Jump to content

John Martino/Wm. Pawley/Plumlee; ref CIA 124 Files


Recommended Posts

I fail to understand what has possessed you to post such crap about Tosh when you know damned well how these records are doctored. If you have a hard-on for Tosh, then take it up privately, by doing so on open forum, you are doing an injustice to further research!
ARE YOU BLIND OR STUPID ??!! READ THE DAMN DD-214, IT SHOWS ONLY 4 MONTHS OF "SERVICE?" !!.... I hope he thanks you for getting him back into the slam for the 6th time ??!!
Today it's "READ THE DAMN DD-214" when yesterday the claim was that there would be no "Form DD-214" because there was "no 'Discharge' per se."
A quick check with the Department of Veterans Affairs will show that Plumlee accrued no rights to any benefits whatsoever, as he was denied re-enlistment in any branch of the U. S. Armed Forces.
Here is a copy of the page showing the award of benefits from a December 29, 2004 document

Even when in full attack mode, Hemming can't address an issue straightforwardly or credibly. He did say there would be no DD-214, and that was proven to be false. He did say that "Plumlee accrued no right to any benefits whatsoever," and that was proven to be false. He did say that Plumlee only had "4 months of service," and that was proven to be false. He did insinuate that Plumlee was in the "slam" at least five (5) times previously, and now he avoids confirming his own meaning when asked directly (assumedly because it's false).

As Robert Charles-Dunne expressed so well, "Gerry has made some sweeping statements about Tosh Plumlee, and seems to have been hoisted by his own petard." Hemming's assertions remind me of Joe McCarthy's ever-changing numbers of communists in the State Department. This is supposed to be a forum devoted to historical research, not P.T. Barnum-like self-promotion, which presumes that there's a sucker born every minute. Hemming has shown that he can't get the simplest public records correct (yes Virginia; there is a DD-214), yet would have us believe that he has been cleared for access to high-level, classified materials. I think not.

T.C.

----------------------------------

SAME RESPONSE I GAVE TO PETER:

Obviously you have never served, or you are totally unfamliar with the DD-214 document. He was "SEPARATED" under Honorable conditions. That is NOT and "Honorable Discharge". He played soldier boy (at 15 years old?) -- went to an annual "summer camp" of 17 days twice, moved from the National Guard to the Reserves (and another 17 days "service" per year), until he moved for active duty status from Reserve to Regular Army -- which he couldn't do from the "Guard".

[Quite a few weeks go by before you receive the "suitable for framing" Honorable Discharge Certificate -- Where is his ??]

[TOTAL "SERVICE TIME??" -- ABOUT 6 MONTHS OF UNDERAGE AND UNLAWFUL "LOITERING" WHILE COLLECTING PAY AND FREEBIE MEALS !! IF ANY INTEL FOLKS EVER USED THIS CLOWN, IT WAS AS A PURE JOKE, OR AS A PATSY FOR SOMETHING !!]

However, once in nasty-ass & frightful "Basic Training", he played his underage/minority card and got out. Either you can't grasp the military shorthand & forms, or you are lying !! Show me ANY military service [whether RA, US, or NG) after he was bounced out during 1954 !!

When he received the FOIA files from Fensterwald, he didn't immediately grasp that they showed him to be a phony. Now, after scamming bunches of dummies, he is heard to whine that his files have been "doctored"?? Who would give a xxxx about this clown, he has nothing worth listening to. Moreover, that I held my tongue back when you say that I "backed" him -- it was solely due to my NOT wanting to get involved in yet another debunking of a phony wannabe, as I had enough of that crap already.

[FBI, et al. reports from the 1960s show me at 40+ years old, name mis-spelled, height/weight, what do you expect from minimum wage high school drop-out government clerks, and/or "Agents/Snitches" ??]

Now I am a "disinformation (active duty no less) agent?" Nobody needs any skills to debunk this "82" test result [military aptitude test] clown who scored just 12 points above imbecile !!

I have been invited to answer serious questions by serious researchers, NOT UFO comic book hacks, and wannabes. I am getting a lot of family static over being "aligned with?" some very weird people.

SHOW ME THE BEEF !! GET IT UNDER OATH, THE VA IS ALREADY INTERESTED !!

____________________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today it's "READ THE DAMN DD-214" when yesterday the claim was that there would be no "Form DD-214" because there was "no 'Discharge' per se."
A quick check with the Department of Veterans Affairs will show that Plumlee accrued no rights to any benefits whatsoever, as he was denied re-enlistment in any branch of the U. S. Armed Forces.
Here is a copy of the page showing the award of benefits from a December 29, 2004 document.
Even when in full attack mode, Hemming can't address an issue straightforwardly or credibly. He did say there would be no DD-214, and that was proven to be false. He did say that "Plumlee accrued no right to any benefits whatsoever," and that was proven to be false. He did say that Plumlee only had "4 months of service," and that was proven to be false. He did insinuate that Plumlee was in the "slam" at least five (5) times previously, and now he avoids confirming his own meaning when asked directly (assumedly because it's false). As Robert Charles-Dunne expressed so well, "Gerry has made some sweeping statements about Tosh Plumlee, and seems to have been hoisted by his own petard." Hemming's assertions remind me of Joe McCarthy's ever-changing numbers of communists in the State Department. This is supposed to be a forum devoted to historical research, not P.T. Barnum-like self-promotion, which presumes that there's a sucker born every minute. Hemming has shown that he can't get the simplest public records correct, yet would have us believe that he has been cleared for access to high-level, classified materials.
SAME RESPONSE I GAVE TO PETER:.... SHOW ME THE BEEF !! GET IT UNDER OATH, THE VA IS ALREADY INTERESTED !!
I have to hope that it's obvious to any reader that Hemming is avoiding accountability for some very direct misstatements. If he can't be straight about simple, black and white issues, why would he be elevated to privileged status here? Here's another of his flagrant misrepresentations of fact:
I have testified under oath, and I would like to see him just say [under oath] that he has testified ANYWHERE !!

Here's a memo re Senate voucher for testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

Tosh's bona fides overwhelmingly outdistance Hemming's. This is our children's children's history. If we allow the forum to be hijacked by this oafish bloviation, our time and effort are wasted, or worse. We are responsible if we allow Hemming's undocumented version of his-story to prevail. Absent any credible contribution to JFK assassination research, his participation here is worse than no participation at all.

T.C.

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tosh's bona fides overwhelmingly outdistance Hemming's. This is our children's children's history. If we allow the forum to be hijacked by this oafish bloviation, our time and effort are wasted, or worse. We are responsible if we allow Hemming's undocumented version of his-story to prevail. Absent any credible contribution to JFK assassination research, his participation here is worse than no participation at all.

T.C.

I respectfullly disagree, Tim. I value both Hemming's and Plumlee's input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today it's "READ THE DAMN DD-214" when yesterday the claim was that there would be no "Form DD-214" because there was "no 'Discharge' per se."
A quick check with the Department of Veterans Affairs will show that Plumlee accrued no rights to any benefits whatsoever, as he was denied re-enlistment in any branch of the U. S. Armed Forces.
Here is a copy of the page showing the award of benefits from a December 29, 2004 document.
Even when in full attack mode, Hemming can't address an issue straightforwardly or credibly. He did say there would be no DD-214, and that was proven to be false. He did say that "Plumlee accrued no right to any benefits whatsoever," and that was proven to be false. He did say that Plumlee only had "4 months of service," and that was proven to be false. He did insinuate that Plumlee was in the "slam" at least five (5) times previously, and now he avoids confirming his own meaning when asked directly (assumedly because it's false). As Robert Charles-Dunne expressed so well, "Gerry has made some sweeping statements about Tosh Plumlee, and seems to have been hoisted by his own petard." Hemming's assertions remind me of Joe McCarthy's ever-changing numbers of communists in the State Department. This is supposed to be a forum devoted to historical research, not P.T. Barnum-like self-promotion, which presumes that there's a sucker born every minute. Hemming has shown that he can't get the simplest public records correct, yet would have us believe that he has been cleared for access to high-level, classified materials.
SAME RESPONSE I GAVE TO PETER:.... SHOW ME THE BEEF !! GET IT UNDER OATH, THE VA IS ALREADY INTERESTED !!
I have to hope that it's obvious to any reader that Hemming is avoiding accountability for some very direct misstatements. If he can't be straight about simple, black and white issues, why would he be elevated to privileged status here? Here's another of his flagrant misrepresentations of fact:
I have testified under oath, and I would like to see him just say [under oath] that he has testified ANYWHERE !!

Here's a memo re Senate voucher for testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

Tosh's bona fides overwhelmingly outdistance Hemming's. This is our children's children's history. If we allow the forum to be hijacked by this oafish bloviation, our time and effort are wasted, or worse. We are responsible if we allow Hemming's undocumented version of his-story to prevail. Absent any credible contribution to JFK assassination research, his participation here is worse than no participation at all.

T.C.

----------------------------

STILL NO BEEF !! NOT A WORD UNDER OATH !!

You think that because he conned his way into a freebie in DC that it PROVES anything. You should check the Congressional Quarterly to see how many thousands of "Junketeer" trips have been given out to alleged "witnesses" !!

Where is the testimony UNDER OATH ??!! And exactly where do I find YOUR last "JFK" contribution to this Forum ?? So far I have only seen attempts at chatroom book reviewing and blatant finger pointing by "gullible-groupies". I see 99% political "beefing" on current or useless past events which reflect absolutely nothing with respect to the JFK case.

WHATTSAMATTER, can't solve the crime of the century, so you are reduced to pissing and moaning about NOTHING !! Gadflies and bookreaders, and now you are joined by more phonies who sign up just to whine along with you.

___________________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the testimony UNDER OATH ??!!

As far as I know, all Senate testimony has required the oath until just recently, when Gerry's Republicans insisted that the big oil war profiteers not be sworn. That ringing noise in Gerry's head is probably the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth calling; he's their kind of guy.

T.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tosh's bona fides overwhelmingly outdistance Hemming's. This is our children's children's history. If we allow the forum to be hijacked by this oafish bloviation, our time and effort are wasted, or worse. We are responsible if we allow Hemming's undocumented version of his-story to prevail. Absent any credible contribution to JFK assassination research, his participation here is worse than no participation at all.
I respectfullly disagree, Tim. I value both Hemming's and Plumlee's input.

The issue is no longer whether someone can sit on the fence, having their cake and eating it too. There is a one-sided and aggressive campaign being waged by Hemming to silence Plumlee. Ask Hemming about the White Hand and you get an attack on Plumlee. Ask about JM/WAVE and you get an attack on Plumlee. Allowing that sort of aggression to dominate results in the bully controlling the history, the loudest voice to win the argument. Doesn't posting documents rather than provably false accusations count for anything?

T.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the testimony UNDER OATH ??!!

As far as I know, all Senate testimony has required the oath until just recently, when Gerry's Republicans insisted that the big oil war profiteers not be sworn. That ringing noise in Gerry's head is probably the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth calling; he's their kind of guy.

T.C.

---------------------------------

Some of those "witnesses?" called to testify during 1991 had their names and files "referred" to the Department of Justice for investigation as to perjury and 18 US Code, sect. 1001 violations. Added to the "referral", among many -- was Mike Palmer [Vortex] who had given very limited testimony before the Kerry "Drugs/Contra" Committee. However, the 5 year statute of limitations had run its course.

There remains at DOJ a long list of "wits", and a fresh/repeated "1001" violation will apply against any of those persons who are once again found to be making "false representations" to a government "official" and/or "agency". The penalty for "unsworn" statements is double that of sworn statements, and has been the case since 1867.

Those who aid and/or abett are now charged as "principals", rather than as accessories, and suffer the same penalties as the "principal" offender.

Good luck in all of your efforts ??!!

__________________

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STILL NO BEEF !! NOT A WORD UNDER OATH !! You think that because he conned his way into a freebie in DC that it PROVES anything. You should check the Congressional Quarterly to see how many thousands of "Junketeer" trips have been given out to alleged "witnesses" !!
So here the documentation showing the Senate voucher for bringing Plumlee to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is characterized as only proving that Plumlee was given a "Junkateer" trip. But as for bleating about "BEEF !! NOT A WORD UNDER OATH !!" there is now the McCarthy-like shifting ground argument that "unsworn" statements are penalized even worse than sworn statements (assumedly when they are proven false):
Where is the testimony UNDER OATH ??!!
As far as I know, all Senate testimony has required the oath until just recently, when Gerry's Republicans insisted that the big oil war profiteers not be sworn. That ringing noise in Gerry's head is probably the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth calling; he's their kind of guy.
The penalty for "unsworn" statements is double that of sworn statements, and has been the case since 1867. Those who aid and/or abett are now charged as "principals", rather than as accessories, and suffer the same penalties as the "principal" offender.
I suppose I should be tremblingly grateful for Hemming's legal advice as to what kind of legal jeopardy I may be in if I am construed to be one of Plumlee's "accessories." I remember past circumstances where mere mentions of lawsuits were a concern for forum moderators, but threats of criminal troublemaking go unmolested.
There is a one-sided and aggressive campaign being waged by Hemming to silence Plumlee. Ask Hemming about the White Hand and you get an attack on Plumlee. Ask about JM/WAVE and you get an attack on Plumlee. Allowing that sort of aggression to dominate results in the bully controlling the history, the loudest voice to win the argument. Doesn't posting documents rather than provably false accusations count for anything?
A reading of this very thread clearly demonstrates the overt obstructionism being practiced here. Plumlee initiated a thread about Martino and it was immediately turned into an attack against him, including identification of Plumlee's family members - a new low.

T.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without taking a side, Gerry, I believe Tim has raised a good point. There are obviously a few around here who lack credibility. What is your specific problem with Plumlee? Is it because he claims to have been part of a secret world and you know that he's a xxxx? Or is it because his "message" if you will, rubs you the wrong way? Is it your desire to silence the messenger, or his message?

Do you discount everything Plumlee says? Was the CIA not an accessory to the drug trade?

I noticed that you leave Harry Dean alone. Is it because you believe that Dean believes his story, but that you believe Plumlee is an out-and-out xxxx? Why not just let Plumlee have his say and periodically inject that FWIW you don't believe his story. Al Carrier doesn't believe you, and yet he for the most part lets you have your say. Perhaps you should give Plumlee the same space.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to add two things.

Gerry I believe made denigrating comments about Tim Carroll but I have found that Tim has a great knowledge of history, is open-minded, and has made very intelligent and useful contributions to this Forum.

I do tend to agree with Gerry re Plumlee, however. His story about flying Roselli to Dallas on a mission to abort the assassination makes little sense. In addition I believe Rosselli was in Vegas on the morning of November 22nd. That fact alone (if true) demolishes Plumlee's story, of course.

That being said, I think Pat's advise is sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerry I believe made denigrating comments about Tim Carroll but I have found that Tim has a great knowledge of history, is open-minded, and has made very intelligent and useful contributions to this Forum.

While I appreciate Tim Gratz's recognition that I have made "useful contributions to this Forum," I'm led to wonder, however, about the usefulness of pondering matters of opinion and historical concealment when the establishment of facts with hard evidence is disregarded. I'm not talking about the kind of evidence that would lead someone to say, Castro did it based on this, or John McCloy did it based on that. I'm talking about simple factual matters such as the following:

He did say there would be no DD-214, and that was proven to be false. He did say that "Plumlee accrued no right to any benefits whatsoever," and that was proven to be false. He did say that Plumlee only had "4 months of service," and that was proven to be false. He did insinuate that Plumlee was in the "slam" at least five (5) times previously, and now he avoids confirming his own meaning when asked directly (assumedly because it's false).

Additionally, when the accusation that Plumlee had never testified under oath, and documentation is posted of reimbursement for costs related to being a Senate Foreign Relations Committee "witness," the squirmy response was that many such witnesses don't actually tesitify, they're merely "Junketeers." Silly. Having made a personal effort to provide evidence that one would think to be significant, and after so much effort on this forum to nail down whether or not Hemming can be believed about matters of his-story, I'm surprised that fact rather than opinion counts for so little.

I do tend to agree with Gerry re Plumlee, however. His story about flying Roselli to Dallas on a mission to abort the assassination makes little sense. In addition I believe Rosselli was in Vegas on the morning of November 22nd. That fact alone (if true) demolishes Plumlee's story, of course.

To reiterate, one is entitled to an opinion about historical evidence and interpretation. But for Tim Gratz to say he tends "to agree with Gerry re Plumlee" based upon Roselli's supposed whereabouts on a certain day, skips the basics. Discounting Roselli's role, as an example, has nothing to do with Hemming's inability to provide the correct time of day, so to speak. It has nothing to do with Hemming being unwilling to name a single publication in the past forty years that he can support as coming closest to the mark. It has nothing to do with him being caught red-handed stating falsehoods about a forum member, dragging family members into it and making threats. When a falsehood is proven, Hemming depends upon a lack of follow-up and simply spins a new yarn, never being challenged about the previous.

Perhaps it's my mistake to have believed that an effort to provide verifiable documentation of fact mattered more than it appears. It's an unfortunate truism that throwing feces against a wall, knowing that some will stick, is an effective tactic. I just didn't expect it to be as effective here, in the face of an effort to refute with actual evidence. I am hamstrung from expressing myself colorfully, while Hemming is not. Words are not available to me that he freely uses.

It's one thing for John Simkin to talk about the best defense being an offense, but especially regarding forum rules of conduct, that shouldn't be the most effective approach here among discerning people.... It's a Swift Boat Veterans For Truth level of history. At a minimum, the following should be a consideration for the moderators:

I noticed that you leave Harry Dean alone. Is it because you believe that Dean believes his story, but that you believe Plumlee is an out-and-out xxxx? Why not just let Plumlee have his say and periodically inject that FWIW you don't believe his story. Al Carrier doesn't believe you, and yet he for the most part lets you have your say. Perhaps you should give Plumlee the same space.

T.C.

Edited by Tim Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

T.C., don't get discouraged. I think most who read this thread will see that the documents show Plumlee to have had some military service, and to have testified. They will also see that Hemming attacked this evidence with more gusto than seemed appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------------------------

STILL NO BEEF !! NOT A WORD UNDER OATH !!

This is a most interesting position for Gerry Hemming to take, since he assures us that the vast bulk of his own HSCA testimony was scrubbed from the record. Presumably, what can be done to/for one witness' testimony can also be done to/for that of another's, a point that all might wish to consider in assessing Gerry's diatribes here. Question: if Plumlee's testimony was taken in camera, where would one locate a transcript of said testimony?

You think that because he conned his way into a freebie in DC that it PROVES anything. You should check the Congressional Quarterly to see how many thousands of "Junketeer" trips have been given out to alleged "witnesses" !!

Actually, Gerry, since it is you who suggests that useless and mediocre "witnesses" of no discernible merit are reguarly flown to DC without even having to testify, and that the evidence for this can easily be found in the Congressional Quarterly, perhaps you'd be kind enough to provide the Forum members with that data. Otherwise, what we have is yet another hollow allegation without the slightest effort to confirm that it's true. [This seems to be a recurring pattern with you, Gerry.]

On the one hand, we've seen you insist that Plumlee is a fraud, that even his brief military service didn't count, that he had no honourable discharge, and no benefits accruing, and that he never testified to anything in DC. On the other hand, we've seen documents indicating that his military service surely wasn't as brief as you claimed, that he did receive an honourable discharge, that he was eligible for benefits, and that he was reimbursed for the expenses incurred during what me must presume is the testimony you claim he never gave.

When confronted with the actual paperwork, your fallback position is to attack its bona fides, to claim that such papers are meaningless, mistakes happen all the time, and that useless wankers are given junkets all the time, in return for testimony they are not required to give, all with no proof for any of these assertions. Certainly, even you can understand Tim Carroll's exasperation over your refusal/inability to accept what is presented to us.

Instead, however, you continue to insist that your word, alone, trumps any and all evidence presented to the contrary; that you are the sole beacon of truth and veracity; and your bilious tone with those who demur from your megalomanical self-assessment suggests we should think there's something wrong with them for asking for evidence. That's quite an odd position for you to take, given your self-admitted reputation for being a "bullxxxx artist."

What's more, how would you rate the intelligence of a "researcher" who believed something just because he was told it? A sucker? A fool? A stooge? You have yourself recurringly attacked people here for having fallen for, or swallowed, some line you think foolish, even when they've been persuaded to do so by evidence. You present nothing in the way of evidence, and castigate everyone who dares question you. It's really quite pathetic, old chap. Such grandstanding may convince the very suckers, fools and stooges for whom you claim to have great disdain, but for reasonably intelligent people, your performance here has only sent your own stock plummeting.

Rehabilitating that stock could begin with you providing proof of some of your own grander escapades. You claim to have been recruited to help guard JFK at the Miami Airport, and you claim there is photographic evidence for same. Where are those photos, Gerry? I think it's your turn to start backing up your own story, before being allowed to continue hectoring others who have provided evidence for theirs. Or are you content with your reputation as a "bullxxxx artist?"

Where is the testimony UNDER OATH ??!! And exactly where do I find YOUR last "JFK" contribution to this Forum ?? So far I have only seen attempts at chatroom book reviewing and blatant finger pointing by "gullible-groupies". I see 99% political "beefing" on current or useless past events which reflect absolutely nothing with respect to the JFK case.

If even your fellow traveller Tim Gratz is sufficiently cognitive to recognize Tim Carroll's contribution here, and gracious enough to admit it, what defect precludes you from doing the same? Last time I checked your posts here, what you've pitched into the Forum on the JFK assassination wouldn't fill a gnat's jockstrap, and even what little there is consists purely of the unverified, the unconfirmed, the unsupported, and just plain fantasy.

WHATTSAMATTER, can't solve the crime of the century, so you are reduced to pissing and moaning about NOTHING !! Gadflies and bookreaders, and now you are joined by more phonies who sign up just to whine along with you.

Gerry, the last time I checked, my favourite leatherneck hadn't solved the crime either, but is the one doing all the pissing and moaning. As for phonies who whine, those who live in glass houses....

___________________________

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...