Jump to content
The Education Forum

Was The HSCA's conclusion helpful to the case of certain 'Conspiracy Theories'


Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

1.  See Julia Ann Mercer for starters.

2.  Newman used the Lopez Report, was instrumental in getting getting  it fully declassified, and goes beyond it.

One of these days, you will know what you are talking about.

James,

Your insults weaken your case -- they don't strengthen your case.  

As for Julia Ann Mercer, that was a case of mistaken identity. 

There were many people who claim they saw Jack Ruby somewhere on Dealey Plaza that day.   Like LHO sightings.

As for Newman's 1995 book, Oswald and the CIA, he could not have used the Lopez Report, which came out in 2003.   

So there's that,
--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, Paul Baker said:

:lol: Amazing, I've never seen that before. You may have just kicked off a whole new line of enquiry!

I see Hitler issuing orders to the alien. Crikey.

moorman_mod.jpg

Joking aside, this does demonstrate the results you get if you look at a grainy image for long enough ...

lol I can't believe you didn't mention the other big alien in the pic...

roger-2.jpg

lol ;)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

James,

Your insults weaken your case -- they don't strengthen your case.  

As for Julia Ann Mercer, that was a case of mistaken identity. 

Ah, yes. Julia Ann Mercer. Another favourite. Over an hour before the assassination, she saw Jack Ruby and Oswald setting up position on the Grassy Knoll, parking their truck on Elm and blocking traffic? I think she said or implied that DPD officers were helping in some way. She saw all of this within the few seconds that her progress was blocked by the truck. Some nonsense like that. Her story has a foot in reality, in that a truck did break down in that area on that morning, but that was about it. Still, a difficult one for the likes of DiEugenio to let go of since it somehow supports his position, regardless of its incredibility.

As for insults, that's how James usually deals with being cornered! I've witnessed that somewhat embarrassing tactic too many times to count.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PT: So there's that.

Oh really Paul.  Julia Ann Mercer was a pretty credible witness to anyone who talked to her. And I have read the firsthand interviews.   Attempts to attack her have been countered pretty effectively, e.g. by people like Mili Cranor.  Which you probably know nothing about. 

As per your saying that, "Hey, Newman could not have used the Lopez Report in 1995, because it came out in 2003";  it is saying stuff like that which really makes me wonder about you. If you turn to John's book, and look at the footnotes for his two chapters on Mexico City, you will see many footnotes to the Lopez Report.  In just one chapter he has over thirty of them.  Did he make those up?  Nope.  Through the ARRB, John got the first declassification of the Lopez Report.  It went through later declassifications of course.

As per insults, I don't mean those as insults.  IMO, whenever you get something right on this case, its an accident.

BTW, when Baker is on your side, you know you have problems.  This is the self proclaimed scientist who tried to confuse matters by saying NAA was a very accurate measure, leaving out the fact that, for bullet lead analysis, it have been thoroughly discredited.  So much so that the FBI will not use it anymore in court under threat of perjury.  When you lose the argument on the merits, you try and save the day by obfuscating things with false rubrics.  

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

PT: So there's that.

Oh really Paul.  Julia Ann Mercer was a pretty credible witness to anyone who talked to her. And I have read the firsthand interviews.   Attempts to attack her have been countered pretty effectively, e.g. by people like Mili Cranor.  Which you probably know nothing about. 

As per your saying that, "Hey, Newman could not have used the Lopez Report in 1995, because it came out in 2003";  it is saying stuff like that which really makes me wonder about you. If you turn to John's book, and look at the footnotes for his two chapters on Mexico City, you will see many footnotes to the Lopez Report.  In just one chapter he has over thirty of them.  Did he make those up?  Nope.  Through the ARRB, John got the first declassification of the Lopez Report.  It went through later declassifications of course.

As per insults, I don't mean those as insults.  IMO, whenever you get something right on this case, its an accident.

BTW, when Baker is on your side, you know you have problems.  This is the self proclaimed scientist who tried to confuse matters by saying NAA was a very accurate measure, leaving out the fact that, for bullet lead analysis, it have been thoroughly discredited.  So much so that the FBI will not use it anymore in court under threat of perjury.  When you lose the argument on the merits, try and save the day by obfuscating things with false rubrics.  

Yawn.

OK, as for John Newman's 1995 book, he was GUESSING about what was contained in the Lopez Report -- and when it was finally made public in 2003, all the errors of John Newman's faulty guesswork was laid bare.

Newman's book was the best of its kind in the 1990's, but it has been OBVIATED.

IMHO, readers should just bypass John Newman today, and go straight to the Lopez Report, which was what John Newman was guessing at.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, when Baker is on your side, you know you have problems.  This is the self proclaimed scientist who tried to confuse matters by saying NAA was a very accurate measure, leaving out the fact that, for bullet lead analysis, it have been thoroughly discredited.  So much so that the FBI will not use it anymore in court under threat of perjury.  When you lose the argument on the merits, try and save the day by obfuscating things with false rubrics.  

I don't take sides, Jim, you should know that. Mercer's account of the events she witnessed that day cannot enter into the equation. It's too ridiculous to suppose that she saw Ruby and Oswald getting ready for the assassination by parking up on Elm (illegally I would assume), and putting things in place in front of other motorists as they negotiated around their vehicle. Isn't it? Plus of course DPD records do show that a truck did break down in that location that morning. Don't they? Go on, admit that you only support her story because it helps to support any notion that there was a conspiracy. You can't sincerely believe it had anything to do with the assassination, can you?

As for NAA, it's clearly something you have minimal understanding of. Hence your statement (which I'll never forget): 'There's no real science to it'. This is established scientific procedure that has been measured and documented in precise detail, and subsequently reproduced. As a layman, you can't simply dismiss it as 'junk science' just because it disagrees with your theory.

Paul.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Baker is back at his editing process.  NAA as concerns bullet lead analysis is simply junk science period. And that is what I was talking about.

He was trying to save the day by referring to simply the process of neutron activation analysis in order to confuse things.

As far as NAA and bullet lead analysis, there is no science to it and that has been backed by two peer reviewed studies.  Baker does not want to accept them or acknowledge them since it put a big hole in his phony case against Oswald.

As per Mercer, his comments are too ridiculous to even reply to.  They lead out half the story.  He probably got them from McAdams' web site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PT:  OK, as for John Newman's 1995 book, he was GUESSING about what was contained in the Lopez Report -- and when it was finally made public in 2003, all the errors of John Newman's faulty guesswork was laid bare.

Newman's book was the best of its kind in the 1990's, but it has been OBVIATED.

IMHO, readers should just bypass John Newman today, and go straight to the Lopez Report, which was what John Newman was guessing at.

 

The above comes close to libel in my opinion.  And the moderators should take note of this.

To say that someone as careful as John was "guessing" at what was in the documents he was reading is simply beyond the pale.  Anyone can turn to the footnote section of the book and see that it is properly annotated.  He even has a document addendum of about 90 pages where he shows you many of the documents he is using in the text.  

John did not use faulty guesswork, he based his conclusions on evidence.  For example the flash warning removal which you did not understand is in this book.  The info about Phillips and McCord running the CIA's anti FPCC program is in Oswald and the CIA. And that particular piece of info is very important in explaining David Phillips' being in New Orleans in Banister's office in 1961 and then meeting Oswald at the Southland Center in Dallas in 1963.

John's work  is viable and important today as it was then.  Since, as noted above, he goes beyond the Lopez Report in several different aspects.  

It makes me wonder if you have even read his book.  Keep on chumming it up with Baker, and you will end up by saying the NAA testing of bullet lead is scientifically solid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regards Julia Ann Mercer;

How does one accurately determine the credibility of an eye witness to something monumentally important, traumatic and controversial and their testimony of such?

With a range from "totally credible" to "not credible at all?"

Are there some proven, or in the least, fairly widely known, accepted and used standards of determining this, say in the criminal investigation realm?

I am not well informed in this area but I sure would like to hear a take on Mercer and her documented affidavit from someone who is.

And has any researcher found anything in Mercer's personal background up to 11,22,1963 that would strongly suggest she was prone to exaggeration or even lying and seeking the limelight? What about irrational excitability or anxiety or mental problems? Drama queen?

How about after 11,22,1963?

Her story as stated in her affidavit has certain details that seem too mundane for someone trying to make it all much more dramatic than it was.

The truck ( which she accurately described ) was stalled...a younger man came out of the truck cab and went to the side of the truck and removed what looked to Mercer to be a gun carry case (or bag? ) in it's length and shape.

Mercer then says this person takes whatever he has pulled out and walks up the grassy mound with it and she doesn't see him again.

She describes physical builds, clothing.  

She sees the face of the truck driver as she slowly goes around the truck as impeded traffic would allow. Pretty straight forward stuff.

She picks out the face photo of Jack Ruby as the driver of the truck, but did she actually say she thought the young man looked like Oswald?

But what most concerned Mercer was her feeling that the item pulled from the truck seemed to her to be more like a gun carrying case than some plumbing tool one would expect. And I've never heard of long plumbing tools inserted in bags or cases.

And why would this younger man then take this and walk up the grassy mound with it?  What tool ( one item ) did this young man remove from the truck and what possible reason could explain taking this that far away from the truck when there where no structures in that area that would require any plumbing work?

Later in that morning, Mercer shares what she saw in a diner and this is overheard by some Dallas PD officers who apparently were concerned because she mentioned the word gun?

Mercer is then taken in for a statement.

After this early investigative time period Mercer purposely avoids any more public sharing of her story unlike so many others who saw dramatic doings in Dealey Plaza that day.

.Mercer is clearly not seeking any more attention than most everyone else who spent time in Dealey Plaza that day.

Years later she is found ( married to an Illinois state representative ) by Jim Garrison and tells him her tale, Then, when her affidavit is read back ( or shown? ) to her she claims that it's been altered, and that there was no notary public present when she gave this.

Seems to me that the greater doubt and suspicion and lower credibility label more appropriately fits those who took Mercer's statement versus her and her story based on everything that is known about her.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2017 at 6:14 PM, James DiEugenio said:

For the record, Paul Baker has been quiet since Sandy replied to him.

 

Nice going Sandy.

 

For the record Paul Baker responded to Sandy, but in the face of both barrels of the weaponized fact of conspiracy Paul opted to STFU.

Link to post
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...