Robert Prudhomme Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 1. But it was not spelling problems that he had when writing the Walker note. From what I have read, it was more problems with sentence structure and improper selection and usage of nouns and verbs. An example of this would be the Monty Python classic "The Life of Brian". Brian is ordered by the Judean People's Front to write "Romans go Home" on a large wall, as a loyalty test. Not knowing Latin very well, Brian ends up writing "The Romans, they go the House". He is caught by Roman guards, is shown the correct phraseology, and ordered by the guards to write it on the wall, 500 times. LHO was diagnosed with dyslexia long after he was dead? And by none less than a WC doctor? Riggghhht.... 2. If the "while in Russia" letter that Greg Parker produced, and the analysis of it, are true and correct, he was able to write in very good Russian only ten months prior to writing the Walker note. We are supposed to believe he lost his ability to write Russian in the space of ten months? 3. And this is significant because..... 4. And this is significant because.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 1. But it was not spelling problems that he had when writing the Walker note. From what I have read, it was more problems with sentence structure and improper selection and usage of nouns and verbs. An example of this would be the Monty Python classic "The Life of Brian". Brian is ordered by the Judean People's Front to write "Romans go Home" on a large wall, as a loyalty test. Not knowing Latin very well, Brian ends up writing "The Romans, they go the House". He is caught by Roman guards, is shown the correct phraseology, and ordered by the guards to write it on the wall, 500 times. LHO was diagnosed with dyslexia long after he was dead? And by none less than a WC doctor? Riggghhht.... 2. If the "while in Russia" letter that Greg Parker produced, and the analysis of it, are true and correct, he was able to write in very good Russian only ten months prior to writing the Walker note. We are supposed to believe he lost his ability to write Russian in the space of ten months? 3. And this is significant because..... 4. And this is significant because.... // PRUDHOMME }}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}} IF I was OK with espionage but not assassination I would misspell too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) bump Edited May 2, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I have no idea what you mean by that, Steven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) 1. But it was not spelling problems that he had when writing the Walker note. From what I have read, it was more problems with sentence structure and improper selection and usage of nouns and verbs. An example of this would be the Monty Python classic "The Life of Brian". Brian is ordered by the Judean People's Front to write "Romans go Home" on a large wall, as a loyalty test. Not knowing Latin very well, Brian ends up writing "The Romans, they go the House". He is caught by Roman guards, is shown the correct phraseology, and ordered by the guards to write it on the wall, 500 times.LHO was diagnosed with dyslexia long after he was dead? And by none less than a WC doctor? Riggghhht....2. If the "while in Russia" letter that Greg Parker produced, and the analysis of it, are true and correct, he was able to write in very good Russian only ten months prior to writing the Walker note. We are supposed to believe he lost his ability to write Russian in the space of ten months?3. And this is significant because.....4. And this is significant because.... // PRUDHOMME ========================================== Oswald was OK with espionage but not assassination so he created a flawed note as not to implicate himself. OSWALD SAID TO HIS COVERT CONTROLLERS "YES I WROTE A WALKER NOTE" espionage is information gathering not killing (GAAL) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Posted 05 January 2015 - 03:50 PM http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=294393 Worldwatchers Archive A Tribute to Mae Brussell Dialogue: Conspiracy 78-02-26 (CLICK LINK) audio see http://www.worldwatchers.info/shows/dialogue-conspiracy-78-02-26/ Whole Show ================================ Now, the myth is that JFK fired Walker because of his JBS propaganda. That's not true. The truth is that the Join Chiefs of staff fired Walker because of a horrible series of shore-flaps that climaxed on 16 April 1961 (the same day as the Bay of Pigs) when the Overseas Weekly newspaper in Germany slammed Walker with a two-page attack over his allegedly John Birch Society program. But in reality that was only the tip of the iceberg. Actually, the Overseas Weekly had been spying on Walker for 18 months because they were certain that General Edwin Walker was GAY. Walker hated these people, and he even sued the Overseas Weekly in Civil Court and won, but that only made the Overseas Weekly angry. That was why they decided to pull out all the stops and scare the hell out of the Joint Chiefs. The Joint Chiefs (and JFK) could care less about the JBS propaganda (at this point) -- and their real complaint was about a shore-flap in Germany in the middle of the Cold War. The Joint Chiefs booted Walker off of his command the very next day.// TREJO ================================================= Credibility of information of Radio program increases doesnt it ?? (GAAL) ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] credibility BRUSSELL see post # 2 below - http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21659&p=295263 Edited May 2, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 ... 2. If the "while in Russia" letter that Greg Parker produced, and the analysis of it, are true and correct, he was able to write in very good Russian only ten months prior to writing the Walker note. We are supposed to believe he lost his ability to write Russian in the space of ten months? ... Well, Robert, in fact Greg Parker's argument is based on one expert who offered only a grammatical Error Count, and admitted that the analysis was "incomplete." I don't take that as a conclusion, but rather, as that Russian language expert himself insisted -- only a beginning. Nor did the expert say that OSWALD wrote "in very good Russian" while he was in the USSR -- but only that there were fewer grammatical errors in the USSR writing. Nor did the expert share exactly what those errors were. We simply take his word for it that there were "more" and that's that. How many more? Ten percent more? Fifty percent more? A hundred percent more? Five hundred percent more? We are not told. What types of grammatical errors? The same types of errors as in the WALKER letter? Or different? In what ways? We are not told. My argument is this -- all other things being equal, when Lee Harvey OSWALD was in the USSR, he was treated like a young prince. He made almost as much money as the Director of the Minsk Radio Factory (thanks to the Red Cross) and he was lucky to be assigned the new apartment complex -- the envy of the neighborhood. Marina wasn't his first girlfriend in the USSR. So, in the USSR, Lee OSWALD was feeling good -- perhaps happy for the first time in his life. Yet in 1962, after he moved back to the USA, he was making $1.25 an hour as a welder, and living with his nagging mother, with his wife smirking in the background. He moved out as soon as he could, but the Russian Exile community was more friendly with Marina than with him -- and also they had plenty of money, and pitied Lee. Lee beat Marina for the first (and perhaps only) time there in Fort Worth. In Dallas, OSWALD was beset by George DM, Volkmar Schmidt and Michael Paine regarding the news about Edwin WALKER, who had recently been released from an insane asylum for his role in the Ole Miss race riots, and then, in January 1963, was acquitted of all charges in those riots by an all-white Mississippi Grand Jury. The small island of young yuppie engineers in Dallas was outraged, and they conspired to brainwash OSWALD to join them in their misery. OSWALD did snap under all this pressure, and he chose to murder Edwin WALKER. He had at least one other accomplice in this, and the planning had gone on for perhaps two solid months -- early February to early April 1963. Now comes the night of the shooting and the WALKER letter. Lee is nervous. He is sweaty. He writes this note in a hurry. Is it possible that he would make more than his usual quota of grammatical mistakes in the WALKER letter? It is possible and probable. So, we should listen to Greg Parker's generous friend more than to Greg, IMHO, since Greg seems to jump to a conclusion, while his generous, Russian speaking friend insisted at the end that 'more analysis is needed.' Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I think there are a lot of people on this forum jumping to a LOT of conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) delete Edited May 2, 2015 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I think there are a lot of people on this forum jumping to a LOT of conclusions. Quite right, Robert, since the CT community is in disarray with dozens of Conspiracy Theories. Only one theory will turn out to be right. We know that one will be right, because the HSCA, which had twice the budget and twice the time as the Warren Commission, came to a different conclusion than the Warren Commission -- not that OSWALD was a Lone Nut, but that OSWALD was a part of a CONSPIRACY. However, the HSCA was still not able to reveal all the secrets of the CIA and FBI (that are still secrets today). I think this was because the secrets were Cold War related. The Cold War was still raging in 1979 when the HSCA made their conclusion. Most of us on this Forum are wrong. We are all guessing -- because the crucial evidence is still being withheld by the US Government. I myself am thankful to President GHW Bush for signing the JFK Records Act in 1992, and I'm hopeful that on its stated date: 26 October 2017, the crucial evidence will finally be revealed, and the Full Truth of the JFK Murder will finally be known. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 I recall the HSCA saying that JFK likely died as the result of a conspiracy, but I don't recall them including Oswald in that conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) I recall the HSCA saying that JFK likely died as the result of a conspiracy, but I don't recall them including Oswald in that conspiracy. Yes, they did, Robert. Ultimately, they agreed with almost everything that the Warren Commission wrote, EXCEPT FOR THE "LONE NUT" THEORY. OSWALD's participation was clearly part of the HSCA conclusion. Yet the exact nature of his participation was left unclear, because the specific members of the Conspiracy remained to be identified. I think they did a fair job given the restrictions that they faced -- in the name of National Security. Here is what one of their key investigators -- Gaeton Fonzi -- said after the HSCA was all said and done: "People ask today, will we ever find out the truth about the Kennedy assassination. My feeling is that we know the truth about the Kennedy assassination. There is no doubt that there was a Conspiracy. We perhaps don't know the apparatus -- exactly how it was carried out -- but we do know; there is absolutely no doubt; there's proof; the Warren Commission itself provided us evidence that there was a Conspiracy." (Gaeton Fonzi, 1999, video, The Murder of JFK: A Revisionist History) I note at this point that Gaeton Fonzi himself investigated the Sylvia Odio account, and is convinced that Loran Hall and his fellow mercenaries played a central role in the JFK murder. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited May 2, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Would you mind posting the HSCA's conclusions showing where, in their report, they stated Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Hancock Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 Paul, could you refresh my memory with exactly where Gaeton said that Loran Hall was a central figure in the assassination.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 2, 2015 Share Posted May 2, 2015 (edited) Would you mind posting the HSCA's conclusions showing where, in their report, they stated Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill JFK? Yes, Robert, here's the starting web page online: http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/select-committee-report/ And here is the high-level summary: I. Findings of the Select Committee on Assassination in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy I.A. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President I.B. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations. I.C. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy: The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved The Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy I.D. Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfillment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection...The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate.... Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited May 2, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 (edited) Paul, could you refresh my memory with exactly where Gaeton said that Loran Hall was a central figure in the assassination.... Larry, it may take some time to find the exact reference in his book, The Last Investigation (1993), yet it is clearly implicit in Fonzi's strident defense of the testimony of Sylvia Odio. Gaeton Fonzi was quite confident that Sylvia Odio was telling the truth; and that Loran Hall and Larry Howard drove up to her house on 25 September 1963, with Lee Harvey OSWALD. They said they came from New Orleans and were on their way to Mexico City. Later, perhaps on the weekend, Loran Hall called Sylvia Odio by phone, and told her that "Leon" Oswald could either kill Fidel Castro or kill JFK; "he could go either way." She never forgot that -- and she told several people about it -- people who also testified to the FBI and the WC that Sylvia Odio was honest and reliable. Yet Wesley Liebeler warned Sylvia that if her testimony suggested any hint of "accomplices" with OSWALD, that the WC would reject her testimony out of hand. They did -- they eventually called her a "mental case" and called her story an instance of mistaken identity mixed with hysteria. However -- Gaeton Fonzi accepted Odio's testimony verbatim. Here, in neon lights, was a conspiracy to kill JFK. The most puzzling aspect, IMHO, was that the FBI claimed that Sylvia Odio did not identify Loran Hall as "Leopoldo" from photographs they showed her-- however, the FBI quickly picked up Loran Hall for questioning. Why? Why? Why? Nobody has ever answered that question for me. As we all know, the FBI obtained a partial confession from Loran Hall, but it was hushed up by J. Edgar Hoover. Our best shot at the Truth slipped through our hands on that day, IMHO. How does all this relate to the WALKER letter? Because Loran Hall visited the home of Edwin WALKER multiple times in 1963 -- and even told Jim Garrison about some of those visits and the various personnel related to those visits -- including Gerry Patrick Hemming. Hemming was also fairly close to WALKER, whose personal papers include a correspondence with Hemming. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited May 3, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now