Jump to content
The Education Forum

Theirstory


Recommended Posts

Theirstory

There's history and running alongside like a quiet stream in the undergrowth, there is theirstory...

on a continued freefall through the conspiracuy community (for a new comer there is absolutely no reason to accord a person whose name is swimming in alphabet soup any more ear than 'the village loon') I'm becoming convinced of the possibility that someone did know, and that that someone left a deliberate trail .Perhaps the trail being the grotesque absurdity of errors that the most eminent were prepared to sign off on, intermingled with marvelous facts, indicating a kind of broad slash through the report leaving an imprint or pattern. In other words the opposite of a conspiracy to hide, but a conspiracy to reveal?

(The marvellous thing is that this documant exists today globally in places of learning outside any influence of alterationists and bookburners. The plates (and specifically the slides (color?) that were used) means proof of existence of sorts is in the hands of every researcher and therein is a version of the zapruder film albeit so glaringly obviously faulty in various ways, yet a truer version in many ways than the candy pops around today.

_____________________________

In the WC report there are contorted leaps of logic based around sometimes just loosely related facts, all of which may very well be totally accurate in themselves, but they are misrepresented, discounted or only partially referred to. Conclusions are arrived at and explained in a kind of disjointed sidestepping through peripheral issues to arrive at a conclusion, the commissioners then seem to have blankly accepted these things, and :: if they actually spotted the inconsistencies, which I find hard to believe they DID NOT do...... they choose to let them remain.. Yet, at the very same time, they publish a document that has the supporting documentation to disprove itself. I wonder if it's really right to write the report off quite so broadly as some do.The documents and imagery remain, admittedly covered by a cloud..It's like the WC Report is a window into a method rather than a madness. Do we see a hand of the Kennedys Warren here? Someone else? Kennedy's men surely did not just melt into the background after the assassination..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theirstory

There's history and running alongside like a quiet stream in the undergrowth, there is theirstory...

on a continued freefall through the conspiracuy community (for a new comer there is absolutely no reason to accord a person whose name is swimming in alphabet soup any more ear than 'the village loon') I'm becoming convinced of the possibility that someone did know, and that that someone left a deliberate trail .Perhaps the trail being the grotesque absurdity of errors that the most eminent were prepared to sign off on, intermingled with marvelous facts, indicating a kind of broad slash through the report leaving an imprint or pattern. In other words the opposite of a conspiracy to hide, but a conspiracy to reveal?

(The marvellous thing is that this documant exists today globally in places of learning outside any influence of alterationists and bookburners. The plates (and specifically the slides (color?) that were used) means proof of existence of sorts is in the hands of every researcher and therein is a version of the zapruder film albeit so glaringly obviously faulty in various ways, yet a truer version in many ways than the candy pops around today.

_____________________________

In the WC report there are contorted leaps of logic based around sometimes just loosely related facts, all of which may very well be totally accurate in themselves, but they are misrepresented, discounted or only partially referred to. Conclusions are arrived at and explained in a kind of disjointed sidestepping through peripheral issues to arrive at a conclusion, the commissioners then seem to have blankly accepted these things, and :: if they actually spotted the inconsistencies, which I find hard to believe they DID NOT do...... they choose to let them remain.. Yet, at the very same time, they publish a document that has the supporting documentation to disprove itself. I wonder if it's really right to write the report off quite so broadly as some do.The documents and imagery remain, admittedly covered by a cloud..It's like the WC Report is a window into a method rather than a madness. Do we see a hand of the Kennedys Warren here? Someone else? Kennedy's men surely did not just melt into the background after the assassination..

Fascinating. A little DaVinci Code-ish, but fascinating. With regard to your last three sentences, it's worth considering the circumstances in which CJ Earl Warren was bludgeoned into accepting the responsibility of leading the Commission, and Senator Richard Russell's very reluctant participation in the investigation and dissent from some of its findings. Russell plainly did not accept the bottom line, and there tape recorded conversations between him and LBJ, available today, in which he made this clear and LBJ agreed. Warren rebuffed Bobby K. request to lead it, was haled to the White House and refused LBJ again to his face, and then accepted -- tearfully -- when LBJ raised the spectre of 40 million Americans losing their lives in the course of an hour. Upon reading an account of this sit-down, one sense that Warren was also shedding a tear about his legacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little DaVinci Code-ish, but fascinating.... it's worth considering the circumstances in which CJ Earl Warren was bludgeoned into accepting the responsibility of leading the Commission,

Is there any independent evidence of this "bludgeoning" ???

Warren rebuffed Bobby K. request to lead it,

Is there any evidence, independent or otherwise, that RFK asked Warren to lead a commission, or is this some more of Mr. Cormier's Da Vinci Code-ish nonsense???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A little DaVinci Code-ish, but fascinating.... it's worth considering the circumstances in which CJ Earl Warren was bludgeoned into accepting the responsibility of leading the Commission,

Is there any independent evidence of this "bludgeoning" ???

Warren rebuffed Bobby K. request to lead it,

Is there any evidence, independent or otherwise, that RFK asked Warren to lead a commission, or is this some more of Mr. Cormier's Da Vinci Code-ish nonsense???

J, evidence of both the "bludgeoning" and RFK asking Warren and being turned down appears in this JFK Lancer program, based upon recorded conversation between LBJ and Senator Russell: http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_6a.html. You'll also find evidence of the former in Spartacus entries regarding both the former Chief Justice and Senator Russell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J, evidence of both the "bludgeoning" and RFK asking Warren and being turned down appears in this JFK Lancer program, based upon recorded conversation between LBJ and Senator Russell: http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_6a.html. You'll also find evidence of the former in Spartacus entries regarding both the former Chief Justice and Senator Russell.

As it just so happens, I was present at Lancer's NID 99 for John Armstrong's presentation.

LBJ: 'You want me to tell you the truth? [that's a good one, coming from LBJ, who inspired the creation of the term "credibility gap"] You want to know what happened? Bobby and them went up to see him today and he turned them down cold, and said no! ......

(reactions from audience, "Wow!" and laughter, etc.)

I can assure you that I was laughing as loudly as anyone in the room.

And I am still laughing, because when I asked you if there was any independent corroboration for Lyndon Johnson's claims, you respond by quoting Lyndon Johnson. So you are a Washington lawyer and you are now telling us that Lyndon JOhnson corroborated himself!!!!!

I'm sure there is a great metaphor that would encapsulte all this, but where is Bill Miller when I need him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J, evidence of both the "bludgeoning" and RFK asking Warren and being turned down appears in this JFK Lancer program, based upon recorded conversation between LBJ and Senator Russell: http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_6a.html. You'll also find evidence of the former in Spartacus entries regarding both the former Chief Justice and Senator Russell.

As it just so happens, I was present at Lancer's NID 99 for John Armstrong's presentation.

LBJ: 'You want me to tell you the truth? [that's a good one, coming from LBJ, who inspired the creation of the term "credibility gap"] You want to know what happened? Bobby and them went up to see him today and he turned them down cold, and said no! ......

(reactions from audience, "Wow!" and laughter, etc.)

I can assure you that I was laughing as loudly as anyone in the room.

And I am still laughing, because when I asked you if there was any independent corroboration for Lyndon Johnson's claims, you respond by quoting Lyndon Johnson. So you are a Washington lawyer and you are now telling us that Lyndon JOhnson corroborated himself!!!!!

I'm sure there is a great metaphor that would encapsulte all this, but where is Bill Miller when I need him?

Really J? Then you must get with John Simkin and others forthwith regarding the Spartacus entries for Earl Warren -- and Richard Russell, for that matter. There, the November 29, 1963 recorded phone conversation between LBJ and Russell is quoted. And this sounds pretty close to "bludgeoning" to me:

"After the death of John F. Kennedy in 1963 his deputy, Lyndon B. Johnson, was appointed president. He immediately set up a commission to "ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy." Johnson asked Warren if he would be willing to head the commission. Warren refused but it was later revealled that Johnson blackmailed him into accepting the post. In a telephone conversation with Richard B. Russell Johnson claimed: " Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances... I called him and ordered him down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City... And he started crying and said, well I won't turn you down... I'll do whatever you say."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

J, evidence of both the "bludgeoning" and RFK asking Warren and being turned down appears in this JFK Lancer program, based upon recorded conversation between LBJ and Senator Russell: http://www.jfklancer.com/backes/newman/newman_6a.html. You'll also find evidence of the former in Spartacus entries regarding both the former Chief Justice and Senator Russell.

As it just so happens, I was present at Lancer's NID 99 for John Armstrong's presentation.

LBJ: 'You want me to tell you the truth? [that's a good one, coming from LBJ, who inspired the creation of the term "credibility gap"] You want to know what happened? Bobby and them went up to see him today and he turned them down cold, and said no! ......

(reactions from audience, "Wow!" and laughter, etc.)

I can assure you that I was laughing as loudly as anyone in the room.

And I am still laughing, because when I asked you if there was any independent corroboration for Lyndon Johnson's claims, you respond by quoting Lyndon Johnson. So you are a Washington lawyer and you are now telling us that Lyndon JOhnson corroborated himself!!!!!

I'm sure there is a great metaphor that would encapsulte all this, but where is Bill Miller when I need him?

Really J? Then you must get with John Simkin and others forthwith regarding the Spartacus entries for Earl Warren -- and Richard Russell, for that matter. There, the November 29, 1963 recorded phone conversation between LBJ and Russell is quoted. And this sounds pretty close to "bludgeoning" to me:

"After the death of John F. Kennedy in 1963 his deputy, Lyndon B. Johnson, was appointed president. He immediately set up a commission to "ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy." Johnson asked Warren if he would be willing to head the commission. Warren refused but it was later revealled that Johnson blackmailed him into accepting the post. In a telephone conversation with Richard B. Russell Johnson claimed: " Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances... I called him and ordered him down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City... And he started crying and said, well I won't turn you down... I'll do whatever you say."

And this is supposed to verify RFK approached Warren?

Curious, isn't it, that a Mexico City incident (phony Oswald in M.C.?) was the blackmail that convinced Warren?

Was this a do it "for the good of the nation" appointment, which Warren would have been obliged to assist in, in order to keep us, the public, pacified?

Cryptic references, by Johnson, to an incident in Mexico City.

He didn't say an incident personally involving Warren, did he?

I have to wonder, had Warren ever been in Mexico City, and, if so, had he done something wrong there?

If he had, where is the historical evidence for this faux pas, and why is it not reported in any biographical works relating to Warren?

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, my posts have been doubled lately and I do not know why.

This was a dup. of the above post.

Edited by Chuck Robbins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this sounds pretty close to "bludgeoning" to me:

[ From Spartacus]In a telephone conversation with Richard B. Russell Johnson claimed: " Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances.."

The keyword here is "CLAIMED."

Lyndon Johnson claimed many things, but those who got to know him well usually learned that Johnson's claims were not always true. That includes even the press, who had to invent the term "credibility gap" to avoid having to tell the American people, on a fairly regular basis, that their President was lying again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Theirstory

There's history and running alongside like a quiet stream in the undergrowth, there is theirstory...

on a continued freefall through the conspiracuy community (for a new comer there is absolutely no reason to accord a person whose name is swimming in alphabet soup any more ear than 'the village loon') I'm becoming convinced of the possibility that someone did know, and that that someone left a deliberate trail .Perhaps the trail being the grotesque absurdity of errors that the most eminent were prepared to sign off on, intermingled with marvelous facts, indicating a kind of broad slash through the report leaving an imprint or pattern. In other words the opposite of a conspiracy to hide, but a conspiracy to reveal?

(The marvellous thing is that this documant exists today globally in places of learning outside any influence of alterationists and bookburners. The plates (and specifically the slides (color?) that were used) means proof of existence of sorts is in the hands of every researcher and therein is a version of the zapruder film albeit so glaringly obviously faulty in various ways, yet a truer version in many ways than the candy pops around today.

_____________________________

In the WC report there are contorted leaps of logic based around sometimes just loosely related facts, all of which may very well be totally accurate in themselves, but they are misrepresented, discounted or only partially referred to. Conclusions are arrived at and explained in a kind of disjointed sidestepping through peripheral issues to arrive at a conclusion, the commissioners then seem to have blankly accepted these things, and :: if they actually spotted the inconsistencies, which I find hard to believe they DID NOT do...... they choose to let them remain.. Yet, at the very same time, they publish a document that has the supporting documentation to disprove itself. I wonder if it's really right to write the report off quite so broadly as some do.The documents and imagery remain, admittedly covered by a cloud..It's like the WC Report is a window into a method rather than a madness. Do we see a hand of the Kennedys Warren here? Someone else? Kennedy's men surely did not just melt into the background after the assassination..

Fascinating. A little DaVinci Code-ish, but fascinating. With regard to your last three sentences, it's worth considering the circumstances in which CJ Earl Warren was bludgeoned into accepting the responsibility of leading the Commission, and Senator Richard Russell's very reluctant participation in the investigation and dissent from some of its findings. Russell plainly did not accept the bottom line, and there tape recorded conversations between him and LBJ, available today, in which he made this clear and LBJ agreed. Warren rebuffed Bobby K. request to lead it, was haled to the White House and refused LBJ again to his face, and then accepted -- tearfully -- when LBJ raised the spectre of 40 million Americans losing their lives in the course of an hour. Upon reading an account of this sit-down, one sense that Warren was also shedding a tear about his legacy.

Trotsky is assassinated in mexico. But not before he has launched the fourth international. The leadership of the SWP and its youth wing in the USA were very close to Trotsky.

Trotsky was a marxist leninist, except he added the concept of the permanent revolution. Che, in particular, recognised the need for this. I think Castro does also. For a trotskyist, russia was a wasteland. The true vanguard was being played out in capitals heartland. Contradictions were rising to prominence, shaking the status quo severely. Its historical response is to defend itself. It no longer is a question of right and wrong, but survival. And so the cycles of contradictions that ultimately shatters the status quo and a revolution occurs. Unless they preempt, attack, and stomp loud and hard and long enough. 11/22/63-footfall

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...