The Killing Floor

[John Cotter]

16 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Yeah, pretty incredible Ron!

 

Ron, now you're copying John's lines of Linnie Mae testimony,,Both of you implying meaningful  deception..

John, I know you're conscious of class matters, which I Iike.

You guys may have your eyes to the conspiracy stars, but do you ever consider you might just be harassing everyday folk?

 

I know it's no final word on Linnie Mae's character but I looked up her obituary, she was a nurse, active in her Baptist Church, so religious, supposedly just like Ruth!

 

But you got to get up pretty early in the morning to pull the wool over our eyes. Right?

 

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/102461058/linnie-mae-randle

Kirk,

Are you denying that there was a JFKA conspiracy and that it was officially covered up? Such perversity seems the only plausible explanation for your insinuation of harassment.

Your argument is essentially an example of the logical fallacy known as appeal to consequences:

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. (Wikipedia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

You’re claiming that because Ruth Paine was a respectable upstanding God-fearing Quaker and Linnie May Randle was a similarly respectable wife, mother and nurse, it’s inconceivable that they would ever do anything untoward or unethical, regardless of how much circumstantial evidence there is to the contrary.

As has been shown here and elsewhere, there is considerable circumstantial evidence pointing to their probable complicity, even if only unwitting and peripheral, in the JFKA. You haven’t logically rebutted any of that evidence. Instead, you’ve engaged in “shooting the messenger”, as when you denigrate those who point to Linnie Mae Randle's persistently evasive testimony to the Warren Commission.

If you really want to be the knight in shining armour riding to the rescue of these goodly womenfolk, you need a better weapon than the soggy loofah of a logical fallacy.

Edited November 3, 2022 by John Cotter

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

David,

I posted the message with attached link below to you about a week ago and I posted a reminder two days later. I have received no reply. Perhaps you can now reply.

This short video by EF member Gil Jesus proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that there was a JFKA conspiracy and that there was an official cover-up of the conspiracy.

Since I understand you’re a proponent of the “lone nut” theory, how can you justify that position in light of this video?

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28242-the-2nd-floor-bakeroswald-encounter-has-been-debunked/?do=findComment&comment=475708

Well, John, I don't believe for one second that all three of those FBI reports that Gil Jesus talks about in his video are filled with nothing but lies. There's no way that's the case (IMO). Your mileage may vary, of course.

I know that conspiracy believers wouldn't trust J. Edgar and his FBI boys any further than they could toss them, but I just don't believe that the FBI decided to tell one bald-faced lie after another in their written reports concerning those three witnesses (Richard Dodd, James Simmons, and J.C. Price).

Similarly, I also don't believe for one second that the FBI just made up a bunch of lies in their multiple reports concerning Stretcher Bullet CE399 in Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2011. But whenever I dare to imply that I think the reports we find in CE2011 are truthful FBI reports and interviews, most conspiracy theorists scold me mercilessly and tell me I'm as nutty as a fruitcake.

And I wouldn't trust Mark Lane to tell the truth about anything relating to the JFK assassination. His track record for honesty and for fairly evaluating the evidence in the John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit murder cases couldn't be much worse, in my opinion.

Yes, those three witnesses (Dodd, Simmons, and Price), in 1966, did indeed say the things that we can hear them say in front of Mark Lane's cameras in the film "Rush To Judgment", but I also know that another part of Mr. Lane's track record is that he didn't always quote a witness properly, or fairly, or fully. Lane's treatment of Charles Brehm and Helen Markham and Acquilla Clemons are three of the more blatant examples of how Mr. Lane could—and would—manipulate the words of a witness to suit his "conspiratorial" desires.

So I truly think that Mark Lane somehow got those three witnesses (Dodd, Simmons, and Price) to voluntarily "improve" their memories about what they saw and heard in Dealey Plaza, so that when Lane's film came out in 1967, the things that each witness told the FBI in 1963 and 1964 suddenly morphed into the things that Mark Lane wanted to hear coming from the mouths of those witnesses.

It's a shame that people like Dodd and Price and Simmons can be manipulated so easily by snakes like Mark Lane, but I have little doubt that Lane was most certainly capable of twisting and totally distorting the words of a witness. Just listen to how he did that very thing when it came to the words of Helen Markham---Click Here. It's despicable.

And, perhaps more importantly for Mark Lane's purposes, Lane was sometimes able to get witnesses to add things to their stories that they had not said previously. [See the excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" below.]

And here's another example of Mark Lane's disgraceful habit of mangling and warping the words of a witness. His victim on that occasion was Acquilla Clemons.

Here's what Dale Myers had to say about Mr. Lane and his treatment of Mrs. Clemons:

"Heralded by a generation unwilling to confront his deceptions, dishonesty, and repeated cover-ups, [Mark] Lane’s handling of the Acquilla Clemons story should serve as the primary exhibit of what lengths dedicated propagandists are willing to go to twist the simple, uncomplicated truth into a pack of fables that serve their own deceitful ends." -- Dale K. Myers; November 1, 2017

Click to enlarge:

[Pat Speer]

41 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, John, I don't believe for one second that all three of those FBI reports that Gil Jesus talks about in his video are filled with nothing but lies. There's no way that's the case (IMO). Your mileage may vary, of course.

I know that conspiracy believers wouldn't trust J. Edgar and his FBI boys any further than they could toss them, but I just don't believe that the FBI decided to tell one bald-faced lie after another in their written reports concerning those three witnesses (Richard Dodd, James Simmons, and J.C. Price).

Similarly, I also don't believe for one second that the FBI just made up a bunch of lies in their multiple reports concerning Stretcher Bullet CE399 in Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2011. But whenever I dare to imply that I think the reports we find in CE2011 are truthful FBI reports and interviews, most conspiracy theorists scold me mercilessly and tell me I'm as nutty as a fruitcake.

And I wouldn't trust Mark Lane to tell the truth about anything relating to the JFK assassination. His track record for honesty and for fairly evaluating the evidence in the John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit murder cases couldn't be much worse, in my opinion.

Yes, those three witnesses (Dodd, Simmons, and Price), in 1966, did indeed say the things that we can hear them say in front of Mark Lane's cameras in the film "Rush To Judgment", but I also know that another part of Mr. Lane's track record is that he didn't always quote a witness properly, or fairly, or fully. Lane's treatment of Charles Brehm and Helen Markham and Acquilla Clemons are three of the more blatant examples of how Mr. Lane could—and would—manipulate the words of a witness to suit his "conspiratorial" desires.

So I truly think that Mark Lane somehow got those three witnesses (Dodd, Simmons, and Price) to voluntarily "improve" their memories about what they saw and heard in Dealey Plaza, so that when Lane's film came out in 1967, the things that each witness told the FBI in 1963 and 1964 suddenly morphed into the things that Mark Lane wanted to hear coming from the mouths of those witnesses.

It's a shame that people like Dodd and Price and Simmons can be manipulated so easily by snakes like Mark Lane, but I have little doubt that Lane was most certainly capable of twisting and totally distorting the words of a witness. Just listen to how he did that very thing when it came to the words of Helen Markham---Click Here. It's despicable.

And, perhaps more importantly for Mark Lane's purposes, Lane was sometimes able to get witnesses to add things to their stories that they had not said previously. [See the excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" below.]

And here's another example of Mark Lane's disgraceful habit of mangling and warping the words of a witness. His victim on that occasion was Acquilla Clemons.

Here's what Dale Myers had to say about Mr. Lane and his treatment of Mrs. Clemons:

"Heralded by a generation unwilling to confront his deceptions, dishonesty, and repeated cover-ups, [Mark] Lane’s handling of the Acquilla Clemons story should serve as the primary exhibit of what lengths dedicated propagandists are willing to go to twist the simple, uncomplicated truth into a pack of fables that serve their own deceitful ends." -- Dale K. Myers; November 1, 2017

Click to enlarge:

Y'know, David, your complaints about Lane--which are not totally invalid--would carry a lot more weight if you would admit that Bugliosi pulled a lot of the same shenanigans, as far as twisting witness statements to fit his favored scenario. 

I would disagree, however, if you are somehow claiming Mark Lane twisted the statements of the railroad men into something they are not.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3:

Extinguishing Smoke Before It Starts a Fire

On 3-23-64, we see the following report: "On March 14, 1964, James L. Simmons telephonically advised SA Robert Butler that he is one of ten witnesses who, while standing on the Commerce Street viaduct, observed the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Simmons advised that he furnished his name as did the other people on the viaduct to a man he thought to be a reporter. He stated that none of the ten persons in the group has been interviewed concerning the assassination, to his knowledge. Simmons stated that he and his friends are all employees of the Union Terminal Company...with the exception of a Dallas Police officer who was standing with his group at the viaduct. He stated that he and his friends have not come forward since they were on duty at the time of the assassination and had not been authorized to leave their jobs to observe the parade. Simmons requested that his name not be mentioned to the other witnesses or to his employer in connection with this call. Following is the list of names as furnished by Simmons: Luke Winborn--switchman; (FNU) Potter--Hostler Helper; (FNU) Bishop--Hostler; Richard Dodd--Track Maintenance Foreman; (FNU) Murphy--Mail Foreman at Terminal Annex; (FNU) Holland--Signal Department Foreman; C.E. Johnson--Machinist; Euel (phonetic) Cowsart--Switchman; (FNU) Foster--Patrolman, Dallas Police Department." (3-23-64 FBI report, FBI file 62-109060, p124)

Well, hell, we wonder why Simmons is so gol-darned anxious to get the recollections of these men on the record. We look back to see if anyone standing on the overpass gave statements to the Dallas Police or Sheriff's Dept. in the days after the assassination. We see that three of them did, and that they had something in common.

1. S.M Holland was on Simmons' list and worked for the Union Terminal Company. (11-22-63 statement to Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 24H212) “the President’s car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked over toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come over from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first one but that was the only puff of smoke I saw…”

2. Austin Miller was not on Simmons' list and worked for the Texas-Louisiana freight Bureau. (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 24H217) “I saw a convertable automobile turn west on Elm off Houston Street. It had proceeded about halfway from Houston Street to the underpass when I heard what sounded like a shot a short second two more sharp reports. A man in the back seat slumped over and a woman in a bright colored dress (Orange or Yellow) grabbed the man and yelled. One shot apparently hit the street past the car. I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the railroad tracks.”

3. Royce Skelton was not on Simmons' list and worked for the Texas-Louisiana Freight Bureau. (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 16H496) “We saw the motorcade come around the corner and I heard something which I thought was fireworks. I saw something hit the pavement at the left rear of the car, then the car got in the right hand lane and I heard two more shots. I heard a woman say “Oh, no” or something and grab a man inside the car. I then heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement. The concrete was knocked to the south away from the car. It hit the pavement in the left or middle lane.” (Note that Skelton would later testify he thought the shots were dumbballs--a kind of firecracker that is thrown at the cement--because "I could see the smoke coming up off the cement.")

We then look to see if any additional witnesses from the overpass had been interviewed by the FBI. We find one.

4. Frank Reilly was not on Simmons' list but was a co-worker of his at the Union Terminal Company. (12-19-63 FBI report based upon a 12-18-63 interview, by SA William Brookhart, CD205 p.29) “He saw two cars turn on Elm toward the underpass and at this time heard three shots which he thought came from the trees west of the Texas School Book Depository.” (Note that Reilly would later testify that he was standing with S.M. Holland--who said from day one that he saw smoke come out from the trees--and that "It seemed to me like they come out of the trees…on the North side of Elm Street at the corner up there...it’s at that park where all the shrubs is up there—it’s to the north of Elm Street—up the slope.” Well, this is a really strong indication that Reilly saw smoke as well.)

Oh, no. These guys are gonna be a problem. Holland and Skelton thought they heard four shots. Miller and Skelton thought they saw a bullet strike the pavement (which doesn't fit the FBI's three-shots-three hits scenario). And Holland and Miller thought they saw a puff of smoke float over from the trees on the knoll... And that's not even to mention Reilly, who, even through the filter of an FBI agent, managed to make it clear he thought shots came from the knoll (and would later suggest he saw smoke).

Well, what did the others have to say?

Now that depends...on who you wanna believe...

First, the witnesses interviewed by the FBI at this time...that were never re-interviewed.

5. George Davis (3-18-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H837) “Shortly after the motorcycle escort and Presidential car came into view and was at a point just east of the viaduct, Mr. Davis heard a sound which he described as similar to firecrackers exploding. All shots were very close together and he stated it was impossible for him to determine the number of shots."

6. Curtis Bishop (3-19-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H834): (He said that) “when President Kennedy’s car came into view he started down Elm Street past the Texas School Book Depository Building. He heard three shots ring out. He then saw President Kennedy slump over as if he had been hit.”

7. Ewell Cowsert (3-19-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H836) “just as President Kennedy’s car passed the Texas School Book Depository he heard two or three shots ring out and saw President Kennedy slump forward in his seat….he has no idea where the shots came from.”

8. Nolan Potter (3-19-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 2H834) “when the President’s car…had driven past the Texas School Book Depository Building, he heard three loud reports which sounded like firecrackers. He then saw President Kennedy slump over in his car…Potter said he recalls seeing smoke in front of the Texas School Book Depository rising above the trees.”

Well, that's not very interesting. They pretty much said they saw nothing of importance.

But look again. Potter said he saw smoke, but apparently thought this smoke was in the trees by the depository. And that's interesting...because from his viewpoint the trees by the depository were obscured behind the trees by the knoll.

Well, this suggests then that maybe just maybe the FBI agent interviewing Potter had inserted his own interpretation...and had moved the smoke back towards the sniper's nest window because...y'know...he knew by now not to submit reports suggesting shots came from anywhere else.

Now, let's look at the railroad witnesses who were eventually re-interviewed, and look into the future a bit.

9. Walter Winborn (3-18-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H833) “As the motorcycle escort and the vehicle carrying the president approached the viaduct, Mr. Winborn heard three distinct shots ring out...his attention remained on President Kennedy. He stated, however, that the shots sounded as if they all came from the same area.”

Now here's what Winborn told Barbara Bridges on 3-17-65: "there was a lot of smoke...from out of the trees, to the left."

And here's what he told Stewart Galanor on 5-5-66: “I just saw some smoke coming out in a—a motorcycle patrolman leaped off his machine and go up towards that smoke that come out from under the trees on the right hand side of the motorcade…There was a wooden fence there.” (When then asked if he'd told the FBI about the smoke) “Oh yes. Oh yes.”

10. Thomas Murphy (3-20-64 FBI report by SA Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H835) “Murphy said they watched President Kennedy’s limousine turn down Elm Street past the Texas School Book Depository and start towards them. He stated he then heard what sounded like two shots and he saw President Kennedy and Governor Connally slump in their seats. Murphy said in his opinion that these shots came from just west of the Texas School Book Depository.”

Now here's what Murphy told Stewart Galanor on 5-6-66: (When asked how many shots he heard) “More than three.” (When asked where the shots came from) “they come from a tree to the left, of my left, which is to the immediate right of the site of the assassination…on the hill up there. There are two or three hackberry and elm trees. And I say it come from there.” (When asked if he saw smoke) “Yeah, smoke...in that tree.”

11. Richard Dodd (3-18-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H835) “when the motorcycle escort and the automobile carrying President Kennedy approached the area where he was standing his attention was directed on President Kennedy…he saw president Kennedy slump forward and simultaneously heard shots ring out. He stated he did not know how many shots were fired, but that the sounds were very close together.” Double head shot.

Now here's what Dodd told Mark Lane in an interview filmed 3-24-66: “We all, three or four of us, seen about the same thing, the shot, the smoke came from behind the hedge on the north side of the Plaza. And a motorcycle policeman dropped his motorcycle in the street with a gun in his hand and run up the embankment to the hedge.”

12. James Simmons (3-19-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H833) "he recalled that a motorcycle policeman drove up the grassy slope toward the Texas School Book Depository Building, jumped off his motorcycle and then ran up the hill toward the Memorial Arches. Simmons said he thought he saw exhaust fumes of smoke near the embankment in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building.”

Now here's what Simmons told Mark Lane in an interview filmed 3-28-66: “As the presidential limousine was rounding the curve on Elm Street, there was a loud explosion…it sounded like a loud firecracker or a gunshot, and it sounded like it came from the left and in front of us toward the wooden fence. And there was a puff of smoke that came underneath the trees on the embankment. It was right directly in front of the wooden fence.”

13. Clemon Johnson (3-18-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H836) “Mr. Johnson stated at that time he did not know that it was shots and he could not state how many shots he heard. His attention remained on the vehicle carrying President Kennedy and he observed this car until it sped away. Mr. Johnson stated that white smoke was observed near the pavilion but he felt that this smoke came from a motorcycle abandoned near this spot by a Dallas policeman.”

Now, Clemon Johnson was not re-interviewed for many years afterward. But here's what he told Larry Sneed, for Sneed's book, No More Silence, published 1998. "I didn’t have any idea where the shots came from, not even a guess…I did see smoke, lots of puffs of smoke, but I was of the opinion that the smoke was coming out of those motorcycles. The smoke was coming up off the ground out where the motorcycles were, not on the grassy knoll."

Now, how about that? James Simmons came forward on 3-14-64. He told the FBI they should talk to some of his co-workers--railroad workers who'd witnessed the shooting from the triple underpass. The FBI then did as much. SA's Trettis and Robertson interviewed Simmons along with eight of his co-workers on 3-17-64. But here's the thing. While the reports on two of these men reflect the interviewee saw smoke on 11-22-63, and one reflects the interviewee thought shots had been fired from west of the building, only one of these reports reflects that the interviewee saw smoke come out from the trees--and it makes out that it was the trees down by the depository! So that's zero of nine saying they saw smoke come from the trees by the knoll. And yet a closer look proves that three of the four railroad workers to make statements or be interviewed before Simmons came forward, and four of the five (not previously making a statement) to be interviewed over the years afterwards, made statements indicating or suggesting they saw smoke come out from the trees.

So that's seven of nine who suggested they saw smoke come out from the trees when writing a statement or being interviewed by someone other than Trettis and Robertson, and zero of nine who suggested they saw smoke come out from the trees when interviewed by Trettis and Robertson.

And, let's not forget--the other two also said they saw smoke--but thought it was down on the street!

So that's nine of nine who suggested they saw smoke when writing a statement or being interviewed by someone other than Trettis and Robertson, and but two of nine who suggested they saw smoke when interviewed by Trettis and Robertson.

Well, it follows then that Trettis and Robertson (and almost certainly their superiors within the FBI) were blowing smoke...about the smoke...or, rather, the lack of smoke.

The reports written by Trettis and Robertson were designed to conceal, and not reveal...

Edited November 3, 2022 by Pat Speer

[John Cotter]

On 11/3/2022 at 5:55 PM, David Von Pein said:

Well, John, I don't believe for one second that all three of those FBI reports that Gil Jesus talks about in his video are filled with nothing but lies. There's no way that's the case (IMO). Your mileage may vary, of course.

I know that conspiracy believers wouldn't trust J. Edgar and his FBI boys any further than they could toss them, but I just don't believe that the FBI decided to tell one bald-faced lie after another in their written reports concerning those three witnesses (Richard Dodd, James Simmons, and J.C. Price).

Similarly, I also don't believe for one second that the FBI just made up a bunch of lies in their multiple reports concerning Stretcher Bullet CE399 in Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2011. But whenever I dare to imply that I think the reports we find in CE2011 are truthful FBI reports and interviews, most conspiracy theorists scold me mercilessly and tell me I'm as nutty as a fruitcake.

And I wouldn't trust Mark Lane to tell the truth about anything relating to the JFK assassination. His track record for honesty and for fairly evaluating the evidence in the John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit murder cases couldn't be much worse, in my opinion.

Yes, those three witnesses (Dodd, Simmons, and Price), in 1966, did indeed say the things that we can hear them say in front of Mark Lane's cameras in the film "Rush To Judgment", but I also know that another part of Mr. Lane's track record is that he didn't always quote a witness properly, or fairly, or fully. Lane's treatment of Charles Brehm and Helen Markham and Acquilla Clemons are three of the more blatant examples of how Mr. Lane could—and would—manipulate the words of a witness to suit his "conspiratorial" desires.

So I truly think that Mark Lane somehow got those three witnesses (Dodd, Simmons, and Price) to voluntarily "improve" their memories about what they saw and heard in Dealey Plaza, so that when Lane's film came out in 1967, the things that each witness told the FBI in 1963 and 1964 suddenly morphed into the things that Mark Lane wanted to hear coming from the mouths of those witnesses.

It's a shame that people like Dodd and Price and Simmons can be manipulated so easily by snakes like Mark Lane, but I have little doubt that Lane was most certainly capable of twisting and totally distorting the words of a witness. Just listen to how he did that very thing when it came to the words of Helen Markham---Click Here. It's despicable.

And, perhaps more importantly for Mark Lane's purposes, Lane was sometimes able to get witnesses to add things to their stories that they had not said previously. [See the excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" below.]

And here's another example of Mark Lane's disgraceful habit of mangling and warping the words of a witness. His victim on that occasion was Acquilla Clemons.

Here's what Dale Myers had to say about Mr. Lane and his treatment of Mrs. Clemons:

"Heralded by a generation unwilling to confront his deceptions, dishonesty, and repeated cover-ups, [Mark] Lane’s handling of the Acquilla Clemons story should serve as the primary exhibit of what lengths dedicated propagandists are willing to go to twist the simple, uncomplicated truth into a pack of fables that serve their own deceitful ends." -- Dale K. Myers; November 1, 2017

Click to enlarge:

David,

You start out with a strawman argument. Nobody has claimed those FBI reports “are filled with nothing but lies”. The claim is that there are significant omissions in them, which is of course a well established technique of corrupt officialdom.

As you well know, there is an obvious and incontrovertible reason for this official chicanery. On November 25th 1963 Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach issued a memo, the first paragraph of which was, “The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.”

This proposed perverting of the course of justice was translated into official government policy by, inter alia, the setting up of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. (See pp 83-84 James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable).

Are you not being blatantly disingenuous in claiming that the discrepancies between what the witnesses Dodds, Simmons and Price say they told the FBI and what the FBI reported them as saying were caused by Mark Lane manipulating these witnesses – rather than by the FBI fulfilling its corrupt role as defined by the above-mentioned memo?

Pat Speer’s reply immediately following your post cites other witnesses corroborating what Dodds, Simmons and Price said when interviewed by people other than Mark Lane, but whose testimony was likewise doctored by the FBI.

In spite of all of this, you accuse Mark Lane of manipulating these witnesses without any evidence whatsoever to support that scurrilous accusation. Worse again, you go on to describe Mark Lane’s treatment of Helen Markham’s evidence to the Warren Commission as “despicable”.

I listened to that recording of Mark Lane speaking and read some of the questioning of Mrs Markham by assistant counsel Liebeler. No less than Liebeler, I find it hard to make any sense of Mrs Markham’s testimony, because it seems she may be either deliberately obfuscating matters or too stupid to clarify the issues she’s being questioned about.

Either way, she thus justifies Mark Lane’s characterizing her as an unreliable witness. That’s the nub of that situation in my view. Your interpretation of it as demonstrating Mark Lane deliberately making Helen Markham seem even more incoherent than she already is doesn’t hold water. Even if it did, it is totally irrelevant to “grassy knoll” witnesses issue.

As for the Acquilla Clemons matter, you go to extraordinary lengths in trying to discredit Mark Lane’s treatment of her testimony. You claim that he misrepresented her testimony so that it would contradict the official Oswald-killed-Tippit narrative. The problem is that Acquilla Clemons’s testimony does just that all on its own. It doesn’t require any manipulation of her testimony by Lane to do it – which is why he didn’t do so.

It's obvious from all of this that you’re desperately grasping at non-existent straws in order to keep afloat your belief in the lone-nut theory. That’s probably the most benign interpretation of what you’re doing.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

The problem is that Acquilla Clemons’s testimony does just that all on its own. It doesn’t require any manipulation of her testimony by Lane to do it – which is why he didn’t do so.

Oh my. You must therefore be totally unaware of Dale Myers' warranted excoriation of Mark Lane concerning his treatment of Mrs. Clemons:

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-october-jfk-assassination-file.html

 

1 hour ago, John Cotter said:

It's obvious from all of this that you’re desperately grasping at non-existent straws in order to keep afloat your belief in the lone-nut theory.

My belief in Lee Oswald's lone guilt in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders is based on the evidence in both of those cases, plus Oswald's very incriminating actions and movements (and the lies that he told) on both November 21st and November 22nd of 1963.

If certain conspiracy promoters choose to believe that all (or most) of that evidence against Mr. Oswald is fake or fraudulent or manufactured evidence (and many do)....well, that's their choice. But, IMO, it's not a reasonable thing to believe at all.

And if those same conspiracists also choose to interpret Lee Harvey Oswald's Nov. 21-22 actions and movements as "normal" actions (or, alternatively, as actions that were "coerced" in some fashion, and thus Oswald was innocent of shooting anyone in Dallas and was merely being used as a "patsy" on 11/22/63)....well, again, that's their choice. But, in my view, that is certainly not a choice that a reasonable and sensible person would choose to make.

End result/conclusion: Lee H. Oswald was a double murderer. And he very likely acted alone.*

And here are my thoughts regarding the 11/25/63 Katzenbach memo.

* http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Leaving-The-Door-Of-Conspiracy-Open-Just-A-Crack

 

Edited November 4, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

DVP, I must commend you on finding a way to call those who disagree with your conclusions NOT "reasonable" [twice] or "sensible."  By not mentioning anyone by name, you avoid being called out for an ad hominem attack. But your intentions are quite transparent.

I'm both a moderator and an administrator, but I won't sanction you at this point. Instead, I'll let your words speak for themselves, and if another mod or admin chooses to act, it will be up to them to handle at their discretion. I'll simply let your words serve as witnesses to your intent.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

DVP, I must commend you on finding a way to call those who disagree with your conclusions NOT "reasonable" [twice] or "sensible."  By not mentioning anyone by name, you avoid being called out for an ad hominem attack. But your intentions are quite transparent.

I'm both a moderator and an administrator, but I won't sanction you at this point. Instead, I'll let your words speak for themselves, and if another mod or admin chooses to act, it will be up to them to handle at their discretion. I'll simply let your words serve as witnesses to your intent.

Just by merely stating my own opinion that the theories of CTers are not "reasonable" or "sensible" (in my opinion) is cause to be slapped on the wrist with a moderator's ruler?

You must be kidding.

I know I have to walk on eggshells here, but my gosh!

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

12 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

This is getting off topic, but the thrust of that article, that Katzenbach is somehow committed to making public "all the facts" related to Lee Harvey Oswald, is undercut not only by the tone of the rest of the memo, but by the very next words that follow. Quote: "...made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all of the facts have been told..." (emphasis mine). The  Katzenbach memo lays the groundwork for a whitewash that delivers facts that "satisfy" the public (much like how it says the public must be "satisfied" that LHO was the lone assassin), as opposed to a true fact-finding commission. 

In addition to Katzenbach's memo itself, there's also these remarks written by C.A. Evans that appear in this 11/25/63 cover letter that was sent to Assistant FBI Director Alan Belmont concerning the Katzenbach memorandum:

"It is Katzenbach's feeling that this matter can best be handled by making public the results of the FBI's investigation. He thought time was of the essence, but that the report, of course, had to be accurate."

To repeat (with emphasis):

"...the report, of course, had to be accurate."

Edited November 5, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 11/3/2022 at 9:57 AM, John Cotter said:

Kirk,

Are you denying that there was a JFKA conspiracy and that it was officially covered up? Such perversity seems the only plausible explanation for your insinuation of harassment.

Your argument is essentially an example of the logical fallacy known as appeal to consequences:

Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequence"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. (Wikipedia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

You’re claiming that because Ruth Paine was a respectable upstanding God-fearing Quaker and Linnie May Randle was a similarly respectable wife, mother and nurse, it’s inconceivable that they would ever do anything untoward or unethical, regardless of how much circumstantial evidence there is to the contrary.

As has been shown here and elsewhere, there is considerable circumstantial evidence pointing to their probable complicity, even if only unwitting and peripheral, in the JFKA. You haven’t logically rebutted any of that evidence. Instead, you’ve engaged in “shooting the messenger”, as when you denigrate those who point to Linnie Mae Randle's persistently evasive testimony to the Warren Commission.

If you really want to be the knight in shining armour riding to the rescue of these goodly womenfolk, you need a better weapon than the soggy loofah of a logical fallacy.

Whoa, I come back here tonight, and it does seem to be a rather childish over reaction that I assume  may have been boiling below the surface. You must be very easily intimidated, John. No  John , just because I don't think Ruth Paine is a 60 year CIA agent, doesn't mean I'm a LNer.It was playful little nudge, John to remind to relax. Nothing more.

As I nicely told you before, and I'll elaborate now. No,  I don't think your release of Linnie Mae testimony means anything other than she was probably anticipating for months her testimony before the big Feds in Washington, who are  trying  to link her as bringing LHO to the assassins perch. Particularly in light of the intimidation tactics used by the Dallas Police on her brother! If it sounds rehearsed, it probably was! And I do think understanding the context is important!

If she had even  gotten legal counsel before that, I wouldn't have blamed her, but maybe she couldn't afford it! As I said before,  She mentioned and repeated that there might be a job there, but she didn't know, but Wesley had applied.

Draw whatever conclusions from that you want, and  investigate her further and good luck! Whether you hit pay dirt or it ends up being another "soggy loofah of logical fallacy" we shall see. My guess is that it will end up being another waste of time, but we got plenty of that.

To the forum. If I actually started an  unwanted diversion with DVP, I apologize.

 

 

.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, John Cotter said:

David,

You start out with a strawman argument. Nobody has claimed those FBI reports “are filled with nothing but lies”. The claim is that there are significant omissions in them, which is of course a well established technique of corrupt officialdom.

As you well know, there is an obvious and incontrovertible reason for this official chicanery. On November 25th 1963 Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach issued a memo, the first paragraph of which was, “The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.”

This proposed perverting of the course of justice was translated into official government policy by, inter alia, the setting up of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy. (See pp 83-84 James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable).

Are you not being blatantly disingenuous in claiming that the discrepancies between what the witnesses Dodds, Simmons and Price say they told the FBI and what the FBI reported them as saying were caused by Mark Lane manipulating these witnesses – rather than by the FBI fulfilling its corrupt role as defined by the above-mentioned memo?

Pat Speer’s reply immediately following your post cites other witnesses corroborating what Dodds, Simmons and Price said when interviewed by people other than Mark Lane, but whose testimony was likewise doctored by the FBI.

In spite of all of this, you accuse Mark Lane of manipulating these witnesses without any evidence whatsoever to support that scurrilous accusation. Worse again, you go on to describe Mark Lane’s treatment of Helen Markham’s evidence to the Warren Commission as “despicable”.

I listened to that recording of Mark Lane speaking and read some of the questioning of Mrs Markham by assistant counsel Liebeler. No less than Liebeler, I find it hard to make any sense of Mrs Markham’s testimony, because it seems she may be either deliberately obfuscating matters or too stupid to clarify the issues she’s being questioned about.

Either way, she thus justifies Mark Lane’s characterizing her as an unreliable witness. That’s the nub of that situation in my view. Your interpretation of it as demonstrating Mark Lane deliberately making Helen Markham seem even more incoherent than she already is doesn’t hold water. Even if it did, it is totally irrelevant to “grassy knoll” witnesses issue.

As for the Acquilla Clemons matter, you go to extraordinary lengths in trying to discredit Mark Lane’s treatment of her testimony. You claim that he misrepresented her testimony so that it would contradict the official Oswald-killed-Tippit narrative. The problem is that Acquilla Clemons’s testimony does just that all on its own. It doesn’t require any manipulation of her testimony by Lane to do it – which is why he didn’t do so.

It's obvious from all of this that you’re desperately grasping at non-existent straws in order to keep afloat your belief in the lone-nut theory. That’s probably the most benign interpretation of what you’re doing.

Well said John.

[James DiEugenio]

There is nothing in the Katzenbach memo about  accuracy.  Anyone can see that by reading it. Its about convincing the American public of a solution to a crime that could not have been concluded with any veracity at that time.

Namely that Oswald was the assassin and he had no confederates at large. Hoover and Katzenbach both agreed on this within about 24 hours of each writing a memo to its effect.  From here on in, the cover up in Washington was in effect. 

 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29

Edited November 5, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

There is nothing in the Katzenbach memo about  accuracy.  Anyone can see that by reading it.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29

You're wrong.

The following paragraph from page 2 of the memo certainly doesn't sound like Katzenbach is part of any kind of cover-up or conspiracy to me:

"I think...that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

I guess Jim DiEugenio must think that when Katzenbach wrote "all the facts", Katz really meant "all the [fabricated] facts..."

Right, Jim?

And I completely agree with Vincent Bugliosi's assessment on this topic. That is, when Katzenbach said he wanted to "head off public speculation...of the wrong sort", he was talking only about "heading off" UNWARRANTED speculation and FALSE RUMORS concerning the assassination. That's the "wrong sort" of stuff that Nicholas Katzenbach was talking about there.

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Cory Santos]

I have to agree with Jim Di David.  Reading that memo from a legal standpoint really shows the old saying “you can polish a turd and put sprinkles on it, but it’s still a turd”.   That memo set the tone for what was to follow.  I can prove this.   How?

Because if your incorrect interpretation of the memo was correct, the WC would not have been secretive, more leads would have been followed instead of discouraged, and the records would have been public.   But nope.   
Lastly, though I am not a Lane fan, if you have a disagreement, as Bugliosi did, with his way of conducting interviews and presenting them, I suggest you apply that same standard to wc lawyers and the commission members interviewing witnesses.  Over and over, leading them, not asking relevant follow-up questions, etc.   If you want the whole story from conspiracists then first start with your sacred WC.  I think that’s fair to apply the same standard don’t you?

Edited November 5, 2022 by Cory Santos

[Joe Bauer]

9 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

I have to agree with Jim Di David.  Reading that memo from a legal standpoint really shows the old saying “you can polish a turd and put sprinkles on it, but it’s still a turd”.   That memo set the tone for what was to follow.  I can prove this.   How?

Because if your incorrect interpretation of the memo was correct, the WC would not have been secretive, more leads would have been followed instead of discouraged, and the records would have been public.   But nope.   
Lastly, though I am not a Lane fan, if you have a disagreement, as Bugliosi did, with his way of conducting interviews and presenting them, I suggest you apply that same standard to wc lawyers and the commission members interviewing witnesses.  Over and over, leading them, not asking relevant follow-up questions, etc.   If you want the whole story from conspiracists then first start with your sacred WC.  I think that’s fair to apply the same standard don’t you?

HERE HERE!

[Joe Bauer]

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

Let us debate the true intent message of the above paragraph.

On second thought ... let's not.

I think one's first brain processing is adequate in understanding it.

Talk about cherry picking the railroad men's recollection testimonies and interviews.

They all describe every other physical aspect of seeing JFK's limo and the follow up SS car coming around into view on Elm with uncanny unembellished agreement.

Almost the same with hearing the shots, seeing JFK hit and slumping to his left and a few even relate hearing Jackie (or someone) yell "Oh No.." when the last shot occurred.

These salt of the Earth working men are believed in these aspects of their recollection comments. Their integrity and honesty and accuracy are not really questioned.

Yet, when they talk about seeing smoke or where the shots may have come from...they become duplicitous story changers, not the brightest bulbs and even manipulated by their questioners, especially the evil Mark Lane.

That rush of railroad men to the back of the picket fence area where they found " freshly made" muddy foot prints and discarded cigarette butts was just a kind of ducks blindly following one idly waddling lead duck affair ?

 

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Joe Bauer