Jump to content
The Education Forum

Problem For Researchers


Recommended Posts

Vincent Salandria is a first-generation critic of the official government story (LNT / WC) and his views influenced Gaeton Fonzi's approach to the case.

I just started re-reading Fonzi's The Last Investigation when I came across this insightful comment he made to Fonzi as GF was beginning his work for the HSCA: "He ventured that I would get mired in a quagmire of inconsequential details. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually wear you down" (pg. 52).

I ran across another version of the same quote from VS to GF on a Salandria bio page: "We must face the fact -- not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and eventually, they'll wear you down"

(http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/The_critics/Salandria/Salandriabio.html).

Most certainly, they will try. And with the advent of the Internet and electronic media, it has become easier to accomplish.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about Vincent Salandria. But I do know one thing, he was dead-nuts-on in those comments.

Distract, re-direct, and confuse the issue by offering "information" and "leads". Clare Boothe Luce's intentional misleading of Senator Richard Schweiker is one example among probably hundreds. Luce admitted that she had concocted the name "Julio Fernandez" and told Schweiker that "Fernandez" told her that Oswald was hired by Castro to murder JFK in response to The Kennedy administration's attempts on his life. So, Schweiker sends Fonzi to find this Julio Fernandez and find out what he knows. Of course, Fonzi soon realizes that finding a Cuban named Julio Fernandez is much like seeking an American named John Smith- there are hundreds, if not thousands, of them. And given the fact that the Julio Fernandez that Boothe referred to didn't exist (by her own admission at a much later date)... well, you can begin to see how effective a tactic this can be. Fonzi wasted almost 2 years trying to track down this non-existent individual. Distract, re-direct, and confuse the issue. It's been one of the perpetrators' most effective tactics in dealing with truth-seekers. Fonzi on pg. 59, "When I asked Luce about it (her admission of her phony story), she simply smiled sweetly." And Fonzi's realization of what she was really up to is succinctly put: "When I walked out of the Watergate late that afternoon, I knew only one thing for sure: An awful lot of time had been spent checking out Luce's story and, in the end, it led nowhere at all."

Subsequently, Fonzi discovered that while Luce was feeding Schweiker misinformation, she would glean from him certain details about the investigation, which she then called and reported to CIA Director William Colby. He also later witnessed a speech that she gave at a meeting of the Association of Former Intelligence Officers (David Atlee Phillips' organization) which was a "...vigorous defense of the intelligence establishment...." But perhaps that wasn't all that shocking in light of the fact that she was on the Board of Directors of that organization.

My belabored point? Based on her social position and history of public service, Luce was considered a very credible (Schweiker: "impeccable") source at the time she made those false statements (the ones designed to distract, confuse, and re-direct- stay with me on this) to Schweiker. But later, once certain facts about her associations with various groups and individuals were examined, it was obvious to Schweiker and Fonzi, hindsight being what it is, that they had been duped. Handled, if you will. All that time and effort, not to mention getting off on some "Castro did it" idea that was a winding path to nowhere, and they realized that they should have known better from the start. Certainly, once CBL's associations were examined, the light bulb went on.

Clearly, these tactics (distract, re-direct, and confuse the issue) are still employed today against truth-seekers. And the people behind these tactics have incrementally fragmented the research community year after year and have essentially had many researchers chasing their tail, lest we be united (or at least more so) and become a more powerful voice.

Someone once told me that, "The most effective lies are 90% truth." I don't think a more true context exists for that statement than in the quest for answers about this case.

We all walk a very fine line when we try to be open-minded about such a difficult and complex issue. The dangers of being myopic in one's views are significant, an overall hindrance, and it's a trap that's not difficult to fall into. Conversely, when one exercises elastic tolerance of ideas, one nudges the door open further for the Clare Boothe Luces, the Posners, the [fill in the blank with any number of individuals] of the world.

And they are out there. Probably closer than you think. So my friends, walk that fine line as best you can.

Edited by Greg Wagner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know much about Vincent Salandria. But I do know one thing, he was dead-nuts-on in those comments.

_______________________

Ecellent post, Greg.

Always good to be reminded of these pitfalls.

Vince Salandria is probably the NICEST of all the researchers of this case. A brilliant attorney, and powerful speaker, Vince is always willing to help anyone with a genuine desire to comprehend this very complex case. He is not at all an ego-maniac like are so many of the people in this "critical community".

And, in my opinion, dead on in his assessment of the forces behind this coup.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg

You get my agreement on this one.

All of my research remains focused on proving or disproving a basic hypothisis that I developed upon first reading the Warren Report I must admit that before reading the Warren report I believed that there was no conspiracy.

Since that time I have attempted to remain focused on the role of Edwin Anderson Walker. It amazes me to find his name comming up in events that surround others that are connected to the assassination story.

For example in the recent James Richards post, "A Name" Gerry Hemming writes:

"Within a couple of hours he discovered that amongst our cadre were Korean veterans who had been [like Davy] US Army Rangers. Thereafter he was quite amicable and hinted that he would "straighten out" the "Leg" CIA assholes who had misinformed him [a "Leg" or "Straightleg" is a non-paratrooper.]"

I responded:

"When Mr Hemming speaks of Korean War era Rangers, is he refering to those "Rangers" that were trained by Edwin Anderson Walker?"

The end of Hemmings response:

"The prime objection to Walker was his blatant homosexuality behavior and the fact that he screwed uthe UN Partisan Ranger Ops in Korea during 1951."

This seems to confirm that, once again for better or for worse, Walker was associated with and, it seems, had commanded and trained these same men that Gerry speaks of.

My whole line of research began when I read the Warren Report testimony of Edwin Walker. This simple statement started my search and continues to haunt me. Mr. Liebeler stated:

"I don't think we have to indicate a great deal of your background for the record,..."

I continue to add more flesh to Walker's backround and the last post from Mr. Hemming continues to help me while following this trail.

Thank you all for your help on this forum and stay focused while walking "that fine line!"

Jim Root

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate Greg's point and respect Jim Root's intelligence and integrity but the difficulty is that unlike Jim I do not think we can start with one assumption and then try to find the evidence to prove it. I think we need to run down all possible leads even if some may prove to be dead ends. And we have to recognize that our pet theories may be wrong.

Thus, while you all know I think the weight of the evidence suggests Castro did it (to save his own life) (causing a substantial number of you to question my intelligence, sanity or both) I acknowledge I could be wrong and am willing to research and consider alternate theories.

It is a frustrating process to be sure but it is possible that a scenario we would all consider least likely may in fact turn out to be the truth.

So I think every one of us should remain open to any reasonable theories and consider the evidence in support of them. Few theories can be rejected out of hand, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view assassination research as an opportunityto develop a greater understanding of the world. For instance, when one engages in eyewitness research, one learns about memory research and psycho-acoustics, the study of how people hear.

Similarly, when one studies the gunshot wounds, one learns about the relative energy of mass and speed, and the relative strength of skin versus bone. I think Salandria's theory, if I remember it right, that some sinister force made all the evidence confusing, is a major cop-out. It only doesn't make sense when you stop when things don't agree with your pre-conceived notions. When you hit a wall, you have to examine the wall, see if it's real, and then follow the wall to where it leads. For instance, for the first year or so I was researching I was intimidated by Guinn's Neutron Activation Analysis. Although my instincts and the rest of my analysis concluded that the bullet found on a stretcher did not go through Kennedy's back and Connally only to be found intact, Guinn said the fragments in Connally's wrist were from that same bullet. When I finally got around to reading Guinn's reports, (examining the wall), however, I nearly went into shock. He was just WRONG. If he'd been deliberately lying, I believe he would have faked his results to begin with so jerks like me wouldn't be able to come along and second-guess him.

In my interpretation, men like Salandria backed off when they had to start arguing with so-called "experts". JFK didn't trust "experts" nor should we. We should educate ourselves on the topics necessary and not trust men like John Lattimer, Robert Groden, Jack White, James Fetzer, David Mantik, Martin Fackler, Ken Rahn, Thomas Canning, Larry Sturdivan, Vincent Di Maio, Michael Baden, Cyril Wecht, or Gary Mack, for that matter, just because they are recognized as experts by some. While it takes time, assassination research is an opportunity to learn how others think, and how they process information. I, for one, am fascinated by Tim's insistance that Castro was behind the killing; something tells me that if I could only understand his obsession then I'll be able to understand why Bush got re-elected after probably the worst four-year performance since Carter, and possibly before.

Anyhow, I'm 100% convinced there are no GIANT POWERFUL EVIL MEN playing with us, just nincompoops like Gerald Posner and John McAdams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyhow, I'm 100% convinced there are no GIANT POWERFUL EVIL MEN playing with us, just nincompoops like Gerald Posner and John McAdams.

____________________

Do you not think Posner and McAdams are paid to distort the truth? Just curious.

Dawn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once more Pat has a VERY perceptive post (with the exception, of course, about his comments about Pres. Bush!). I would also add that neither Posner nor McAdams are "nincompoomps" and this demonstrates that intelligent people can disagree. Of course, I too find it very difficult to understand how an intelligent person can subscribe to the "lone nut" scenario.

I believe McAdams sincerely believes his position and I doubt that he receives any compensation for it.

Posner, of course, presumably made quite a bit from his book which sold quite well.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Gratz wrote:

Once more Pat has a VERY perceptive post (with the exception, of course, about his comments about Pres. Bush!). I would also add that neither Posner nor McAdams are "nincompoomps" and this demonstrates that intelligent people can disagree. Of course, I too find it very difficult to understand how an intelligent person can subscribe to the "lone nut" scenario.

dgh01: based on 10+ years of the of alt. conspiracy.JFK, alt.assassination.jfk, jfk lancer and jfk research, there are a whole host of folks, quite knowledgable regarding Posner/.john and the subject matter, that I suspect, disagree, actually they'd probably tell you, you haven't a clue. Now I wouldn't tell you that, you might want to sue me, too!

I believe McAdams sincerely believes his position and I doubt that he receives any compensation for it.

dgh01: hey, the guy is publishing [alt.assassination.jfk website], professors get paid for that sort of thing, even Catholic university Prof's? Got an endless stream of Lone Nueter's out there too

Posner, of course, presumably made quite a bit from his book which sold quite well.:

dgh01: rumor has it, he got a substantial advance for Case Closed, some say in the 7 figure range, recieved mega-star status and exposure on the radio/tv/cable talking head circut. Despite the above, the book had less than ho-hum sales... At a K-MART in Reno Nevada 3 years ago, in a book bin, I found 20 copies of Case Closed for $1.99US ea. I've been told, you'll also find a copy of the book in every library in America, compliments of the publisher

** Case Closed is "rife" with errors.

see below - this goes wayback

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id81.htm

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, David, I'm "clueless" in Key West. At least that is a step up: you last called me a right-wing "whacko". I assume to be "clueless" one must at least be sane. And just for your information, puerile name-calling is not legally actionable, so you can rest soundly.

I will be interested in what you say when my scenario is demonstrated to be, at least substantially, correct.

Your information on Posner is interesting. Of course, publishers will always dump books after the sales slump and I am sure there are also many pro-conspiracy books now selling for $1.99. The sales of Posner's book are nevertheless impressive since, at last count, there were only 55 people in America who still believed in the "lone nut" scenario of the Warren Commission. I think after Posner's book the number increased to approximately 76.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim wrote:

Yes, David, I'm "clueless" in Key West. At least that is a step up: you last called me a right-wing "whacko". I assume to be "clueless" one must at least be sane. And just for your information, puerile name-calling is not legally actionable, so you can rest soundly.

dgh01: Yeah, right-wing whackos litter internet boards of late -- you know, onetime I called a reporter for jerkwater local NorCal newspaper few years back, clueless! We were on the same story, he print media and always in my shots - me ENG -- you know, he won a damn Pulitzer a year later -- bought me dinner, we still speak every now and then... as for 'pureile' name calling, hey I call 'em as I see 'em. Thank God about actionables, its the weekend. My attorney can get a full 18 in tomorrow... B)

I will be interested in what you say when my scenario is demonstrated to be, at least substantially, correct.

dgh01: losing track of the scenarios, which one? Fi-del did IT?

Your information on Posner is interesting.

dgh01: it's not my website, Mike has a way of paring down the POZ and the Posnerites, Mike is thorough - still out there, too.

Of course, publishers will always dump books after the sales slump and I am sure there are also many pro-conspiracy books now selling for $1.99.

dgh01: not sure this one really got off to a good start, which even surprised me, what with the multi million dollar promotional tour -- Pro conspiracy books for $1.99, yeah I suspect so, heard the one I helped out with is still over $13.00 bucks. Yeah win some - lose some!

The sales of Posner's book are nevertheless impressive since, at last count, there were only 55 people in America who still believed in the "lone nut" scenario of the Warren Commission. I think after Posner's book the number increased to approximately 76.

Thats about 326 more than I thought, lot of folks seeking shelter down your way...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your arithmetic is interesting. You thought there were 326 fewer than my estimate of 76 lone nut adherents? Well, it is late, even out West!

Let's remember this: we strain our credibility if we posit more conspirators and shooters in Dealey Plaza than believers in bthe "lone nut" scenario!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I view assassination research as an opportunityto develop a greater understanding of the world. For instance, when one engages in eyewitness research, one learns about memory research and psycho-acoustics, the study of how people hear.

Similarly, when one studies the gunshot wounds, one learns about the relative energy of mass and speed, and the relative strength of skin versus bone. I think Salandria's theory, if I remember it right, that some sinister force made all the evidence confusing, is a major cop-out. It only doesn't make sense when you stop when things don't agree with your pre-conceived notions. When you hit a wall, you have to examine the wall, see if it's real, and then follow the wall to where it leads. For instance, for the first year or so I was researching I was intimidated by Guinn's Neutron Activation Analysis. Although my instincts and the rest of my analysis concluded that the bullet found on a stretcher did not go through Kennedy's back and Connally only to be found intact, Guinn said the fragments in Connally's wrist were from that same bullet. When I finally got around to reading Guinn's reports, (examining the wall), however, I nearly went into shock. He was just WRONG. If he'd been deliberately lying, I believe he would have faked his results to begin with so jerks like me wouldn't be able to come along and second-guess him.

In my interpretation, men like Salandria backed off when they had to start arguing with so-called "experts". JFK didn't trust "experts" nor should we. We should educate ourselves on the topics necessary and not trust men like John Lattimer, Robert Groden, Jack White, James Fetzer, David Mantik, Martin Fackler, Ken Rahn, Thomas Canning, Larry Sturdivan, Vincent Di Maio, Michael Baden, Cyril Wecht, or Gary Mack, for that matter, just because they are recognized as experts by some. While it takes time, assassination research is an opportunity to learn how others think, and how they process information. I, for one, am fascinated by Tim's insistance that Castro was behind the killing; something tells me that if I could only understand his obsession then I'll be able to understand why Bush got re-elected after probably the worst four-year performance since Carter, and possibly before.

Anyhow, I'm 100% convinced there are no GIANT POWERFUL EVIL MEN playing with us, just nincompoops like Gerald Posner and John McAdams.

[/quot

With all due respect Pat,

I ask that Dr. Martin Fackler be removed from your list of nincompoops!

Dr. Fackler is the godfather of modern day wound ballistics and it is hard if not impossible to find a serious case study that Dr. Fackler is not a center point of scientific research into this realm. His is used religously by the NIJ and recently by the American Sniper Associations 20 year study on Police Sniper incidents. The man stands alone in this field and should be treated with nothing but respect. I have been given praise now for several years by many researchers relating to my work in wound ballistics on the JFK Assassination, but have used the work of Dr. Fackler as a basepoint for my work. I am a nothing more than a student of HIS.

What so many seem to use to judge his work in this case is his findings for the HSCA. What you need to look at is what was given to him to form his opinions. If the evidence is tainted, then don't blame the expert! He is simply using what is provided to him. He is a scientist, not a researcher or investigator.

Dr. Fackler is aging and is somewhat difficult to deal with when it comes to this. I believe he is bitter that he was drawn into it under the circumstances. The best way to utilize him is not to ask him to open his mind to a new study that is controversial, but to utilize his previous and latter work in determining issues that has come out since 1978.

He does not need to sign off on a new investigation to be an intregal part in determining the original findings were marred and inconsiquencial.

Dr. Fackler should not be put in the catagory with prostitutes with no credibility in the field they are examining such as Dr. Lattimer. He is a true expert within the field of study and I suggest you study his work beyond the JFK Assassination to put the ballistic issues into proper perspective in what we know and are working on today.

Respectfully,

Al Carrier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

With all due respect Pat,

I ask that Dr. Martin Fackler be removed from your list of nincompoops!

Al Carrier

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. The only men I meant to call nincompoops were Posner and McAdams. To be honest, I'm not sure what a nincompoop is. I merely meant to communicate that these men are considered experts by the media, but don't appear to be remotely open-minded or curious about the evidence that points away from Oswald, such as the un-likelihood of the single-bullet theory. I included Fackler not because of any failings of his own--the man is considered to be a God in his chosen field--and I've certainly learned a lot from reading his work--but because he's defended the single-bullet theory, and there are those who would say "Fackler said it" therefore it's true.. In Fackler's case, I believe what he said was that it was possible that a bullet creating the wounds on Kennedy and Connally in the manner described in the Warren Report could end up nearly pristine. What I'm saying is that just because Fackler said it could happen doesn't mean it did, or was even very likely to happen. For the record, then Dr. Fackler is not a nincompoop!

Posner and McAdams are nincompoops in my opinion because they deliberately distort evidence and denigrate others to try to hold onto their position as protectors of all things lone-nut. Entire sections of Posner's book and McAdams' website are devoted to trashing prominent members of the conspiracy community; as I recall Posner discredits Sylvia Meagher simply because she was a socialist or some such thing. On McAdams' site he discredits Wecht by pointing out that Wecht was on the alien autopsy video testifying that it looked pretty real; he fails to point out that fellow lone-nut theory protector Michael Baden was paid 100 grand by O.J. Simpson to testify that O.J.'s wounds were inconsistent with a man engaging in a long knife fight, and that Ron Goldman's wounds indictated he was in a long struggle.

To answer Dawn's question, I doubt that Posner or McAdams are paid directly by anybody, but I'm sure both men know that the mainstream media will go to a lone-nut defender before a conspiracy writer, and that that is where the money is. Look at how Dale Myers changed his work for ABC! Anyhow, the one thing that makes me worry is that I've found exhibits on the McAdams' website that are labeled differently from the identical exhibits on the History Matters website, which simply scans pages out of HSCA reports. I have great concern that this was not a mistake and that someone or some agency put McAdams up to this.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, your last paragraph was very interesting! Are you able to give some examples?

For what it is worth, when I first started to seriously research the JFK case in preparation for our first set of newspaper articles, I called a few people who I had heard of (one of which was Gordon Winslow; another James Lesar). I had a brief conversation with Professor McAdams. He was very cordial and helpful in suggesting pro-conspiracy writers I should contact.

But I would be very interested in hearing more about your last paragraph!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...