Jump to content
The Education Forum

REVIEW of two JFK ebooks


Recommended Posts

We really do need to hear from Paul on this; the remarks posted in the review either either undermine what Paul has been posting or, as an alternative, reflect on

Harry as a source....of course its not the first time we have seen books dealing with purported witnesses being repudiated but its something that does raise

crediblity issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I guess I should explain my earlier WOW, since I misinterpreted the other WOWs. My WOW was simply a reaction to the vitriol of the review. I obviously haven't been paying enough attention to all of Paul Trejo's posts. I wasn't even aware of his connection to Dean or any theory about the JBS etc. Don't have time right now to go back and research all of his posts, just wanted to clear up the WOW. I shouldn't be posting in this thread, being ignorant of the subect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how to interpret Harry Dean's diary. It strikes me as an exercise in sarcasm. After all, why would Dean submit to "painful" interrogation by Trejo? Makes no sense to me.

The "contemptible" comment makes no sense. Dean admits the 1990 manuscript was rife with errors. And then claims Trejo in some way mis-dealt with the manuscript.

I'd like to see both Harry Dean and Paul Trejo step up to plate here, unless Harry's post is in fact in jest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steven Gaal,

You're an honest guy. Angleton, Dulles, and Wisner were professional liars. That's to be expected from intelligence professionals.

My feeling is that all here not confuse professional lying with lying to mislead the public.

Professional lying is at the heart of intelligence work.

Professional intelligence work is meant to deceive to obtain desired information. That is honorable.

Lying to deceive the public is dishonorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lying to deceive the public is dishonorable

Curious Jon... would you consider FDR's lying about Pearl Harbor being a "surprise" attack which kick-started our war effort and helped end Hitler and Yamamoto, dishonorable?

As opposed to LBJ lying about the Gulf of Tonkin which was most certainly dishonorable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MK ULTRA and the protection of narcotics traffic that goes into the USA and the over throw of elected democratic regimes replaced by brutal dictatorships. + all honorable // per TIDD & Trejo

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] >>> very partial list Torture by USA people we put in power <<<<

Photos: Memories of Shah's Secret Service SAVAK at ...

www.payvand.com/news/12/feb/1092.html
Feb 8, 2012 - Iran's Ebrat Museum was once a prison of the shah's secret police, SAVAK. ... including prison cells, interrogation rooms and torture chambers.
Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David Josephs,

I want to return to your comment about Roosevelt and Pearl Harbor. FWIW, I've believed for some years that the way the U.S. Government dealt with Pearl Harbor was a lesson for those who masterminded the JFK assassination.

Roosevelt, I agree, had foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack as did George C. Marshall. For the reasons you give, I believe Roosevelt allowed the attack to occur unhindered. And then covered up by letting Kimmel and Short take the blame for unpreparedness.

If my view is correct, the Pearl Harbor cover-up is more important than the attack itself. The cover-up, if I'm correct, made clear that investigation after investigation could fail to reveal the truth and that it was fairly easy to fool the American people once they were brought to an emotional frenzy. What a template for the Dallas plotters, who surely were at the upper echelon insiders who knew the real deal about Pearl Harbor.

I agree Roosevelt acted out of a better motive than did LBJ with respect to the Tonkin Gulf. Nonetheless, I fault Roosevelt more severely because he established a far more fundamental precedent than did LBJ. LBJ's Gulf of Tonkin was GWB's WMD. Roosevelt's Pearl Harbor was JFK's Dallas. In my view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon,

I could look this up but you probably know the answer, was the Pearl Harbor "investigation" handled by a hand-picked commission like the WC or the 9/11 omission commission, or some other body?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ron,

Best as I recall, there were about seven commissions that looked at the Pearl Harbor attack. All reached the conclusion Kimmel and Short were to blame.

In the last 30 years or so, as I recall, family members of Kimmel or Short have lobbied successfully to get the judgment against their family member reversed. Long, long after Pearl Harbor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Report

Jon G. Tidd

Posted Today, 10:53 PM

Ron,

Best as I recall, there were about seven commissions that looked at the Pearl Harbor attack. All reached the conclusion Kimmel and Short were to blame.

In the last 30 years or so, as I recall, family members of Kimmel or Short have lobbied successfully to get the judgment against their family member reversed. Long, long after Pearl Harbor.

#############################################################################################################

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

30-11-1941_japanmaystrike.JPG
The Hilo Tribune Herald dated November 30th 1941, one week before the attack on Pearl Harbor

Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl.php#ixzz3XW27jxxf

SMALL_pearlharborwarning.jpg
The Honolulu Advertiser dated November 30th 1941, one week before the attack on Pearl Harbor

Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl.php#ixzz3XW2INxhE
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

===

===o>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/pearl.php#axzz3XW1q9000 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<o===

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steven Gaal,

Thanks. The material you present shows some of the American people were alerted to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The attack on Pearl Harbor was brilliant from the U.S. standpoint. In the harbor were no carriers, just old warships. Japan cleaned out the old warships and left the carriers, like the Enterprise, alone.

In early 1942, those carriers defeated the Japanese at Midway. Under Admiral Spruance. This was after the Coral Sea battle.

By mid-1943, the U.S. had 100 carriers in the Pacific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that this thread has gotten badly off track - given that it is a very serious thread involving someone who has presented himself and been presented as a conspiracy witness

I really think it needs to refocus and I also think Paul has an obligation to at least acknowledge the issue revealed by the first post on the thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Toland was a well-respected establishment historian, a Pulitzer Prize winner. Then, late in life, he made the mistake of demonstrating how FDR had foreknowledge of the "sneak" attack on Pearl Harbor. Needless to say, his book about the subject, Infamy, won no prized establishment awards.

For his sins, Toland was called a "Nazi" by Barbara Tuchman and shunned by "respectable" historians.

This is the way the establishment inevitably responds to unwelcome information.

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

×
×
  • Create New...