‘The Brothers’ by Stephen Kinzer - anyone read it?

[Glenn Nall]

21 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

No, that is not who picked him up.  That happened on the 19th

oh.

well, it saddens me that Cliff will not be able to "clarify" what he meant. I'm sure he'd like to be able to.

darn.

[Glenn Nall]

19 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Glenn,

I don't want to be nit-picky, but the fact that I woke up and got out of bed this morning is not a theory. And no recognized officials have to formally decide that that's what I did.

Now you can argue that none of us can really prove that we're here. But to that I say, "I think, therefore I am."

 

no, that's good. you're right. i'm with that.

which is why i specified, (once again, *sigh*...), in a legal/investigative sense versus scientific.

are some of my words being typed in invisible photons? 

let me reprint what I said earlier, and i'll try to use better ink: "In legal proceedings/investigations, something becomes a “fact” when “found” by the fact-finder. Judges or juries “find” facts after all the evidence is in and attorneys have given closing statements."

AND since this entire forum is all about the minutiae of investigative evidence (some of it scientific, to be sure) surrounding the JFK assassination - a legal/investigative arena in the broadest spectrum - although i'll also guess that you and Cliff might wish to argue that - i'm thinkin' that the JFK ass. plethora of theories is just a bit bigger than whether you exist (scientific, or at least philosophical) or whether the sun also rises (scientific) or whether 2+2+4 means anything (scientific) and whether it contains a typo.

but good try, Ron. (I remember your flails at logic in my little test last year. you are truly an individual.)

Edited April 12, 2017 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

18 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

I don't want to be nit-picky

don't be coy, Ron.

of course you do.

[Ron Ecker]

28 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

let me reprint what I said earlier, and i'll try to use better ink: "In legal proceedings/investigations, something becomes a “fact” when “found” by the fact-finder. Judges or juries “find” facts after all the evidence is in and attorneys have given closing statements." 

Fair enough. I didn't see the "legal proceedings/investigations" part, because I didn't read all the posts between you and Cliff. It was your last one that caught my eye, which didn't mention legal proceedings. I will simply say that while there have been no legal proceedings/investigations with judges and juries of the JFK case, it is a fact that there was a conspiracy. (Nothing "probably" about it, to quote the HSCA.) No judge or jury is needed. 

but good try, Ron. (I remember your flails at logic in my little test last year. you are truly an individual.)

I don't remember your "little test," but please don't remind me what it was, because I don't want my "flails at logic" to be exposed once again.

 

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Ron Ecker

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

No, that is not who picked him up.  That happened on the 19th.

BTW, in that pretentious list Varnell assembles above, he leaves out the call from Bundy to Cabell saying there would be no D day air strikes.

I listed the tepid "pressure" applied to Kennedy to intervene.

Bundy informing Cabell there would be no D-Day airstrikes goes to my argument, not yours.

Bundy and Rusk usurped BOP planning and guaranteed its failure.

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

That happened the night before! 

But this is all beside the point.  If you read Kirkpatrick, the air strikes are irrelevant for the simple reason that Castro had armor, infantry, mortar and cannon at the front within ten hours.  The brigade was outnumbered and outgunned and they had lost two supply ships on the reef.  They could not go guerrilla since the mountains were far away with swamp between, and they were heavily outnumbered at Playa GIron.  Kirkpatrick very pointedly addresses this issue in his report.  The only way to have saved the mission at that point was to insert American combat troops.

Which had already been ruled out in the consensus decision of March 17.

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

And Kennedy was not going to do that.  Dulles really misjudged who Kennedy was.  That is why he was more comfortable with Tricky DIck to commiserate over his huge mistake.

Of course Kennedy was not going to do that -- there was consensus agreement by his national security team that such intervention was not going to happen.

Period.

[Glenn Nall]

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

Fair enough. I didn't see the "legal proceedings/investigations" part, because I didn't read all the posts between you and Cliff. It was your last one that caught my eye, which didn't mention legal proceedings. 

right.

oddly, context is sometimes important in these threads.

but maybe that's just me. unlike some, i really don't mind being wrong. it's happened before.

1 hour ago, Ron Ecker said:

I will simply say that while there have been no legal proceedings/investigations with judges and juries of the JFK case, it is a fact that there was a conspiracy. (Nothing "probably" about it, to quote the HSCA.) No judge or jury is needed. 

i fully agree. 

in the JFK assassination school of inquiry, i am a conspiracy theorist. i am not a lone-nut theorist -- even though i consider the fact of a conspiracy to be just that, fact.

people who think (in broader terms) that a conspiracy was involved are known as Conspiracy Theorists. People who do not are referred to as Lone-Nut Theorists. I don't think there is a third possibility. Am I wrong? Is there a secret group known as Conspiracy Factists? Have i been misdiagnosed all these years???

Ron, in the spirit of predetermined and accepted (though in a nit-pickily inaccurate way) nomenclature, do you consider yourself to be 'conspiracy theorist?'

/***************/

are you aware of the context of this particular 'sub-thread' between Sir Varnell and I?

i said: wow, Cliff. it's a truly unique position for any conspiracy theorist to defend Allen effin' Dulles, i gotta hand it to ya.

he said, in his need to argue: That's because I'm not a "conspiracy theorist." (noting that he did not defend defending Allen Dulles, curiously enough)

then i said: you know what i mean, Cliff. i mean any non-Lone nut theorist.

then he said, in his perennial need to argue: I'm not any kind of "non-lone nut theorist." "Theory" has nothing to do with the salient facts of the JFK conspiracy.

/***************/

you can see the absolutely inane argument Cliff is attempting in an otherwise simple statement. and so i simply pointed out that, in the strictest sense, it is just a theory.

and now it is, once again, at this point that i berate myself for my lack of self control in avoiding such ridiculous dialog. and why i blocked Mr Varnell. He does seem to cherish dragging others into his own drivel.

what a waste of time arguing semantics, when even less-than-perfect 'labels' have worked for 99.9% of us for over fifty years.

i may be wrong on that number. perhaps the phrases were coined a couple years after the event. god forbid the meaning of a statement be maintained as long as the minutiae can be corrected, argued by the 'analists.'

 

damn.

 

[Glenn Nall]

15 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

He gets so obnoxious that he just wears on you.  When you walk away in disgust at his tactics, he then declares victory.

 

do you ever really ask yourself if he's laughing - what's that diabolical "mwa-ha-ha-ha!" laugh...? - while he's typing, luring yet another unsuspecting victim into his lair of illogic?

i think he laughs when he types this stuff. 

surely people don't really think in circles like that, do they?

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Glenn Nall said:

oh.

well, it saddens me that Cliff will not be able to "clarify" what he meant. I'm sure he'd like to be able to.

darn.

Excuse me?

Dulles had a drink at home with Drain, the guy who picked him up at the airport on the D-Day+1, instead of manning the operation.

[Cliff Varnell]

13 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

right.

oddly, context is sometimes important in these threads.

but maybe that's just me. unlike some, i really don't mind being wrong. it's happened before.

i fully agree. 

in the JFK assassination school of inquiry, i am a conspiracy theorist. i am not a lone-nut theorist -- even though i consider the fact of a conspiracy to be just that, fact.

people who think (in broader terms) that a conspiracy was involved are known as Conspiracy Theorists. People who do not are referred to as Lone-Nut Theorists. I don't think there is a third possibility. Am I wrong? Is there a secret group known as Conspiracy Factists? Have i been misdiagnosed all these years???

Ron, in the spirit of predetermined and accepted (though in a nit-pickily inaccurate way) nomenclature, do you consider yourself to be 'conspiracy theorist?'

/***************/

are you aware of the context of this particular 'sub-thread' between Sir Varnell and I?

i said: wow, Cliff. it's a truly unique position for any conspiracy theorist to defend Allen effin' Dulles, i gotta hand it to ya.

he said, in his need to argue: That's because I'm not a "conspiracy theorist." (noting that he did not defend defending Allen Dulles, curiously enough)

then i said: you know what i mean, Cliff. i mean any non-Lone nut theorist.

then he said, in his perennial need to argue: I'm not any kind of "non-lone nut theorist." "Theory" has nothing to do with the salient facts of the JFK conspiracy.

/***************/

you can see the absolutely inane argument Cliff is attempting in an otherwise simple statement. and so i simply pointed out that, in the strictest sense, it is just a theory.

and now it is, once again, at this point that i berate myself for my lack of self control in avoiding such ridiculous dialog. and why i blocked Mr Varnell. He does seem to cherish dragging others into his own drivel.

what a waste of time arguing semantics, when even less-than-perfect 'labels' have worked for 99.9% of us for over fifty years.

i may be wrong on that number. perhaps the phrases were coined a couple years after the event. god forbid the meaning of a statement be maintained as long as the minutiae can be corrected, argued by the 'analists.'

 

damn.

 

You can always tell when folks are taking the worst of it when they resort to personal insults.

Bullet holes in the clothes 4 inches below the collar -- too low to have been associated with the throat wound -- is a matter of anatomy, and therefore science.

It's not a matter of theory -- it is a matter of fact.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

13 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

do you ever really ask yourself if he's laughing - what's that diabolical "mwa-ha-ha-ha!" laugh...? - while he's typing, luring yet another unsuspecting victim into his lair of illogic?

i think he laughs when he types this stuff. 

surely people don't really think in circles like that, do they?

DiEugenio can't rebut my argument that Kennedy faced token pressure to intervene in the BOP.

Nall can't rebut my argument that Dulles was dis-engaged from the BOP operation.

Both resort to ad homenim fallacy in lieu of a fact based case.

[Ron Ecker]

34 minutes ago, Glenn Nall said:

Ron, in the spirit of predetermined and accepted (though in a nit-pickily inaccurate way) nomenclature, do you consider yourself to be 'conspiracy theorist?'

 

Yes. It's like the theory of evolution. Evolution is a fact and a theory. It's a fact that evolution has occurred over the course of life on Earth. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the facts. It's the same with the assassination. It's a fact that there was a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories (the CIA did it, the Mob did it, Castro did it, Walker did it) seek to explain the facts.

 

[Glenn Nall]

7 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

Yes. It's like the theory of evolution. Evolution is a fact and a theory. It's a fact that evolution has occurred over the course of life on Earth. The theory of evolution seeks to explain the facts. It's the same with the assassination. It's a fact that there was a conspiracy. Conspiracy theories (the CIA did it, the Mob did it, Castro did it, Walker did it) seek to explain the facts.

 

great example. The Theory of Evolution, regardless of Scopes and Darwin's 'findings,' is still known as a theory.

hence the name.

go tell Cliff.

 

Edited April 12, 2017 by Glenn Nall

[Cliff Varnell]

The rest is speculation.

To put it better -- Kennedy died in a military-style ambush...the rest is speculation...

Edited April 12, 2017 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

23 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

And the salient fact of the Kennedy murder is: the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to account for the throat wound.

The rest is speculation.

 

The gaping wound in the back of the head?

Granted, it no longer physically exists like JFK's clothes. But how many eyewitness accounts does it take (some officially lied about and suppressed, some included as WC exhibits and simply ignored) for something to be taken as fact?

I would put it second on a list (the "theory" being a shot from the front) after the holes in the clothes.

 

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

16 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Burke didn't approach Kennedy until the evening of D-Day +2 at a party.

Fact check: it was after midnight the morning of D-Day+2 and while they were dressed for a party it wasn't a party.

From the National Security Archive:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/bayofpigs/chron.html

<quote on>

APR 19, 1961: At a meeting at the White House that begins just after midnight, the. President, Vice President Johnson, McNamara and Rusk, all in white tie, with General Lemnitzer and Admiral Burke in dress uniform, hear a report on the decline of the invasion force. Burke asks the President to "Let me take two jets and shoot down the. enemy aircraft." The President says, no, reminding Bissell and Burke that he has warned them over and over again that he would not commit U.S. forces to combat. Around 1.00 a.m., the President authorizes one hour of air cover from 0630 to 0730 for the invading brigades B?26s by six unmarked jets from the carrier Essex. The jets are not to seek air combat nor attack ground targets. By the morning of April 19 nine of the invading forces sixteen B?26s have been shot down and several of the remaining planes are in poor flying condition. The U.S. Navy Combat Air Patrol and the B?26s fail to rendezvous because the CIA and the Pentagon fail to realize a time zone difference between Nicaragua and Cuba. Two B?26s are shot down and four Americans are lost.

<quote off>

My conclusion is one of following is highly likely:

1) There was a 5-way clusterfk between POTUS/Rusk/Bundy/CIA/Pentagon all of them failing

OR

2) Dean and Bundy sabotaged the operation for the express purpose of forcing Dulles out and the installation of Richard Helms as head of covert ops.

Edited April 12, 2017 by Cliff Varnell