Paul Brancato Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 5 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said: Paul, maybe you can explain this to me, I’m getting slow in my old age: Around the 32 minute mark of the 2-hour Stone doc Whoopi informs us that JFK had a shallow wound in his back to the right of T3. This was after she spent 10 minutes on the provenance of a bullet that could NEVER leave a shallow wound in soft tissue. The Single Bullet was the key to the cover-up. How is leading with 10 minutes on an impossible scenario anything other than a perpetuation of the cover-up? Cliff - were you directing the question at me? I liked the film, and I can see your point, though I don’t think Stone and co. are perpetuating a coverup. I agree about Salandria btw - so many years wasted trying to prove the obvious, essentially getting no closer to who done it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliff Varnell Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 (edited) 13 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: Cliff - were you directing the question at me? I liked the film, and I can see your point, though I don’t think Stone and co. are perpetuating a coverup. Not intentionally. But the fact that JFK had two soft-tissue wounds with no exits is routinely ignored by the JFK Critical Expert Class — just like the USG and the MSM. The night of the autopsy with the body in front of them Humes, Boswell , and Finck seriously considered the possibility he was hit with a high-tech weapon, of the kind developed for the CIA in Project MKNAOMI, which leaves no trace in the body. One would never know that listening to JFKA Experts — the Gang That Couldn’t Research Straight. Edited December 20, 2022 by Cliff Varnell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Beschloss sounds like he was in on those CIA briefings. Did he actually say what I think he did: That the CIA had a picture of Oswald on the embassy steps? Wow, I hope so. I watched both MSNBC (Joe Scarborough) segments (long and short) and I didn't hear that. But then, I do have hearing issues. Note that nobody on the panel said anything. Joe Scarborough said it all. And then his two guests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: Matt Allison: The CIA, Joannides, the whole enchilada. The entire panel as angry as we are. I imagine it will be available online sometime today. I didn't see an angry panel in either segment I saw. Maybe there were more than two segments. (Morning Joe is three hours long.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 I would really like to see that one. Where is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: I would really like to see that one. Where is it? I haven't seen the segment where the panel participates (if there really is one). It's not posted on this thread. The only segment posted on this thread is posted on page 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 Beschloss is the main talking head, and he is kind of a bore. Its pretty clear he does not know what is in the new releases and is arguing theoreticals. I mean anyone who says the CIA has a picture of LHO in Mexico CIty is out to lunch and that is what I think he said. He was arguing the whole line about the FBI blew it. But he never even mentions that the FBI removed the FLASH warning on Oswald's file right after he allegedly got back from Mexico CIty. That is central to this whole question. Why did that happen? Especially since the preponderance of the evidence says Oswald was not in Mexico CIty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said: Beschloss is the main talking head, and he is kind of a bore. Its pretty clear he does not know what is in the new releases and is arguing theoreticals. I mean anyone who says the CIA has a picture of LHO in Mexico CIty is out to lunch and that is what I think he said. He was arguing the whole line about the FBI blew it. But he never even mentions that the FBI removed the FLASH warning on Oswald's file right after he allegedly got back from Mexico CIty. That is central to this whole question. Why did that happen? Especially since the preponderance of the evidence says Oswald was not in Mexico CIty. Michael Beschloss is just a historian who appears on MSNBC on occasion. The other guy (Marc Caputo?) is a news reporter. All he is doing is reporting on the MFF lawsuit and the news conference. He clearly paid attention to the news conference as he repeated the material quite well. There's no reason to think he would know anything about the FBI FLASH warning. (Unless that was also a part of the news conference.) Given that the segment was just a report on the lawsuit and press conference, it was very well done. Lot's of information and easy to follow. Including a Joe Scarborough who was incensed that the documents still haven't been released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted December 20, 2022 Share Posted December 20, 2022 I give Scarborough a lot of credit, regardless of Beschloss being the central guest. I guess we will have to wait another 6 months for any revisit. 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