as it is.

These are just my thoughts, but does that answer your question?

Thanks very much for your answer and yes it does answer it. It doesn't really explain 'the why' it seems that more Australians are interested than Americans, but it seems so to me. It is not objectionable to me, just curious. I've always wondered about the death of Harold Holt and what was really behind it. The timing fits in the same general time frame as JFK's assassination, so I've always wondered. I know that the investigation said it was an accident, but we all know that investigations are sometimes predetermined. I'm convinced JFK was killed primarily to insure that the US entered the war, but there were other reasons also. Americans that look into the situation generally all come up with the same conclusions as to who was involved, but there is a strong core of people that seem to have a strong interest in not knowing the truth as if it would be harmful, or something. Just a point of interest, I lived in Australia for 6 months at one time and loved it. Got along with the locals very well.

[Kenneth Drew]

It seems to me, in trying to read through the back and forth between David and Greg, that there is plenty of sarcasm by both, and that neither one has earned the right to take the high road and blame the other. It's tedious to read, and I have pretty much given up on that. Vanessa - I just don't see where David's sarcastic comments about Australians rise to the level of racism. David is obviously quite frustrated in his dealings with Greg, and feels ganged up on. I mostly agree with Greg and others that Harvey and Lee is an overstated theory. But so what?

Greg - I have read your first volume and look forward to succeeding ones. I wish you would spend more time on this forum expounding on your own theories and research, and less time tearing down Harvey and Lee. You might find that engaging with others prior to going to print with volume two will enrich your research and increase your sales. I know I am always interested in original research, even though I generally agree with Salandria and Burnam and others that we already know it was an inside job.

Racism? I believe most Australians are of the same general racial mix as Americans. Don't understand the use of the word 'racism' here.

[Paul Trejo]

I know the perps and their descendants are real happy tonight. They were clever, far cleverer than anyone here. No one here could have pulled off JFK's assassination, covered it up, and left a trail of confusing information.

Yeah, the perps and their descendants are having a good laugh tonight. Because tonight, researchers of the JFK assassination are at one another's throats. As if the TRUTH is a matter of debate rather than a matter of discovery.

Suggestion: Aim for why JFK was killed. That's the key question. If you know the reason, you're far smarter than I.

Well, Jon, your questions here presume that the JFK Kill-Team and the JFK Cover-up Team were one and the same. That is perhaps the most common error of CT's in the past 50 years.

Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Edward Epstein, Jim Marrs, Robert Groden, Anthony Summers, Peter Dale Scott and John Newman, are all of this mindset -- and all mistaken, IMHO.

Here's how to distinguish the Teams: the JFK Kill-Team strongly promoted a "Communist" Oswald. The JFK Coverup-Team strongly promoted a "Lone Nut" Oswald.

The two groups were savagely at each other's throats. It's a wonder to me that from Jim Garrison forward, fifty years of American readers never noticed this dichotomy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

It seems to me, in trying to read through the back and forth between David and Greg, that there is plenty of sarcasm by both, and that neither one has earned the right to take the high road and blame the other. It's tedious to read, and I have pretty much given up on that. Vanessa - I just don't see where David's sarcastic comments about Australians rise to the level of racism. David is obviously quite frustrated in his dealings with Greg, and feels ganged up on. I mostly agree with Greg and others that Harvey and Lee is an overstated theory. But so what?

Greg - I have read your first volume and look forward to succeeding ones. I wish you would spend more time on this forum expounding on your own theories and research, and less time tearing down Harvey and Lee. You might find that engaging with others prior to going to print with volume two will enrich your research and increase your sales. I know I am always interested in original research, even though I generally agree with Salandria and Burnam and others that we already know it was an inside job.

Paul, I refer you to my reply to Kathy and add that I have not been baiting them, calling them names, calling them liars, or dodging direct questions, so I don't know how you claim he he has been frustrated by me. For weeks, I ignored his baiting and stuck to facts. My sole indescretion was alleged foul language which boiled over out of my own frustration trying to combat his 1001 uses of logical fallacies. As for racism, David has a history of racist comments. Whether his comments about Australians could be considered racist or not is open to debate, but at very least, they were meant to be demeaning and broad-brush.

I tackle H & L for the same reason I have taken on Judyth. Someone has to do the heavy lifting and take the garbage out. It stinks up this community and makes us a laughing stock.

I'd be glad to discuss my first volume, but I have tried and no one is much interested. Half of it is deep historical background and context that only myself about 6 others have any interest in. The other half only covers Oswald from 0 to 13. I am not going to lay out research earmarked for the upcoming volumes. If you think there is not much more to know, you're in for a shock. Included in the next volume, among other new material, will be the true origins of the "defector program". In the third volume, among other new material, will be new revelations about who was related to whom. And I'm not talking in some Tom Scully sense. I'm talking about direct relationships between a major witness and someone with means, motive and opportunity to carry this out. They are both very well known, yet the relationship has been hidden until now. Bottom line: there will be plenty to talk about when the next one comes out, and even more for the one after.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Kenneth Drew]

I know the perps and their descendants are real happy tonight. They were clever, far cleverer than anyone here. No one here could have pulled off JFK's assassination, covered it up, and left a trail of confusing information.

Yeah, the perps and their descendants are having a good laugh tonight. Because tonight, researchers of the JFK assassination are at one another's throats. As if the TRUTH is a matter of debate rather than a matter of discovery.

Suggestion: Aim for why JFK was killed. That's the key question. If you know the reason, you're far smarter than I.

Well, Jon, your questions here presume that the JFK Kill-Team and the JFK Cover-up Team were one and the same. That is perhaps the most common error of CT's in the past 50 years.

Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg, Edward Epstein, Jim Marrs, Robert Groden, Anthony Summers, Peter Dale Scott and John Newman, are all of this mindset -- and all mistaken, IMHO.

Here's how to distinguish the Teams: the JFK Kill-Team strongly promoted a "Communist" Oswald. The JFK Coverup-Team strongly promoted a "Lone Nut" Oswald.

The two groups were savagely at each other's throats. It's a wonder to me that from Jim Garrison forward, fifty years of American readers never noticed this dichotomy.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Here's how to distinguish the Teams: the JFK Kill-Team strongly promoted a "Communist" Oswald. The JFK Coverup-Team strongly promoted a "Lone Nut" Oswald.

I think the Planning Team planned the Kill so that the Cover Up team could cover it the easiest way, which was Lone Nut, but had put enough elements into place that it could be shown to be conspiracy if it had to be.

[Greg Parker]

It seems to me, in trying to read through the back and forth between David and Greg, that there is plenty of sarcasm by both, and that neither one has earned the right to take the high road and blame the other. It's tedious to read, and I have pretty much given up on that. Vanessa - I just don't see where David's sarcastic comments about Australians rise to the level of racism. David is obviously quite frustrated in his dealings with Greg, and feels ganged up on. I mostly agree with Greg and others that Harvey and Lee is an overstated theory. But so what?

Greg - I have read your first volume and look forward to succeeding ones. I wish you would spend more time on this forum expounding on your own theories and research, and less time tearing down Harvey and Lee. You might find that engaging with others prior to going to print with volume two will enrich your research and increase your sales. I know I am always interested in original research, even though I generally agree with Salandria and Burnam and others that we already know it was an inside job.

Racism? I believe most Australians are of the same general racial mix as Americans. Don't understand the use of the word 'racism' here.

He characterized an entire nation with broad-brush insults. You seem to want to only couch it in terms of racial distinctions. Here are two definitions:

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

You are on a slippery slope trying to bring a distinction between race and nationality in order to claim "no racism" on Josephs part.

It's like saying "all Irish are stupid" and trying to argue it's not a racist comment.

Edited June 8, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

Hi Ken

I've tried to copy your posts in here but I keep getting the error message that I've copied too many blocks of text so I'm putting the comment here.

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I was at work today. Here are two of the comments made by David about people from down under. He made a third slur on Australians which I can’t find at the moment.

DJ: “Maybe it’s just that you speak a different English down under?”

DJ: “Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...”

I’m a bit puzzled as to why you think these comments might not be offensive to Australians. They are not compliments, they are meant to insult. What if we substitute some other countries in there say “India’ or ‘America’. Are you getting my drift now?

In regards to your other comment about there being more Australians than Americans involved in the JFK assassination debate I doubt that’s actually the case, certainly not on here, JFKFacts or ROKC. In fact I’d be surprised if that were true of any site.

But if you’re really asking “Why do Australians care so much when it wasn’t their President?” then I would say I can only speak for myself but in case you’ve forgotten the American President and his foreign policy has a huge impact on the rest of the world. Jim di Eugenio on CTKA has written some great articles on this issue.

Just as one example, Australia fought in Vietnam and lost soldiers there, not to mention the social division that war caused in this country and the terrible impact it had on Vietnam itself (including the outflow of refugees to Australia). A country which IS actually in our region of the world. There is plenty of documentation now to say that JFK would never have sent ground troops to Vietnam and was looking for a way to extricate the USA from that war.

Secondly, I would say that Australia (and the rest of the Western world), is in general, a few steps to the left of America politically so the loss of a visionary, liberal President such as JFK resonates. President Obama has always had consistently higher approval ratings in Australia (75% at one point) and the rest of the world, than America.

And thirdly, the Warren Commission Report was an incredibly inadequate investigation of the President’s murder. At the most basic level its conclusions are not supported by the evidence contained within the Report. I’m not going to go into the evidence any further than that because I’ve taken up enough time on this thread as it is.

These are just my thoughts, but does that answer your question?

Thanks very much for your answer and yes it does answer it. It doesn't really explain 'the why' it seems that more Australians are interested than Americans, but it seems so to me. It is not objectionable to me, just curious. I've always wondered about the death of Harold Holt and what was really behind it. The timing fits in the same general time frame as JFK's assassination, so I've always wondered. I know that the investigation said it was an accident, but we all know that investigations are sometimes predetermined. I'm convinced JFK was killed primarily to insure that the US entered the war, but there were other reasons also. Americans that look into the situation generally all come up with the same conclusions as to who was involved, but there is a strong core of people that seem to have a strong interest in not knowing the truth as if it would be harmful, or something. Just a point of interest, I lived in Australia for 6 months at one time and loved it. Got along with the locals very well.

Which branch of the Imperial forces were you serving with at the time?

Edited June 8, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

I don't believe there was a cover-up team. I believe the cover-up occurred basically because the Oswald-did-it-alone story served many interests, including the interests of a public that was unable to grasp or believe that JFK's murder was a coup d-etat.

I don't believe the kill team(s) participated in the cover-up except to the extent they were part of a conspiracy (in the legal sense) to frame Oswald for the murder.

[Kenneth Drew]

It seems to me, in trying to read through the back and forth between David and Greg, that there is plenty of sarcasm by both, and that neither one has earned the right to take the high road and blame the other. It's tedious to read, and I have pretty much given up on that. Vanessa - I just don't see where David's sarcastic comments about Australians rise to the level of racism. David is obviously quite frustrated in his dealings with Greg, and feels ganged up on. I mostly agree with Greg and others that Harvey and Lee is an overstated theory. But so what?

Greg - I have read your first volume and look forward to succeeding ones. I wish you would spend more time on this forum expounding on your own theories and research, and less time tearing down Harvey and Lee. You might find that engaging with others prior to going to print with volume two will enrich your research and increase your sales. I know I am always interested in original research, even though I generally agree with Salandria and Burnam and others that we already know it was an inside job.

Racism? I believe most Australians are of the same general racial mix as Americans. Don't understand the use of the word 'racism' here.

He characterized an entire nation with broad-brush insults. You seem to want to only couch it in terms of racial distinctions. Here are two definitions:

the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

You are on a slippery slope trying to bring a distinction between race and nationality in order to claim "no racism" on Josephs part.

It's like saying "all Irish are stupid" and trying to argue it's not a racist comment.

You are on a slippery slope trying to bring a distinction between race and nationality in order to claim "no racism" on Josephs part.

It's like saying "all Irish are stupid" and trying to argue it's not a racist comment.

That's rather humorous. Racism has to do with race, nationality has to do with nationality. Throwing the word 'racism' down is just a provocation. An attempt to belittle. Now if you were to say that equating the Irish to a 'race' were possible then you might could make that argument, but so far as I know Irish includes more than one race. Australians are many more than a 'race'.

Just curious, what 'race' do you consider Australians to be? So while "all Irish are stupid" is inappropriate, it's not racial in any way.

[Kenneth Drew]

Hi Ken

I've tried to copy your posts in here but I keep getting the error message that I've copied too many blocks of text so I'm putting the comment here.

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I was at work today. Here are two of the comments made by David about people from down under. He made a third slur on Australians which I can’t find at the moment.

DJ: “Maybe it’s just that you speak a different English down under?”

DJ: “Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...”

I’m a bit puzzled as to why you think these comments might not be offensive to Australians. They are not compliments, they are meant to insult. What if we substitute some other countries in there say “India’ or ‘America’. Are you getting my drift now?

In regards to your other comment about there being more Australians than Americans involved in the JFK assassination debate I doubt that’s actually the case, certainly not on here, JFKFacts or ROKC. In fact I’d be surprised if that were true of any site.

But if you’re really asking “Why do Australians care so much when it wasn’t their President?” then I would say I can only speak for myself but in case you’ve forgotten the American President and his foreign policy has a huge impact on the rest of the world. Jim di Eugenio on CTKA has written some great articles on this issue.

Just as one example, Australia fought in Vietnam and lost soldiers there, not to mention the social division that war caused in this country and the terrible impact it had on Vietnam itself (including the outflow of refugees to Australia). A country which IS actually in our region of the world. There is plenty of documentation now to say that JFK would never have sent ground troops to Vietnam and was looking for a way to extricate the USA from that war.

Secondly, I would say that Australia (and the rest of the Western world), is in general, a few steps to the left of America politically so the loss of a visionary, liberal President such as JFK resonates. President Obama has always had consistently higher approval ratings in Australia (75% at one point) and the rest of the world, than America.

And thirdly, the Warren Commission Report was an incredibly inadequate investigation of the President’s murder. At the most basic level its conclusions are not supported by the evidence contained within the Report. I’m not going to go into the evidence any further than that because I’ve taken up enough time on this thread as it is.

These are just my thoughts, but does that answer your question?

Thanks very much for your answer and yes it does answer it. It doesn't really explain 'the why' it seems that more Australians are interested than Americans, but it seems so to me. It is not objectionable to me, just curious. I've always wondered about the death of Harold Holt and what was really behind it. The timing fits in the same general time frame as JFK's assassination, so I've always wondered. I know that the investigation said it was an accident, but we all know that investigations are sometimes predetermined. I'm convinced JFK was killed primarily to insure that the US entered the war, but there were other reasons also. Americans that look into the situation generally all come up with the same conclusions as to who was involved, but there is a strong core of people that seem to have a strong interest in not knowing the truth as if it would be harmful, or something. Just a point of interest, I lived in Australia for 6 months at one time and loved it. Got along with the locals very well.

Which branch of the Imperial forces were you serving with at the time?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Imperial forces" but I was not 'serving' with anyone. I just chose to live there for 6 months.

[Greg Parker]

Hi Ken

I've tried to copy your posts in here but I keep getting the error message that I've copied too many blocks of text so I'm putting the comment here.

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I was at work today. Here are two of the comments made by David about people from down under. He made a third slur on Australians which I can’t find at the moment.

DJ: “Maybe it’s just that you speak a different English down under?”

DJ: “Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...”

I’m a bit puzzled as to why you think these comments might not be offensive to Australians. They are not compliments, they are meant to insult. What if we substitute some other countries in there say “India’ or ‘America’. Are you getting my drift now?

In regards to your other comment about there being more Australians than Americans involved in the JFK assassination debate I doubt that’s actually the case, certainly not on here, JFKFacts or ROKC. In fact I’d be surprised if that were true of any site.

But if you’re really asking “Why do Australians care so much when it wasn’t their President?” then I would say I can only speak for myself but in case you’ve forgotten the American President and his foreign policy has a huge impact on the rest of the world. Jim di Eugenio on CTKA has written some great articles on this issue.

Just as one example, Australia fought in Vietnam and lost soldiers there, not to mention the social division that war caused in this country and the terrible impact it had on Vietnam itself (including the outflow of refugees to Australia). A country which IS actually in our region of the world. There is plenty of documentation now to say that JFK would never have sent ground troops to Vietnam and was looking for a way to extricate the USA from that war.

Secondly, I would say that Australia (and the rest of the Western world), is in general, a few steps to the left of America politically so the loss of a visionary, liberal President such as JFK resonates. President Obama has always had consistently higher approval ratings in Australia (75% at one point) and the rest of the world, than America.

And thirdly, the Warren Commission Report was an incredibly inadequate investigation of the President’s murder. At the most basic level its conclusions are not supported by the evidence contained within the Report. I’m not going to go into the evidence any further than that because I’ve taken up enough time on this thread as it is.

These are just my thoughts, but does that answer your question?

Thanks very much for your answer and yes it does answer it. It doesn't really explain 'the why' it seems that more Australians are interested than Americans, but it seems so to me. It is not objectionable to me, just curious. I've always wondered about the death of Harold Holt and what was really behind it. The timing fits in the same general time frame as JFK's assassination, so I've always wondered. I know that the investigation said it was an accident, but we all know that investigations are sometimes predetermined. I'm convinced JFK was killed primarily to insure that the US entered the war, but there were other reasons also. Americans that look into the situation generally all come up with the same conclusions as to who was involved, but there is a strong core of people that seem to have a strong interest in not knowing the truth as if it would be harmful, or something. Just a point of interest, I lived in Australia for 6 months at one time and loved it. Got along with the locals very well.

Which branch of the Imperial forces were you serving with at the time?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Imperial forces" but I was not 'serving' with anyone. I just chose to live there for 6 months.

Can I ask where you lived?

[Kenneth Drew]

Hi Ken

I've tried to copy your posts in here but I keep getting the error message that I've copied too many blocks of text so I'm putting the comment here.

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. I was at work today. Here are two of the comments made by David about people from down under. He made a third slur on Australians which I can’t find at the moment.

DJ: “Maybe it’s just that you speak a different English down under?”

DJ: “Just count the days Parker... you can do that, unless math is also different down under fitting 125+ days into less than a single semester is almost as good as the SBT...”

I’m a bit puzzled as to why you think these comments might not be offensive to Australians. They are not compliments, they are meant to insult. What if we substitute some other countries in there say “India’ or ‘America’. Are you getting my drift now?

In regards to your other comment about there being more Australians than Americans involved in the JFK assassination debate I doubt that’s actually the case, certainly not on here, JFKFacts or ROKC. In fact I’d be surprised if that were true of any site.

But if you’re really asking “Why do Australians care so much when it wasn’t their President?” then I would say I can only speak for myself but in case you’ve forgotten the American President and his foreign policy has a huge impact on the rest of the world. Jim di Eugenio on CTKA has written some great articles on this issue.

Just as one example, Australia fought in Vietnam and lost soldiers there, not to mention the social division that war caused in this country and the terrible impact it had on Vietnam itself (including the outflow of refugees to Australia). A country which IS actually in our region of the world. There is plenty of documentation now to say that JFK would never have sent ground troops to Vietnam and was looking for a way to extricate the USA from that war.

Secondly, I would say that Australia (and the rest of the Western world), is in general, a few steps to the left of America politically so the loss of a visionary, liberal President such as JFK resonates. President Obama has always had consistently higher approval ratings in Australia (75% at one point) and the rest of the world, than America.

And thirdly, the Warren Commission Report was an incredibly inadequate investigation of the President’s murder. At the most basic level its conclusions are not supported by the evidence contained within the Report. I’m not going to go into the evidence any further than that because I’ve taken up enough time on this thread as it is.

These are just my thoughts, but does that answer your question?

Thanks very much for your answer and yes it does answer it. It doesn't really explain 'the why' it seems that more Australians are interested than Americans, but it seems so to me. It is not objectionable to me, just curious. I've always wondered about the death of Harold Holt and what was really behind it. The timing fits in the same general time frame as JFK's assassination, so I've always wondered. I know that the investigation said it was an accident, but we all know that investigations are sometimes predetermined. I'm convinced JFK was killed primarily to insure that the US entered the war, but there were other reasons also. Americans that look into the situation generally all come up with the same conclusions as to who was involved, but there is a strong core of people that seem to have a strong interest in not knowing the truth as if it would be harmful, or something. Just a point of interest, I lived in Australia for 6 months at one time and loved it. Got along with the locals very well.

Which branch of the Imperial forces were you serving with at the time?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'Imperial forces" but I was not 'serving' with anyone. I just chose to live there for 6 months.

Can I ask where you lived?

Wagga Wagga, NSW