I missed Lauren Harper’s useful update on UNREDACTED about the National Archives plans for JFK declassification in 2017.
[Archivist Martha] Murphy recently stated that NARA has “sent letters to agencies letting them know we have records here that were withheld, 2017 is coming.” Murphy further noted that “while no agency has formally requested a waiver yet, some ‘have gotten back to ask for clarification’ and are seeking ‘more information.’” Murphy noted that while she couldn’t say whether or not the records would resolve the enduring sense of mystery surrounding the assassination, she said that the records will provide a “beautiful snapshot of Cold War America and the intelligence community.”
500 posts. “Have any agencies formally requested a waiver yet?” ???
If no, they will not until not until at least March or so of 2017.
It might draw attention to the subject.
What have we learned in the almost 70 years since the creation of the CIA? It makes mistakes and will go to any lengths to hide those mistakes. I’m sure after 54 years the CIA does not want us to know that those involved in the assasination have CIA cryptonyms with weapons supplied by the CIA. We will probably see a limited hang out with the CIA admitting they know the individuals but stating they did not know what they were going to do. The FBI will say we did not get the info from the CIA until it was to late to stop the plot. Since the Secret Service destroyed all their documents, we will see a memo that went to Secret Service with vague warning that was Chicago and/or Tampa but not Dallas. Everyone will point the finger at the other guy and tell us what they have put in place to make sure it does not happen again.
It’s all about the evidence of behaviour and evidence of revision in my view. There is no “smoking gun” to be found in any well planned and well executed undertaking, and any evidence will have to be pieced together and hopefully shed new light on what is already known or “expected to be”.
John McAdams keeps saying conspiracy supporters “turn up the attacks”(his quotes)when we are attacked. A few days ago, I saw a post where John used the term “lying scum” in describing something said by a conspiracy supporter. Gee, do you think he was attacking us?
Context. The conspiracists always call inconvenient witnesses or experts liars.
So I characterize their view as being that such people are “lying scum.”
That’s a view I attribute to conspiracists. And it accurately characterizes the attitude of conspiracists toward everybody who given inconvenient testimony.
Cabinet Meeting, April 27, 1961
“if we do not fight in Laos, will we fight in Thailand where the situation will be the same sometime in the future as it is now in Laos? Will we fight in Vietnam? Where will we fight? Where do we hold? Where do we draw the line?
… I went back [that same day]. I wrote a memorandum to the President, and you don’t just send a memorandum over to the President: You take it over. And I got thrown out…the President said, “This is settled.”
~Admiral Arleigh Burke
(Interview with Joseph O’Conner, January 20, 1967, pp. 35-36)
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 28, 2015 at 11:37 am
Cabinet Meeting, April 27, 1961
“if we do not fight in Laos, will we fight in Thailand where the situation will be the same sometime in the future as it is now in Laos? Will we fight in Vietnam? Where will we fight? Where do we hold? Where do we draw the line?
Looks like JFK made the decision here, Willy. “Coming out of that encounter (Vienna meeting with Khrushchev), he (JFK) confided to James Reston of “The New York Times; “Now we have a problem in making our power credible, and Vietnam is the place.”
Stanley Karnow, “Vietnam A History”, Revised and Updated , page 265.
Deploy, as soon as possible, a Special Forces Group—approximately 400 U.S. military personnel—to Nha Trang in order to accelerate GVN Special Forces training.~NSAM 42
Terms of the essence to keep this in context are:
“in order to accelerate *GVN Special Forces *TRAINING.”
This was the MISSION. Regardless of what happened on the ground, these were Kennedy’s orders: TRAINING.
It is so entirely obvious that every move Kennedy made was an effort to get the Vietnamese ready to fight their own war.
It is equally as obvious that the military command disregarded Kennedy’s purposes every step of the way.
Going’round’nround, with someone insisting that plain language does not mean what it actually states. It is simply Orwellian nonsense.
I refuse to participate in this disingenuous “debate” any further.
Mr Clarke is free to spout any nonsense, he or any of his “academic” sources can come up with.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 28, 2015 at 3:08 pm
“I refuse to participate in this disingenuous “debate” any further.”
Good. Now the “debate” will not be disingenuous.
“Mr Clarke is free to spout any nonsense, he or any of his “academic” sources can come up with.”
That you dismiss “my academic source” is typical. Dr. Moise knows what he is talking about. You don’t.
The issue of JFK & Vietnam seems to be muddled. In my view the issue is not what Kennedy might have done had he lived, but what he did and didn’t do while he was alive.
It has become crystal clear that what Kennedy did NOT do: He did not authorize combat forces deployed to Vietnam, against every proposal, coercive pressures, lies, deceptions and intrigue set against him to do so.
It is also crystal clear that those putting these pressures on Kennedy were convinced that their “advice” was “the right thing to do”, and that they were increasingly frustrated and angry; convinced that Kennedy’s lack of going along with “the right thing to do”, amounted to “appeasement”, and was seen as virtual treason to the most virulent warmongers. And the most virulent warmongers composed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many top civilian advisers.
Further I propose that this crystal clear situation can be seen as the motive for a coup d’etat, to remove Kennedy in order to do “the right thing”.
Beyond this, there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald was a patsy set up by the perpetrators of the assassination in Dallas. All of the points of this evidence having been gone over ad infinitum in these threads for countless years, as well as being public knowledge for decades.
My conclusion is that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in a coup d’etat, perpetrated by the military industrial complex.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 28, 2015 at 10:39 am
“The issue of JFK & Vietnam seems to be muddled. In my view the issue is not what Kennedy might have done had he lived, but what he did and didn’t do while he was alive.”
Wow! We agree here Willy. Good going.
“It has become crystal clear that what Kennedy did NOT do: He did not authorize combat forces deployed to Vietnam,”
You are simply wrong here Willy. What he did NOT do is send intact American combat ground UNITs such as the 101st or the Big Red 1. Now you might think the 7th Fleet and the 7th Air Force were debate teams but they were not. As for our troops on the ground I again and again give you the words of Dr. Edwin Moise.
AnthonyMarsh wrote in message …
> Can you explain to some people here the difference between
> pilots and ground combat troops?
LBJ was the first president to send regular U.S. ground combat troops to Vietnam; JFK had not done that. If we take out that word “regular,” the issue becomes more ambiguous. In 1962 and 1963, JFK had Special Forces A-teams in Vietnam, training Montagnard troops and leading them in combat. Were those Special Forces guys “ground combat troops”? My answer would probably vary between “yes” and “well, maybe sort of” depending on what mood I was in on any given day. I don’t think there would be any days when I would give a simple “no.” Ed Moise
“What he did NOT do is send intact American combat ground UNITs such as the 101st or the Big Red 1.”~Bill Clarke
Exactly.
“Now you might think the 7th Fleet and the 7th Air Force were debate teams but they were not.”~BC
These forces were not there to intimidate Hồ Chí Minh. Nor to “invade” Vietnam — as later done by Johnson.
Under Kennedy they were there to intimidate the Soviets and the Chinese.
\\][//
Well you know… It is real hard to find the top of some of the longer threads on this page, so I am going to write this down here.
I do not agree with Bill Clarke on his perspective on JFK and Vietnam.
I do not think it profitable to go around and round on that carousel with him any longer.
I have opinions about his person that are best left unsaid. Perhaps his opinions of me should remain unstated as well.
\\][//
First, I wonder if the Agency would dare try to block the scheduled release of JFK declassified material in 2017 IF it was 1775 instead of 2017?
Something tells me they’d have to apprehend and “neutralize” the likes of Patrick Henry if they dared to snub their noses at patriots of old like that.
Once upon a time (mere seconds before a barrage of bullets rained upon President Kennedy’s motorcade on Friday, November 22, 1963) America had a democracy, where a mere alphabet agency was accountable to the people. Somehow, that dynamic no longer applies, because this mere alphabet agency has become the henchman for the same lying treasonous cowards truly responsible for the demise of an unarmed representative of the people.
They couldn’t beat JFK fair and square at the ballot-box a year later in 1964, so these lying treasonous cowards resorted to what all gutless cowards do, lie, cheat and steal. Lied about who did it; cheated an innocent man and his family, and stole democracy from an entire nation.
Hey!, CIA, only cowards shoot an unarmed man, lie about who is responsible and then hide like lil’ beeotches…
Willy Whitten
December 22, 2015 at 6:26 pm
“Well you know… It is real hard to find the top of some of the longer threads on this page, so I am going to write this down here.”
“I do not agree with Bill Clarke on his perspective on JFK and Vietnam.”
Your agreement matters not at all to me. In fact I’d be alarmed if I ever agreed with the BS you post. But these people do in fact agree with me on “JFK and Vietnam”; Lloyd Gardner, William Duiker, John Prados, George Herring, William Gibbons, and Larry Berman. I doubt these names ring a bell with you Willy since all of them are leading historians of the Vietnam War.
“I do not think it profitable to go around and round on that carousel with him any longer.”
Then prove this and I’ll stop; “I’ll give you an example from Newman’s book, page322. This is the basis of the book.
________________________________________________________
“Kennedy decided to use Taylor’s and Harkin’ reports of battlefield success to justify the beginning of the withdrawal he was planning.” Italics by Newman.
“Kennedy kept his plan a closely guarded secret, but by March he was determined not only to withdraw—come what may—after 1964, but, if possible, to take a clear step in that direction….”
________________________________________________________________
“I have opinions about his person that are best left unsaid.
You’re just miffed because I point out that much of what you say is BS. It isn’t my fault that you post a bunch of crap.
“Perhaps his opinions of me should remain unstated as well.”
Bingo!
“You’re just miffed because I point out that much of what you say is BS. It isn’t my fault that you post a bunch of crap.”
~Bill Clarke
So you are going to taunt in attempt to crank up your rusty mainstream carousel where you cite the go along to get along “historians” that want to blame the “hippies and the wishy-washy Kennedy” for loosing the war that he never started.
Just total hogwash.
\\][//
So we are now invited to imbibe the poison jingoberry pie made from the recipe of the scribes and apologists of empire, the official propagandists of the military industrial complex. And reject the “heresies” of independent minds like Newman, Prouty, and P.D. Scott. All for the love of war and victory at any and all cost.
It’s really just a red, white, and blue boohoohoo from the moronic fools who got their war, shot their wad and lost anyway.
And now, after dinking around with their phony “War on Terror” meme they have finally taken a deep swallow of that ancient swill to revive and instigate a redux of the “Cold War” – pumping up the punching bags of the Russians and the Chinese for rhetorical target practice. Hoping this time they may really get a chance to drop the BIG ONE in a Strangelovian burlesque of true Yankee Doodle proportion.
Welcome to the New World Order dementia of Orwellian Newspeak; where Hate is Love, War is Peace, and Big Brother’s got his eye on you 24/7 as we count down to oblivion.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 23, 2015 at 8:08 am
“So we are now invited to imbibe the poison jingoberry pie made from the recipe of the scribes and apologists of empire, the official propagandists of the military industrial complex. And reject the “heresies” of independent minds like Newman, Prouty, and P.D. Scott. All for the love of war and victory at any and all cost.”
For time and space only I’ll let slide Newman and Scott. But Willy, when a man begins to believe Prouty’s BS he has lost touch with reality. I know you consider yourself an equal to Newman, Prouty and Scott so go on and list your name with them. You’d fit right in.
You’re turning into a real drama queen here Willy. Please stop.
“drama queen” – “liar” – “poster of crap”
Thus sayeth the indoctrinated soldier boy.
Thanks for the offer of lollipops Mr Clarke, but I never take candy from strangers.
\\][//
Okay, last one. Keep your comments, Bill and Willy, to other than your opinions of each other, or they
won’t appear here.
Bill Clarke,
Show us where it says in, National Security Action Memorandum No. 52, that 500 US special forces were to be introduced to South Vietnam.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 26, 2015 at 12:02 am
Bill Clarke,
“Show us where it says in, National Security Action Memorandum No. 52, that 500 US special forces were to be introduced to South Vietnam.”
Willy Whitten
December 21, 2015 at 10:26 am
“11 May 61; In National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 52, President Kennedy approves the deployment of a 400-man Special Forces group to Nha Trang to accelerate ARVN training.”
Willy, this is a cut and paste of the statement I made on December 21, 2015 at 7:42. Please note that it says “400-man”, not 500 men as you suggest. Is this a trick? There are many references to, “JFK sent 400 Special Force troops to Vietnam, and they all say 400 men.
As for NSAM 52 saying this I believe it is much like NSAM 263; you have to look at the McNamara Taylor report to really know what the NSAM says. In the case of NSAM 52 you have to be familiar with the National Security Council meeting of April 29, 1961 to understand all that NSAM 52 says.
Paragraph 2 of NSAM 52. “The approval given for specific military actions by the president at the National Security Council meeting on April 29, 1961 is confirmed.”
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/KDit5FSwHEmiuwttNVhDZQ.aspx
I made a quick run to find this council meeting with no luck. I will attempt again tonight hopefully.
In the meanwhile if you could give me some evidence that JFK didn’t know about the escalation in Vietnam that would be great.
“I made a quick run to find this council meeting with no luck. I will attempt again tonight hopefully.
In the meanwhile if you could give me some evidence that JFK didn’t know about the escalation in Vietnam that would be great.”
No, I just made a mistake in quoting the “500” per your “400”
I have read National Security Action Memorandum No. 52, on the Military Historian site:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d52
There the whole thing is written in text rather than that small photocopy image at your link.
This is why I wanted to know where you got your numbers from.
In the meantime, if you could give me some evidence that JFK knew about the escalation in Vietnam that would be great.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 26, 2015 at 4:32 pm
Bill; “In the meanwhile if you could give me some evidence that JFK didn’t know about the escalation in Vietnam that would be great.”
Willy; In the meantime, if you could give me some evidence that JFK knew about the escalation in Vietnam that would be great.
As you can see Willy, I asked first. I’ll be waiting on you.
But I have to ask Willy: just what is it that you don’t understand about being the C.I.C.? You think JFK didn’t know where his 7th Fleet and 7th Air Force was located? Kinda hard to hide something that large. It would take a very incompetent CIC to not know this and that certainly wasn’t the style of JFK.
Over the years I have seen many efforts to keep Camelot out of the blood and mud, truth be damned. But this one of yours takes the cake.
“As you can see Willy, I asked first. I’ll be waiting on you.”~Bill Clarke
Fine wait as long as you want.
I asked for a citation on the 400 special forces that you claimed was part of National Security Action Memorandum No. 52.
Until then…
\\][//
Bill and Willy,
NSAM 52
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d52
2. The approval given for specific military actions by the President at the National Security Council meeting on April 29, 1961,4[*]is confirmed.
3. Additional actions listed at pages 4 and 5 of the Task Force Report are authorized, with the objective of meeting the increased security threat resulting from the new situation along the frontier between Laos and Vietnam. In particular, the President directs an assessment of the military utility of a further increase in GVN forces from 170,000 to 200,000, together with an assessment of the parallel political and fiscal implications.
4. The President directs full examination by the Defense Department, under the guidance of the Director of the continuing Task Force on Vietnam, of the size and composition of forces which would be desirable in the case of a possible commitment of U.S. forces to Vietnam. The diplomatic setting within which this action might be taken should also be examined.
*https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d40
40. Editorial Note
At its meeting at 10 a.m. on April 29, 1961, the National Security Council discussed the Program of Action for Vietnam (see Document 35) and approved paragraphs 3a-3e. The NSC also agreed that the task force should revise the program for further consideration of the Council. (NSC Action No. 2416; Department of State, S/S-NSC Files: Lot 66 D 95) NO RECORD OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE COUNCIL MEETING HAS BEEN FOUND (emphasis mine).
Kennedy’s policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that “to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.”
We know for certain that JFK’s refusal to Americanise the war was wise. LBJ retained virtually the entire team of national security advisers assembled by Kennedy, who gave Johnson the same hawkish advice they had given Kennedy. They urged him to intervene, to save the Saigon government from collapse and maintain America’s credibility with its allies, no matter how corrupt or incompetent the South Vietnamese government had become. America, they told LBJ (as they had told JFK), can save the day at little cost and risk. Unlike JFK, LBJ caved in to his inherited hawks again and again as he Americanised the conflict in Vietnam. The result was a costly and humiliating defeat for the US, and a foreshortened career for a president who lacked JFK’s cautionary impulse and steely determination to stand up to misplaced hawkish advice.
In retrospect, it appears JFK’s fears of an LBJ presidency were justified.
leslie sharp
December 27, 2015 at 2:27 am
At its meeting at 10 a.m. on April 29, 1961, the National Security Council discussed the Program of Action for Vietnam (see Document 35) and approved paragraphs 3a-3e. The NSC also agreed that the task force should revise the program for further consideration of the Council. (NSC Action No. 2416; Department of State, S/S-NSC Files: Lot 66 D 95) NO RECORD OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE COUNCIL MEETING HAS BEEN FOUND (emphasis mine).
Thanks for posting this, Leslie. After a more intense search I still can’t find any record of this either. I have spent about all the time I can afford on the issue so looks like I’m going to take a rare hit from Willy. I hate it when that happens.
Willy Whitten
December 27, 2015 at 1:02 am
“I asked for a citation on the 400 special forces that you claimed was part of National Security Action Memorandum No. 52.”
I regretfully inform you, Willy, that I can’t find it to date. Evidently the NSC meeting in which I believe includes the citation you request, can not be found.
I apologize to you and the group for posting something that I can’t quickly back up.
“I have spent about all the time I can afford on the issue” — Bill Clarke
I hear you Bill C., this is tedious and time consuming. I’ve not gone in search of published authors who might have pursued this, and I’m not experienced enough to determine for certain whether or not the documents are available in some obscure location. But now that we’ve reached this juncture, do you think there is anything significant in the fact that the minutes from that meeting cannot be readily located?
I also think it’s important to acknowledge that four months into his administration, President Kennedy was asking questions: ” . . . in the case of a possible commitment of U.S. forces to Vietnam.”
Bill & Leslie, this document appears to provide a summary of actions approved by the President at the NSC meeting of 29 April 1961. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d42
Kennedy did not act on the annex at the
April 29 meeting when he approved the much more modest military proposals of the basic report. See United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967, Book 11, pages 42-57 for details https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-B-1.pdf
1. Augment the MAAG with two U.S. training commands—composed of approximately 1600 instructors each—to enable the MAAG to establish in the “high plateau” region of South Viet-Nam two divisional field training areas to accelerate the U.S. training program for the entire GVN army.
. . . . . .
>>2. Deploy, as soon as possible, a Special Forces Group—approximately 400 U.S. military personnel—to Nha Trang in order to accelerate GVN Special Forces training.
. . . . .
3. Assign CINCPAC the responsibility for coastal patrol activities (from the Cambodian border to the mouth of the Mekong River), employing U.S. Naval forces in conjunction with the Junk Force, to prevent the seaborne infiltration of Viet Cong personnel and materiel (into the southern delta area).
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d42
Terms of the essence to keep this in context are:
“in order to accelerate *GVN Special Forces *TRAINING.”
\\][//
David Regan
December 27, 2015 at 9:34 pm
Bill & Leslie, this document appears to provide a summary of actions approved by the President at the NSC meeting of 29 April 1961. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d42
Thanks a lot David. Good work.
He is trying to make it more likely you and Willy will finally stop.
Thanks a lot David, good work.
Tom S.
December 28, 2015 at 1:18 am
He is trying to make it more likely you and Willy will finally stop.
For whatever reason I’m still grateful for David sharing this with us.
it’s funny how Dan Rather can make a mistake and that just shows he made an error but Dan Talbot made a mistake and his whole book should be discredited?
Interesting double standard.
Dan Rather lost his job for reporting a false story.
Isn’t Talbot’s invention of Allen Dulles’ travel history of Nov 22-23 just as egregious -and just as fictional?
photon, Surely you don’t want to go down the path of Karl Rove’s involvement in that charade? And surely you know that Dan Rather sued his former employer CBS, it’s parent Viacom AND Sumner Redstone for scapegoating him? That would be Viacom and Redstone who have long ranked among the top financial contributors to the John F. Kennedy Library which cannot find it in themselves to substantiate their own claim that there was an increase in military personnel from 700 to 16,500 following Kennedy’s election let alone who signed off on the increases. That would be the library supposedly honouring the memory of a slain president whose entire public service reflects a “Strategy of Peace” (Harper & Brothers, 1960) but has since been commandeered by the very noxious elements of US capitalism John Kennedy was attempting to confront prior to his assassination – a result of a conspiracy – on 11.33.63?
Consider George W. Bush’s 2001 Ambassador to Ireland Richard Egan, founder of EMC which funded the digitization of files at the JFK Library. Look to Shannon Airport, Ireland. Egan was sworn in on ironically September 11, 2001; study the rendition flights thru that neutral nation since then, one beloved by John Kennedy. Count the number of US military personnel passing thru Shannon since then en route to an illegal war in the Middle East . . . 2.5 million annually. An affront to the memory of John Kennedy.
Yes photon, let’s indeed review all of this.
http://www.shannonwatch.org
I think not, sir. It isn’t simply cowards who might avoid duty. It is also silver spoon, lazy, incompetent, entitled men like Bush.
When we go through the litany of the comedy of errors of the so-called crime scene investigation, we are faced with a massive set of happenstance and coincidence that is simply impossible to swallow.
And for our adversaries here to insist that we go through the check list of all these points again and again, it becomes obvious that theirs is a ‘war of attrition’, meant to wear us down, to create a puddle of mud where there is in fact a clear pool of reasoning showing all of their so called evidence is a bluff. All of it is stacked so precariously that the slightest jiggle of the base it sits upon makes it collapse like a house of cards.
But the game trudges on, along with the ever hardening police state, morphed from a National Security State to a Panoptic Maximum Security State dedicated to Full Spectrum Dominance in a Global Tyranny.
Meanwhile in the trenches of this mind-war, the fascist adversary sneers with glee at the seeming impasse they have constructed of rhetorical tripe. But it is all appearances, a cavalcade of smoke and mirrors in a fun-house in the carnival of deceptions.
\\][//
“You mean aside from his palmprint on the rifle.
And his fingerprints on the trigger guard.
And the Backyard Photos, which show Oswald with the same rifle. A distinctive gouge on the forestock is a “random patterning” sufficient to match the rifle in the photos to the one discovered in the Depository.”
~McAdams
Of course the FBI found no such fingerprints until a pow-wow with the DPD when they got “all their ducks in a row”. Again shifting stories that plague the case like lite house keepers.
And yes the infamous “back yard photos” … did Marina actually take these photos? You are certain of this even though there are very good reasons to believe they are fakes.
Reasons enough for doubt. Especially when so much of the other so-called evidence falls apart on close inspection – the chains of custody, lack of proper crime scene protocol, lack of proper autopsy protocol. The almost certainty that CE399 is an FBI plant, for it is certainly not the Parkland Bullet.
And how about that Hidell ID? What postal clerk would be so stupid as to not know a Selective Service card has no picture on it?
Your ducks waddle off in different directions here, but you keep trying to corral them back. We watch bemused at your antics.
\\][//
They found no such print because J.C. Day had lifted it off.
The FBI did confirm that the print was from Oswald’s rifle.
On the day of the assassination, Day told an FBI guy that he had found a print he was going to lift:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_palmprint.gif
When real experts — and not buff hobbyists — examined the photos, they determined they were genuine.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
Of course, Marina said she took them, but of course if her testimony is inconvenient, you’ll call her a liar.
But if the devil himself took them, the rifle still has a distinctive gouge in the forestock that matches the rifle recovered in the Depository.
McAdams,
I never claimed Marina was lying. I am saying she suffered from the Stockholm Syndrome as was brainwashed by her captors.
Day could have lifted that print off of anything that Oswald had touched; boxes in the warehouse, a doorway, his own Day’s own desk during interrogation… The point being that Day is a prime suspect as part of the plot to frame Oswald.
As far as the photo of Oswald with a rifle over his head, it was seen by no one other than Marina and Oswald’s mother. It cannot be said to be the same rifle as in the back yard photo’s, it cannot be said to be Oswald in his Black Bart outfit, it cannot be said to be Oswald wearing a 38 in a holster on his hip — it cannot be proven to be part of that infamous sequence of backyard photo’s.
“When real experts — and not buff hobbyists”~McAdams
Yea like the “real expert” cops that couldn’t manage a proper crime scene investigation. Or real doctors who couldn’t manage a proper autopsy. Or real Secret Service Agents that could properly protect the President.
Go “buff” your shoes.
\\][//
But she has not, to this day, recanted any of the key testimony she gave the Warren Commission: Oswald told her he shot at Walker, he told her he had been to Mexico City, she took the Backyard Photos, etc.
This in spite of being persuaded by buffs in the 1980s that there was a conspiracy.
No, the print contained the impression of the irregularities of the metal of the rifle barrel. Further, Day told the FBI guy that the print was on the rifle (see the link above).
Only on the basis of the fact that he’s very inconvenient for you folks.
Right. Since they destroyed it. But I thought you said the Backyard Photos were faked. Did they find a fake one on the evening of the assassination and destroy it?
So, to evade the fact that bona fide photo experts authenticated the Backyard Photos, you bash the autopsy doctors and Secret Service.
That’s the normal thing you do, eh? When cornered on the evidence, bash somebody in an irrelevant statement.
“Right. Since they destroyed it.” — John McAdams
Mrs. Oswald. NO. NOW I HAVE TO GO INTO THIS. I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT DESTROYING THE PICTURE. (emphasis mine) While there, Marina–there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with [hits] of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now, that didn’t burn completely, because it was heavy–not cardboard–what is the name for it–a photographic picture. So the match didn’t take it completely.
Mr. RANKIN. HAD YOU SAID ANYTHING TO HER ABOUT BURNING THE PICTURE BEFORE THAT?
Mrs. OSWALD. NO, SIR.
and in case you missed it, Jean Davison has corrected her assertion so perhaps you might as well?
“Ms. Sharp is correct, and I acknowledge this error. It was Marina who testified that Oswald’s mother told her to get rid of it. Marguerite herself indicated only that she didn’t want the police or Robert to see this photo and that she was present when Marina burned it in an ashtray.
They clearly described the same photo: Oswald holding a rifle over his head and an inscription on the back “To my daughter June.” (Marina’s version was “For my daughter June.”)
My apology to all for this error.” — Jean Davison
“So, to evade the fact that bona fide photo experts authenticated the Backyard Photos, you bash the autopsy doctors and Secret Service.” ~McAdams
It is obvious here that by your logic the only bona fide experts in this case, are those chosen by the government to give their opinions.
What do you know about the art of fingerprints, and the forensics of lifting and analysis of them? Are you an expert yourself?
What do you know about photography and the forensic analysis of them> Are you an expert yourself? I have been an expert in film and photography my entire life. I can see the anomalies in the backyard photos myself, and I consider them to be clearly fakes.
The Prime directive of the Secret Service is to protect the President. These “experts” lost a President on 11/22/1963. Was this on purpose? Were some of the leadership of this detail part of a conspiracy to allow the President to be killed? You’ve got two choices there McAdams, they fk’d up, or they allowed it to happen.
And lastly anyone who knows forensic pathology KNOWS that the JFK autopsy was a disaster from beginning to end. It was prosecuted by two general pathologists who had never done an autopsy of a murder by firearms. WHY the hell was this allowed to happen McAdams? With all of the qualified forensic pathologists in the nation at that time__how did this travesty take place?
Happenstance and coincidence is all you can come up with here McAdams, because the aggregate of the evidence clearly defines a burlesque produced by ‘EXPERTS’ of deception; the US Intelligence services.
\\][//
Because Burkley believed that the autopsy needed to be done at a military facility, for security purposes.
He let Jackie pick, but prodded her with “Jack was a Navy man.” And she said, “of course. Bethesda.”
Read Manchester.
When you are dealing with people who don’t know much, your “How did this happen!!??” routine works well.
With people who do, not so well.
“Because Burkley believed that the autopsy needed to be done at a military facility, for security purposes.”~McAdams
So what? Just because the autopsy was to be at Bethesda does not necessitate using only Bethesda personnel. Real forensic pathologists could have been called on from any of the military hospitals in the region.
You are making up excuses that make no rational sense. Expedience cannot be the sole determinant in such a case, quality is the most important determinant.
It is clear that the conspirators wanted a situation wherein they could determine the outcome by rank and coercion.
Two inexperienced general pathologists are the perfect choice for such pressures to be applied to.
McAdams lacks empathy. By that I do not mean ‘pity’, I mean the ability to put himself in the “shoes of another”, to be able to think in terms of another. Such as the imagination to think like a conspirator. It is either that or he is utterly disingenuous. And I just might put my money on the latter,
\\][//
Earlier in my participation on JFK Assassination forums, I would receive PMs from Gary Mack on a forum where he was a silent
member. He had PMd me in response to a post I had made on another topic, and I asked him about his knowledge of this man. Gary ignored the question, fwiw.
“My orders were to find the cause of death and I was told to get anyone I thought necessary to help do the autopsy, but to limit it to only the help I needed. Hell, I could have called in people from Paris and Rome if I thought it necessary, but as it turned out, I didn`t. About this time, I also received a phone call from Dr. Bruce Smith, the deputy director of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, offering me whatever help I might need. Bruce was a friend and I thanked him, saying I would call later if I needed help.”
~ Adm. Edward Kenny
Thanks for the link Tom, does this really make any sense to you? I still don’t get it! Adm Kenny’s own friend offered help, but he went with these inexperienced general practitioners.
It doesn’t make any sense, unless there was pressure put on to use these inexperienced stooges for a particular reason.
What was the rush?
\\][//
Actually, one was. But Finck was called in late and relegated to a marginal role.
The simple reality is that nobody in the Kennedy entourage understood the need for a forensic autopsy.
You can huff and puff all you want, but nothing about that proves a conspiracy.
“But she has not, to this day, recanted any of the key testimony she gave the Warren Commission[.]”
She has stated, on more than one occasion, that she doesn’t think her late husband killed JFK. Whether that counts as recanting her testimony or not, that’s a fact, as opposed to your, shall we call it, Factoid.
Not to mention that certain WC members were, shall we say, less than convinced that she was a reliable witness.
Not to mention that James Hosty (remember him, the FBI agent to whom Oswald wrote that flushed-down-the-crapper letter about which the substance of said letter Hosty’s 1970s era testimony is Sacred Writ according to you) thought Marina was a Soviet sleeper agent.
But then she’s not the only canary to sing an alternate tune in the long history of this case.
That’s her opinion, based on what she has been told.
But she has continued to insist that she took the Backyard Photos, that Oswald told her he shot at Walker, that Oswald told her he had gone to Mexico City, etc.
Do you believe that to be true? And if so, does it mean you think the Soviets conspired to kill Kennedy?
@ John McAdams:
“That’s her opinion, based on what she has been told.”
Really? Care to make that a bit more coherent? Tee many martoonis, Professor?
“But she has continued to insist that she took the Backyard Photos, that Oswald told her he shot at Walker, that Oswald told her he had gone to Mexico City, etc.”
And she’s to be believed when it’s convenient for your scenario of what happened, and disbelieved when it contradicts said scenario.
Why don’t we settle for what any ADA would conclude? SHE’S COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE. Some statements seem more believable than others, but nothing can be trusted on its face, however much we might want to believe.
My comment here: “Not to mention that James Hosty (remember him, the FBI agent to whom Oswald wrote that flushed-down-the-crapper letter about which the substance of said letter Hosty’s 1970s era testimony is Sacred Writ according to you) thought Marina was a Soviet sleeper agent.”
The Good Prof here: Do you believe that to be true? And if so, does it mean you think the Soviets conspired to kill Kennedy?
I think it’s quite possible she was some kind of Soviet plant, though obviously any such function (of an undoubtedly drab and mundane variety) she might have served ended on 11/22/63, at which point she became radioactive. As to your supposition that believing she might have been a Soviet plant equates believing the Soviets conspired to kill JFK, please, belief in the former does not equate to belief in the latter, though thank you for showing the desperate stretches of supposed logic you Lone Nut Buffs like to indulge in. Far more likely that any conspiracy came from the mucky underworld of the anti-Castro paramilitary infrastructure.
She is to be believed on her testimony on factual matters of which she has firsthand knowledge.
Her opinions on things about which she lacks first hand knowledge are no better than anybody else’s.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
\\][//
You might notice that after Jean whining about no one ever explaining how Oswald was made into a patsy, now that I did explain it … not a peep out of her or her handler McAdams. But you know, “Lee was a liar that left his wedding ring so no one would realize he was married and wouldn’t bother Marina after he shot the president…and gawd what a nut this guy was…blablabla…”
It’s like these people write gossip stories for PEOPLE Magazine; pure junk.
And then Bill Clarke with his “I KNOW WHAT KENNEDY WAS THINKING BY GOD!!!”
And worst of all, DOCTOR DEMENTO, Photon the blithering bouncing partyhead, “Look boss, it’s the neck, the NECK!!”
Hey suce de frickin’ keeyryst!!!
\\][//
“You might notice that after Jean whining about no one ever explaining how Oswald was made into a patsy, now that I did explain it … not a peep out of her or her handler McAdams.”
Baloney. No one tells me what to do. Do you always believe anything your suspicion tells you, Willy?
I didn’t respond right away because you haven’t come close to explaining how Oswald was framed.
“At this point, the counter intel group that has been penetrated realizes the penetrating org is being tipped off by Oswald of this plot to kill JFK. This is the point at which it is decided by the higher echelon plotters to keep Oswald in place, and use him as the patsy in their plot. Oswald is maneuvered into place from New Orleans to Dallas where deM and the White Russian milieu surrounds, absorbs, and directs his fate.”
DeM wasn’t even living in Dallas when Oswald returned, and he wasn’t seeing the Russians at that point, either. He didn’t like them and the feeling was mutual.
“Of course this is where the Paine’s come into Lee and Marina’s life, and the final leg of placing Oswald in the building on the obvious route to the Trademart, the obvious venue for a speech by JFK, who was being manipulated into place concurrently with the manipulation of the patsy.”
Again, no evidence against these people, just guilt by accusation. Was Linnie Randall “manipulated” into mentioning the TSBD when Ruth told her Oswald was looking for a job? Was it also just a coincidence that her brother Wesley was already working there?
After these plotters “manipulate him into place,” do they order him to take his rifle to work? If not, how do you suppose the M-C linked to LHO get there? Why was he near the back stairs just after the shooting? Following orders there, too?
You haven’t come close to showing how Oswald was framed, but answering those questions would at least be a start.
“After these plotters “manipulate him into place,” do they order him to take his rifle to work? If not, how do you suppose the M-C linked to LHO get there? Why was he near the back stairs just after the shooting?”~Jean Davison
There is no proof whatsoever of Oswald taking a rifle to work.
Oswald was near the lunch room at the soda machines during the shooting. He was already eating his lunch in the Domino room, the lunch he brought in that paper sack.
The evidence as to the Paine’s involvement in intelligence is sound. That Ruth had a relative working in the TBDB is not coincidence at all. The TBDB is part of the Intelligence milieu itself.
Your attempt to disassociate deM from Oswald is simply silly.
\\][//
Willy,
“After these plotters “manipulate him into place,” do they order him to take his rifle to work? If not, how do you suppose the M-C linked to LHO get there? Why was he near the back stairs just after the shooting?”~Jean Davison
There is no proof whatsoever of Oswald taking a rifle to work.”
That’s not what I asked you, Willy. Please read it again.
“Oswald was near the lunch room at the soda machines during the shooting.”
He was seen by Truly & Baker near the back stairs c. 90 seconds after the shots. Mrs. Reid next saw him coming from that direction with a “full” bottle in his hand, she said. Did he just happen to go up for a drink at the same time reenactments showed the sniper would’ve been there after leaving the SN?
“He was already eating his lunch in the Domino room, the lunch he brought in that paper sack.”
A bag about 27″ long? Loaf of French bread maybe? Linnie Mae reported the bag to police because she’s in on it too, right? Isn’t it strange that Oswald was one of the few workers who didn’t bother to watch JFK drive by?
“The evidence as to the Paine’s involvement in intelligence is sound. That Ruth had a relative working in the TBDB is not coincidence at all. The TBDB is part of the Intelligence milieu itself.”
I hope you’re keeping count of the number of people involved in framing Oswald. You may need a calculator.
“Your attempt to disassociate deM from Oswald is simply silly.”
I wouldn’t want to do that — deM had one of the backyard photos with Oswald’s signature on the back. (I know, “fake, fake, fake…”) George de Mohrenschildt left Dallas in April. You placed him there at the wrong time, that’s all.
Jean,
FWIW :
“I hope you’re keeping count of the number of people involved in framing Oswald. You may need a calculator.”~Jean Davison
I don’t think there is any profit in counting the numbers, but more in naming names and pointing to their connections.
I gave you a general outline of how Oswald was framed.
You have responded with the same innuendos that defines your trademark MO. But we have argued all these points in detail countless times.
Your “reenactments” don’t prove anything.
For example, if deM was involved in setting up Oswald, why would it be out of the question that he would have a forged photo of Oswald with a rifle in his “Black Bart” outfit? “Hunter of Fascits” indeed…
You have zero proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor firing a rifle.
We have more proof of malfeasance, broken chains of custody, and motives of those who set him up than anything you apologists for the National Security Ghouls have been able to cobble together.
\\][//
Jean:
So someone who is seen in the vicinity 90 seconds after a shooting, you call that evidence that Oswald was the shooter?
I’m sorry, that is plainly ludicrous and typical of LN definition of “evidence.”
If this were a rural farm, that might hold some weight, but this was a crowded workplace in a city at the time of a parade. Heck, the shooting was an industrial building with numerous places to hide and lots of people walking around.
Evidence that Oswald was the shooter is just that. There just isn’t any, beyond, well, “we don’t suspect anybody else there, so it had to have been him.”
Thanks, Tom, but Oswald left Dallas on April 24th (filled out an application in New Orleans two days later.) Oswald wasn’t in Dallas when the deM’s returned in May.
“I gave you a general outline of how Oswald was framed.”
You did no such thing, Willy. You evaded almost all my questions.
“You have responded with the same innuendos that defines your trademark MO.”
What “innuendos”?
“But we have argued all these points in detail countless times.”
No, you’ve criticized the WC’s explanation of the evidenc for 50 years without ever providing an alternative.
“For example, if deM was involved in setting up Oswald, why would it be out of the question that he would have a forged photo of Oswald with a rifle in his “Black Bart” outfit? “Hunter of Fascists” indeed…”
Good, you’ve given your explanation for the signed photo: yet another fake. No wonder you don’t want to count how many people had to be involved, how much evidence had to be faked, how Oswald’s own actions must be explained as coincidence or “following orders.” We never hear that story because it’s ludicrous.
Oswald’s mother testified that Marina showed her a photo of her son holding a rifle and that she advised Marina to get rid of it. Your explanation is what?
Speaking of “innuendos”:
“…you apologists for the National Security Ghouls….”
Real classy, Willy.
Paulf,
“So someone who is seen in the vicinity 90 seconds after a shooting, you call that evidence that Oswald was the shooter?”
If that were all of it, of course not. I’m talking about ALL the evidence that makes him look guilty. Not just one thing,but many things that point in the same direction.
Oswald wasn’t just “in the vicinity,” he was near the sniper’s probable escape route c. 90 seconds after the shooting. Several people have reenacted this, not just the WC. The stand-in sniper also got to the second floor within 90 seconds, without even running.
Even that might be written off as a coincidence, but the murder weapon’s serial number was traced to Oswald’s P.O. box… that still doesn’t look suspicious to you?
“If this were a rural farm, that might hold some weight, but this was a crowded workplace in a city at the time of a parade. Heck, the shooting was an industrial building with numerous places to hide and lots of people walking around.”
The building was searched and there were very few people walking around. Most either went outside for the motorcade or were watching it from a window.
None of them were suspects because there’s zero evidence against them.
Jean, again, the evidence you cite is negative. There is no positive evidence Oswald was there, you just think you eliminated everyone else. That might work in the court of public opinion, but would not stand scrutiny In a trial.
And no, the weapon was never really traced to Oswald. That has been proffered, but it’s another piece of ginned up evidence that has never been established.
‘Oswald’s mother testified that Marina showed her a photo of her son holding a rifle and that she advised Marina to get rid of it. Your explanation is what?’ – Jean Davison
Jean, can you identify where in Marguerite Oswald’s testimony she indicates that she advised Marina to ‘get rid of it’?
MRS. OSWALD: ‘ . . . Now, gentlemen, this is some very important facts. My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian, “Mamma.” she says. So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said, “Mamma, I show you.” She opened the closet, and in the closet was a lot of books and papers. And she came out with a picture a picture of Lee, with a gun. It said, “To my daughter June”-written in English.
I said, “Oh, Marina, police.” I didn’t think anything of the picture.
Now, you must understand that I don’t know what is going on on television–I came from the jailhouse and everything, so I don’t know all the circumstances, what evidence they had against my son by this time. I had no way of knowing. But I say to my daughter, “To my daughter. June.” anybody can own a rifle, to go hunting. You yourself probably have a rifle. So I am not connecting this with the assassination–“To my daughter, June.” Because I would immediately say, and I remember–I think my son is all agent all the time no one is going to be foolish enough if they mean to assassinate the President, or even murder someone to take a picture of themselves with that rifle, and leave that there for evidence. . . . She says, “You take, Mamma.”‘ “Yes, Mamma, you take.” I said, “No, Marina. Put back in the book.” So she put the picture back in the book. Which book it was, I do not know.
(continued)
(continued)
testimony of Marguerite Oswald before the Warren Commission:
{MRS. OSWALD} ‘ . . . So the next day, when we are at the courthouse this is on Saturday-she–we were sitting down, waiting to see Lee. She puts her shoe down, she says, “Mamma, picture.” She had the picture folded up in her shoe.
Now, I did not see that it was the picture. but I know that it was, because she told me it was, and I could see it was folded up. It wasn’t open for me to see. I said, “Marina.” Just like that. So Robert came along and he says, . . .
“Robert” I said, “No, no Marina.” I didn’t want her to tell Robert about the picture. Right there, you know. That was about the picture.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever tell her to destroy the picture?
Mrs. Oswald. NO. NOW I HAVE TO GO INTO THIS. I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT DESTROYING THE PICTURE. (emphasis mine) While there, Marina–there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with [hits] of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now, that didn’t burn completely, because it was heavy–not cardboard–what is the name for it–a photographic picture. So the match didn’t take it completely.
Mr. RANKIN. HAD YOU SAID ANYTHING TO HER ABOUT BURNING THE PICTURE BEFORE THAT?
Mrs. OSWALD. NO, SIR. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina’s shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine’s home. She said–I testified before “Mamma, you keep picture.”
And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. AND WHEN I REFUSED IT, THEN SHE DECIDED TO GET RID OF THE PICTURE. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet.
Mr. RANKIN. In regard to the photograph, I will show you some photographs. Maybe you can tell me whether they are the ones that you are referring to. Here is Commission’s Exhibit 134.
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture.
Mr. RANKIN. And 133, consists of two different pictures.
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture. He was holding the rifle and it said, “To my daughter, June, with love.” He was holding the rifle up.
Mr. RANKIN. By holding it up, you mean—-
Mrs. OSWALD. Like this.
Mr. RANKIN. Crosswise, with both hands on the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. With both hands on the rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. Above his head?
Mrs. OSWALD. That is right.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see these pictures, Exhibits 133 and 134?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, I have never seen those pictures.
Marguerite Oswald has been ridiculed and dehumanized for decades while Ruth Paine has been elevated to the role of a duped saint.
consider the following from her testimony:
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir–the 22d, Friday, the 22d.
I am worried because Lee hasn’t had an attorney. And I am talking about that, and Mrs. Paine said, “OH, DON’T WORRY ABOUT THAT. I AM A MEMBER OF THE CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AND LEE WILL HAVE AN ATTORNEY, I CAN ASSURE YOU. (emphasis mine) I said to myself BUT WHEN? Of course, I didn’t want to push her, argue with her. But the point was if she was a member of the Union, why didn’t she see Lee had an attorney then . . .
Mrs. OSWALD. Mrs. Paine . . . gave Marina $10. . . . I said, “You know, I do want to get paid for the story, because I am destitute, and here is a girl with–her husband is going to be in jail, we will need money for attorneys, with two babies.” She said, “you don’t have to worry about Marina. Marina will always have a home with me BECAUSE MARINA HELPS.
Marguerite continues. . . “Now, Mrs. Paine speaks Russian fluently. “She helps me with my Russian language. She BABYSITS FOR ME AND HELPS ME WITH THE HOUSEWORK and you never have to worry about Marina. . .
“Now, . . . Mr. Paine does not live here. So it is just the two women. So Mrs. Paine didn’t “GRACIOUSLY” {emphasis mine} do anything for Marina, as the paper stated–that Lee never did pay Mrs. Paine for room or board. Mrs. Paine owes them money. That is almost the kind of work that I do, or the airline stewardesses do . . . MARINA WAS EARNING HER KEEP, AND REALLY SHOULD HAVE HAD A SALARY FOR IT — what I am trying to say, gentlemen, Mrs. Paine had Marina there to help babysit with the children, with her children-if she wanted to go running around and everything. So actually she wasn’t doing my son or Marina the favor that she claims she was doing. . . .“
Might a class prejudice have played out before the Warren Commission and the press? Ruth Paine, the erudite daughter of East Coast establishment never held to account. Yet it’s clear from this testimony Marguerite Oswald was a savvy woman who had struggled to survive and took very seriously the protection of her grandchildren and daughter in law during the ensuing chaos of her son’s arrest. She recognized the conditions under which Marina was ‘welcome’ in the Paine’s home. She knew that Marina was ‘employed’ and working out her living arrangements in exchange for wages. The lies and half truths that Ruth Paine was a benevolent friend have been propagated for far too long. One even has to wonder if she might have been held legally liable for taxes relating to Marina?
You mean aside from his palmprint on the rifle.
And his fingerprints on the trigger guard.
And the Backyard Photos, which show Oswald with the same rifle. A distinctive gouge on the forestock is a “random patterning” sufficient to match the rifle in the photos to the one discovered in the Depository.
And then there is the paper trail linking Oswald to the Klein’s order.
But you think all this is faked or forged, right?
Paulf , the rifle had Oswald’s palm print on an area that could only come in contact with human skin if it was disassembled .
The rifle buttplate had fibers from Oswald’s shirt.
The bag that Oswald brought into the TSBD that held the disassembled rifle had fibers from the blanket that he stored it in at the Paine’s.
He was photographed holding the same weapon by his wife.
The money order he used to purchase it has been recently proven to be genuine -by CTers.
If it walks like.a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck it ain’t no hippopotamus .
Re this:
“Jean, can you identify where in Marguerite Oswald’s testimony she indicates that she advised Marina to ‘get rid of it’?”
Ms. Sharp is correct, and I acknowledge this error. It was Marina who testified that Oswald’s mother told her to get rid of it. Marguerite herself indicated only that she didn’t want the police or Robert to see this photo and that she was present when Marina burned it in an ashtray.
They clearly described the same photo: Oswald holding a rifle over his head and an inscription on the back “To my daughter June.” (Marina’s version was “For my daughter June.”)
My apology to all for this error.
Well the clear implication of what Marguerite told Marina was that it would be better if the photo were destroyed — although the former tried to argue to the WC that if proved nothing.
“Well the clear implication of what Marguerite told Marina was that it would be better if the photo were destroyed — although the former tried to argue to the WC that if proved nothing.” — John McAdams
How very predictable of you John. The only thing clear is what Marguerite said under oath; that she did not tell Marina to burn the photo let alone tear it into bits.
In fairness to Jean Davison, her acknowledgment is all the more significant because she so seldom makes mistakes when referencing specific detail. My dispute with her has long been her subjective interpretation of data which by the way she has included in her ‘apology’ response. Now you insert your interpretation of what Marguerite really intended as well, in spite of the fact she testified under oath otherwise. If one is going to speculate, why not speculate why Marina would have implicated Marguerite? She knew that she had burned the photo on her on volition and may well have realized the implications so better that her mother-in-law (sadly the only person standing between Marina, the authorities, and the circumstances she found herself in) take on the legal burden of destroying potential evidence? We know from testimony that Marguerite stood firmly between Hart Odum and Marina that evening, for instance. We know that she argued for financial support to take care of the infants immediately. This not the behaviour of ‘a deranged woman’ and I would posit your “hatred” of Oswald’s mother fuels and informs your purely subjective interpretation of what she meant when she testified.
It’s a continuing pattern with this guy.
The JFK assassination prologue and aftermath was a post-graduate dissertation entitled “Consistency in Making Mistakes”.
To avoid being accused of the self-serving term “contextomy”, allow me to state Forrestal’s comment was not made regarding the JFK assassination, but the concept within the statement is valid in most all comedies of error that the government can’t seem to prevent from happening repeatedly (the attack on the Maine, the attack on the Lusitania, the attack on Pearl Harbor, FBI foreknowledge of WTC ’93 and 9/11, etc.)
theNewDanger,
I appreciate your commentary here, but you surely know you are speaking far over the heads of our unimaginative adversaries on this thread. They seem to have this mental block based on Coincidence Theory, that leaves their minds in a little locked box inside their heads.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 17, 2015 at 6:28 am
“And then Bill Clarke with his “I KNOW WHAT KENNEDY WAS THINKING BY GOD!!!”
Why Willy, you’ve been telling me what Jack was thinking ever since I’ve been here. And you’ve been wrong ever since I’ve been here. So don’t get so high and mighty with me.
I don’t believe I said that; I believe I said JFK was not stupid, he knew what his troops were doing in Vietnam. Even though he lied about it.
“he knew what his troops were doing in Vietnam. Even though he lied about it.”~Bill Clarke
This is fudging ridiculous! HOW to you know that? Are you a mind reader?
It sort of, kinda, in a way, seems like the ONLY possibility here.
Where as my views on Kennedy’s thoughts come straight from his mouth in no uncertain terms.
So what are you going to do here Clarke? Do you intend driving your jalopy all the way to the center of the earth? You’ve already blown a head gasket and your timing belt is shot…
\\][//
“I am delighted to come to Harlem and I think the whole world should come here and the whole world should recognize we all live right next to each other, whether here in Harlem or on the other side of the globe. We should be glad that Castro and Khrushchev came to the United States. We should not fear the twentieth century, for the worldwide revolution, which we see all around us is part of the original American Revolution.”~John F. Kennedy (1960 at the Hotel Theresa)
\\][//
Bill Clarke,
This is how much control Kennedy felt he had over the CIA, as far back as 1961.
So your trite interpretation of the way it is supposed to work, as to how it actually works in the real world is shown to be flagrantly naive:
“During the coup attempt, Kennedy called Hervé Alphand, the French ambassador in Washington. He told him that America supported DeGaulle. But he could not vouch for the CIA, because “the CIA is such a vast and poorly controlled machine that the most unlikely maneuvers might be true.” JFK also asked for information on suspected Americans aiding the coup so he could deal with them after. Finally, Kennedy told Ambassador James Gavin that the USA should extend help to DeGaulle in resisting the coup. (In some versions—which Talbot does not explicitly cite—it is stated that Kennedy offered France the use of the Sixth Fleet.) Although he appreciated the offer, DeGaulle declined. But after the calls, Kennedy went public with this support for the embattled French premier.”~Talbot – ‘The Devil’s Chessboard
\\][//
Willy Whitten December 18, 2015 at 8:08 am
“Where as my views on Kennedy’s thoughts come straight from his mouth in no uncertain terms.”
BS. You couldn’t even find an order from Jack to withdraw all of our troops from Vietnam as you virulently claimed. What you rapped about it most certainly did not come from Kennedy’s mouth.
“So what are you going to do here Clarke?”
I think I’ll stop being nice and blow you away again Willy. Here are two email exchanges (from 2004 no less) with Dr. Edwin Moise of Clemson University. He is a noted authority on the Tonkin Gulf incident and has written what I consider the best book on the subject. Dr. Moise freely admits to being of the left so save your “right wing nut” BS for someone else.
AnthonyMarsh wrote in message …
>Can we agree that Eisenhower increased the >number of advisors in South
>Vietnam before JFK came into office? And >that the number exceeded the
> Geneva Accords?
Ed. I believe the answer is yes to both questions, though I would not claim to have rock-solid documentation. Bear in mind that I have never tried to do a serious scholarly study of the 1960-61 period.
> Can you explain to some people here the
> difference between
> pilots and ground combat troops?
LBJ was the first president to send regular U.S. ground combat troops to Vietnam; JFK had not done that. If we take out that word “regular,” the issue becomes more ambiguous. In 1962 and 1963, JFK had Special Forces A-teams in Vietnam, training Montagnard troops and leading them in combat. Were those Special Forces guys “ground combat troops”? My answer would probably vary between “yes” and “well, maybe sort of” depending on what mood I was in on any given day. I don’t think there would be any days when I would give a simple “no.” Ed Moise
And again for Willy.
________________________________________________________
I can’t quite agree with this. Kennedy did take the United States to war in Southeast Asia. When he came into office, there were less than a thousand U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam, and they were just advisers. When he died there were over fifteen thousand there, and they
were conducting combat operations. A pretense was maintained that they
were still just advisers, but this was just a pretense. U.S. Air Force
pilots were flying bombing missions; U.S. Army and Marine helicopter
pilots were flying combat missions both in troop-transport helicopters and
helicopter gunships; U.S. Army Special Forces troops were commanding and
leading locally recruited CIDG units in ground combat.
Kennedy did reject some proposals to take the United States to war on a larger scale, but that does not mean he did not take the United States to war at all.
He also initiated the program of paramilitary harrassment against North
Vietnam that eventually, under Johnson, grew into OPLAN 34A.
Ed Moise
Willy Whitten
December 18, 2015 at 1:54 pm
Bill Clarke,
This is how much control Kennedy felt he had over the CIA, as far back as 1961.
Then by god Willy JFK should have done something about it. Like firing en mass.
What an embarrassment for our CIC to state he doesn’t have control of his government.
”[Maxwell] Taylor was soon to recommend that 8,000 American combat troops be sent to the region at once. After making his report to the Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff, Taylor was to reflect on the decision to send troops to South Vietnam: “I don’t recall anyone who was strongly against, except one man, and that was the President. The President just didn’t want to be convinced that this was the right thing to do…. It was really the President’s personal conviction that U.S. ground troops shouldn’t go in.”[4] . . . “Robert Kennedy: His Life and Times” Arthur Schlesinger
“I think I’ll stop being nice and blow you away again Willy.”~Bill Clarke
Lol, “again” you say.
Yes Kennedy should have gotten rid of all the warmonger scum around him…of course you don’t seem to get that is easier said than done. The start he got on firing the most virulent of these fascist was all it took for them to commit a coup d’etat.
There is the greatest likelihood that the Joint Chiefs under the lead of Maxwell Taylor were covertly ordering the buildup you are so convinced Kennedy is responsible for.
What do you do when practically everyone who surrounds you are traitors lying to you?
I know your pat answers to that one Bill. I think you are delusional. Worse than that but there is a certain decorum here that I will of necessity attend to.
\\][//
Bill, yes it’s an embarrassment for the CIC to state such but he was telling the truth. The CIA and MIC were loose cannons running amuck. He did try to do something about it. He fired the top 3 at the CIA and retired 1 in 5. He had previously fired Walker for his insubordination in Germany with the troops. He transferred the head of the JCS to Europe if I remember right. Wasn’t Arleigh Burke of the Navy also replaced? I beleive there were more as well. While some of his replacements were mistakes he couldn’t very well have replaced all of the armed services and maintained National Security .
Willy Whitten
December 18, 2015 at 8:16 pm
“I think I’ll stop being nice and blow you away again Willy.”~Bill Clarke
“Lol, “again” you say.”
Yes, again I say. No need to bring up all the incorrect statements you’ve made about the war but I’ll post my “Best of Willy” I have knocked you, Willy from this;
Willy Whitten
September 3, 2015 at 11:53 am
“I am not the one that made a false claim about what NSAM 263 had to say.”~Bill Clarke
Oh yes indeed you are, those of us here who have dug into this controversy know you are the one who is making false claims. Kennedy was pulling 1000 troops by he end of 1963, and all of them by 1965 – yes, come hell or high water.
\\][//
To this, Willy;
Willy Whitten
November 23, 2015 at 7:01 pm
No I don’t think ALL personnel would have been withdrawn,
\\][//
That must have been painful for you, Willy.
“There is the greatest likelihood that the Joint Chiefs under the lead of Maxwell Taylor were covertly ordering the buildup you are so convinced Kennedy is responsible for.”
And you call me delusional. Show me one thing to support this claim.
Ronnie Wayne
December 18, 2015 at 10:48 pm
“Bill, yes it’s an embarrassment for the CIC to state such but he was telling the truth.”
“He had previously fired Walker for his insubordination in Germany with the troops. He transferred the head of the JCS to Europe if I remember right.’ Wasn’t Arleigh Burke of the Navy also replaced? I beleive there were more as well. While some of his replacements were mistakes he couldn’t very well have replaced all of the armed services and maintained National Security”.
My memory is leaving me but best I remember you are correct on all points. And yes, he got ole “40 knots” Arleigh Burke. I believe JFK got rid of all of them over a period of time except for LeMay. The replacements were picked by Max Taylor with mixed results.
I’m a firm believer in firing a General if he gets a bit too important for the good of the country.
Bill,
Edwin Walker was not fired. He was relieved of divisional command and reassigned, to Hawaii, and resigned in protest.:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19611207&id=njZhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TXQNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3224,1276591&hl=en
“And you call me delusional. Show me one thing to support this claim.”~Bill Clarke
The war in Vietnam.
The full on war prosecuted under Johnson and all the fascist warmongers that came after him.
There is nothing more painful for me than to sit here arguing with fascists in the 21st century. Especially punk soldier boys playing at historian.
\\][//
Arleigh Burke retired after an unprecedented 3 terms as CNO when two terms are distinctly unusual. He was hardly sacked by JFK. The implications of this thread in regard to this individual and his relationship with political authority are simplistic and not accurate .
His nickname was “31 Knot Burke”.
I hade the honor of knowing an enlisted veteran of the Little Beavers. He held Burke in awe. I suspect that JFK did also-he was not one of the armchair admirals who ” went to the Stork Club” but a combat veteran like himself who served in the same theater.Burke himself would never have stayed for a fourth term, as he always believed in opening up billets to create promotion possibilities for good officers.
Bill Clarke, are you disputing this version of events related to Maxwell Taylor?
leslie sharp
December 18, 2015 at 7:18 pm
”[Maxwell] Taylor was soon to recommend that 8,000 American combat troops be sent to the region at once. After making his report to the Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff, Taylor was to reflect on the decision to send troops to South Vietnam: “I don’t recall anyone who was strongly against, except one man, and that was the President. The President just didn’t want to be convinced that this was the right thing to do…. It was really the President’s personal conviction that U.S. ground troops shouldn’t go in.”[4] . . . “Robert Kennedy: His Life and Times” Arthur Schlesinger
Tom S.
December 19, 2015 at 4:29 am
Bill,
“Edwin Walker was not fired. He was relieved of divisional command and reassigned, to Hawaii, and resigned in protest.:”
Thanks Tom. This is one of those I used to know but had forgotten.
There are two ways to fire a general. The nice way where you leave the general with some face saving room. Walker is an example, he could have accepted his new assignment. And the regular old way where you call them in and tell them “you’re fired”. Like Truman did MacArthur (and not a second too soon in my opinion). The bad thing here is Truman didn’t bring him in and supposedly MacArthur heard it through the grapevine. Not good.
When I was in the Army if you were relieved of a command your army career was washed up. They might let you hang around for a bit but usually sooner or later you were gone.
leslie sharp
December 19, 2015 at 1:19 pm
“Bill Clarke, are you disputing this version of events related to Maxwell Taylor?”
No, not at all, Leslie. Although I don’t trust Arthur Schlesinger as far as I can throw him I don’t doubt this account at all. My problem here, as so often it seems, is the bull manure put out by my good friend Willy. Here is what Willy said that is so so wrong;
Willy said; “There is the greatest likelihood that the Joint Chiefs under the lead of Maxwell Taylor were covertly ordering the buildup you are so convinced Kennedy is responsible for.”
In short, Willy thinks Taylor and his boys escalated the Vietnam War without JFK knowing about it. Taylor sent the 7th Fleet and the 7th Air Force to Vietnam and Jack never knew it? There is the greatest likelihood that hell will freeze over before this is true. Excuse me…I’m rolling on the floor again. That Willy cracks me up.
Willy Whitten
December 19, 2015 at 5:45 am
“And you call me delusional. Show me one thing to support this claim.”~Bill Clarke
The war in Vietnam.
“The full on war prosecuted under Johnson and all the fascist warmongers that came after him.”
But we were talking about JFK and Max Taylor. Really about your claim that Max Taylor escalated in Vietnam without JFK knowing it. Show me some evidence Willy.
“There is nothing more painful for me than to sit here arguing with fascists in the 21st century. Especially punk soldier boys playing at historian.”
Call me a punk soldier boy again and you might find something more painful, Willy.
But I know I’ve hurt your feelings by posting the words of Dr. Edwin Moise and your own 180 degree opposite words concerning withdrawal from Vietnam. I assume you don’t wish to reply to either one, both blowing you out of the water.
‘Burke himself would never have stayed for a fourth term, as he always believed in opening up billets to create promotion possibilities for good officers.’ — photon
And Arleigh walked out of military service straight into a plum directorship on the board of Texaco oil company as well as a lucrative business operation with former General George Olmsted whose financial empire set the foundation for the US operation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce the following decade. In the meantime, Burke was fundamental to the structure and success of premier military think tank Centre for Strategic and International Studies. So, as noble an act as moving aside to allow for good officers to advance, Burke certainly did not suffer, and in fact was in a position of even more influence than he had enjoyed as CNO seems to me.
Bill Clarke, I’ve come full circle on the issue of the increase of military personnel in SVN from 700 when Eisenhower left office to 16,500 when Kennedy was assassinated and am at a loss how to proceed. It seems to me this is a critical question to resolve: who actually authorized the increases? Here we have a direct quote from Maxwell Taylor related to 8,000 of those personnel. I’ve contacted the Kennedy Library because the summary page on Vietnam on their website reflects the figures 700 to 16,500, yet no one at the library was able to identify the supporting documents; in fact I was directed to peruse the National Archives rather than look for the documents on links at the library. That is odd imo, that if the library finds it tenable to maintain those claims, they are however not concerned with whether or not there is proof of such numbers. We’ve discussed this before, that perhaps the build up was so slow and steady, the alarm bells did not ring until the Diem disaster began to unfold? But is it possible that Kennedy was not kept apprised on a weekly basis how many were being deployed? And do you think these figures might have included the Navy personnel you reference?
re: Schlesinger. You apparently don’t trust Schlesinger’s direct quote from Maxwell Taylor – and I recognize the debate over Schlesinger’s quote by Robert Kennedy that he and his brother were each fond of Allen Dulles did not involve you – but for the record, it seems Schlesinger is a credible historian to some when his claims suit. Such is the nature of debate I suppose.
‘Personally I like direct quotes, not interpretations. Arthur Schlesinger’s book on RFK says this:’ — Jean Davison
“Allen Dulles handled himself awfully well, with a great deal of dignity,” Robert Kennedy said of the period after the Bay of Pigs, “and never tried to shift the blame. The President was very fond of him, as I was.” — Robert Kennedy and His Times, p. 459
“I don’t recall anyone who was strongly against, except one man, and that was the President. The President just didn’t want to be convinced that this was the right thing to do..”~General Maxwell Tayler
The general said. “that this was the right thing to do.” Tayler and his generals were all convinced that it was the right thing to do, to send ground troops.
And yet this punk soldier boy doesn’t find the the obvious impetus to get rid of the only person standing in the way of “the right thing to do”. Proposing that these generals would do the “right thing” regardless is not in anyway an outrageous proposition.
It simply cries out as exactly what these single minded warmongers would do; go around Kennedy and do it anyway.
Of course by the time of NSAM 263, these traitors realized that Kennedy had out maneuvered them. this National Security Memorandum became Kennedy’s virtual death warrant.
Only the hyper deluded cannot see the validity of this reasoning. It is simply denial in the face of the obvious.
\\][//
‘If something goes wrong, there has to be some nefarious motive behind it. These folks are way too competent to ever mess up.’ — John McAdams
When all else fails, you and those like you who defend the Warren Report resort to “well, after all, humans are flawed and some conclusions may have ‘gosh all gee’ been wrong.” when in fact there is the probability that their failure was part of a compartmentalized operation to cover up a conspiracy to assassinate a sitting president/commander in chief.
Willy Whitten
December 19, 2015 at 5:16 pm
Only the hyper deluded cannot see the validity of this reasoning. It is simply denial in the face of the obvious.
This “Taylor and his boys escalated the war in Vietnam” without JFK knowing it is simply one of the most comical things I have heard lately. I’d put it in for comment of the week but it is a bit off topic.
Willy Rambo; do you have any idea of the logistics involved in the escalation in Vietnam under JFK. Do you really think Taylor could “HIDE” all this activity?
leslie sharp
December 19, 2015 at 5:02 pm
“We’ve discussed this before, that perhaps the build up was so slow and steady, the alarm bells did not ring until the Diem disaster began to unfold? But is it possible that Kennedy was not kept apprised on a weekly basis how many were being deployed?”
Possible but not very probable I think. I don’t think you could move that many men and that much equipment with out the president or his men finding it. We have discussed how difficult it is to find accurate statistics concerning Vietnam. After all these years I’ve decided it is impossible.
“And do you think these figures might have included the Navy personnel you reference?”
Oh yes. And the Air Force boys too. I found an article that claimed (I think) 24,000 Americans in SVN in 1964 and only 15,000 or so were military. So far I can’t find numbers for 61, 62, and 63.
“re: Schlesinger. You apparently don’t trust Schlesinger’s direct quote from Maxwell Taylor”
No, I’ll take both of Schlesinger’s points here. Much of his other stuff I can not.
Listen to Alan Dale’s interview of John Newman at this link:
http://www.jfklancer.com/audioconversations.html
\\][//
““Taylor and his boys escalated the war in Vietnam” without JFK knowing it is simply one of the most comical things I have heard lately. I’d put it in for comment of the week but it is a bit off topic.”~Bill Clarke
It in fact would be simple to trick Kennedy as to what was really going on in Vietnam, as those who were supposed to keep him informed were the ones playing the information tricks.
This is not speculation on my part, this is something that John Newman goes into in detail. The conscious efforts put into keeping the real situation in Vietnam from reaching the civilian leadership in DC.
Of course this is why you disparage Newman, because as a real expert on the history of this subject.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 20, 2015 at 2:07 pm
““Taylor and his boys escalated the war in Vietnam” without JFK knowing it is simply one of the most comical things I have heard lately. I’d put it in for comment of the week but it is a bit off topic.”~Bill Clarke
“It in fact would be simple to trick Kennedy as to what was really going on in Vietnam, as those who were supposed to keep him informed were the ones playing the information tricks.”
This has sunk to a new low level for you. I don’t know if it is your lack of military experience here or simply a lack of good sense on your part but this BS is simply BS. My god Willy!
No one flew to SVN more that McNamara. Was McNamara and his boys “playing the information trick” too? So now I guess McNamara was in on it too. That or you don’t believe McNamara knew what was happening in his own department. Now I don’t like McNamara but I’m betting he knew what was going on in the military.
“This is not speculation on my part, this is something that John Newman goes into in detail. The conscious efforts put into keeping the real situation in Vietnam from reaching the civilian leadership in DC.”
More Newman speculation which does in fact make what you regurgitate from Newman pure speculation.
“Of course this is why you disparage Newman, because as a real expert on the history of this subject.”
I disparage Newman because he is a dishonest man. Most all I read in “JFK and Vietnam” was speculation presented as facts.
“No one flew to SVN more that McNamara. Was McNamara and his boys “playing the information trick” too? So now I guess McNamara was in on it too. That or you don’t believe McNamara knew what was happening in his own department. Now I don’t like McNamara but I’m betting he knew what was going on in the military.”~Bill Clarke
The military was lying to McNamara as well.
Newman documents how this was accomplished.
Documents it with McNamara’s own files, and finally McNamara’s own admission.
Listen to the interview with Alan Dale wherein Newman explains all of this.
Or don’t! Your opinion is of no consequence to me whatsoever.
\\][//
Bill Clarke, are you saying that you accept the escalation figures between 1961 and 1963 without questioning the source of those figures? I’m not arguing they aren’t accurate, I’m arguing that if they were not recorded thru some chain of command how can they be represented as historical fact. Where are the substantiating documents and who signed them?
After this has been established I want to pursue why the John F. Kennedy Library is not a resource for those documents, and if the library is not, why have they accepted the escalation figures out of hand? I have a theory and it’s not a pleasant one.
Willy Whitten
December 20, 2015 at 6:39 pm
“The military was lying to McNamara as well.”
About the progress of the war in itself, yes they lied. I know of no instance in which they lied about how many troops or how much equipment we had sent to Vietnam. Do you. This is so silly Willy.
“Newman documents how this was accomplished.
Documents it with McNamara’s own files, and finally McNamara’s own admission.”
Newman is not to be taken seriously. I’ll give you an example from Newman’s book, page322, “JFK and Vietnam”. This is the basis of his book.
___________________________________________
“Kennedy decided to use Taylor’s and Harkin’ reports of battlefield success to justify the beginning of the withdrawal he was planning.” Italics by Newman.
“Kennedy kept his plan a closely guarded secret, but by March he was determined not only to withdraw—come what may—after 1964, but, if possible, to take a clear step in that direction….”
_________________________________________
“Withdraw come what may”. How grand! Total BS. You wonder why there isn’t supporting evidence for this blooper? There is none and none is listed in the book. No Kenny O’Donnell said Jack told him this, No senator saying Jack told him this. Nothing. Newman pulled it straight out of the air. Pure junk.
leslie sharp
December 20, 2015 at 7:15 pm
“Bill Clarke, are you saying that you accept the escalation figures between 1961 and 1963 without questioning the source of those figures?”
Well yes and no Leslie. Remembering how suspect statistics about Vietnam are to start with I think these numbers are about as good as we’ll get. As for the source, of course I would like to track that down. Last time I tried (when we last discussed this) I didn’t have much luck.
“I’m not arguing they aren’t accurate, I’m arguing that if they were not recorded thru some chain of command how can they be represented as historical fact. Where are the substantiating documents and who signed them?”
I’m with you here. The chain of command is an interesting avenue of attack and if a company or troop of soldiers were sent to Vietnam someone had to sign some papers. The Army moves on its stomach and paperwork.
“The Army moves on its stomach and paperwork.”
So what if one were to work from the bottom up, by state or by Army base i.e. a General in charge of a training base in Georgia. He would get orders to deploy XXX number of personnel from his base, right? That would require paperwork and signatures. Any idea how many Army bases were involved in sending personnel to SVN from 1961-1963? Ft. Dix comes to mind. 15,800 personnel over 33 months (approx) = 480 @ mo. approx. Obviously it would not be an even distribution and there might be months and seasons that twice or three times that number are deployed en masse. It seems to me a good place to start would be the largest Army bases that were equipped to train ‘advisors’. Thinking out loud.
“Withdraw come what may”. How grand! Total BS. You wonder why there isn’t supporting evidence for this blooper? There is none and none is listed in the book. No Kenny O’Donnell said Jack told him this, No senator saying Jack told him this. Nothing. Newman pulled it straight out of the air. Pure junk.”~Bill Clarke
You say it is “pure junk” out of pure desperation. No senator had to tell us that Jack told him anything – Jack told us all what he thought of war for empire. He was opposed to it heart and soul. You are the one who is pulling a trite little story out of thin air.
Who ordered the build up Mr Clarke? As much bluff and bravado as you have spewed here, anyone paying attention knows that you do not know, that you cannot prove that Kennedy knew of the massive build up until it was a fait accompli.
But you insist you are right because you have invested your entire dialog here on these spurious points.
I fell sorry for you Bill.
\\][//
leslie sharp
December 21, 2015 at 3:18 am
I’m afraid starting at the bottom would simply be too large to handle. I bopped into headquarters one morning and the S-1 told me I had come down on orders for Vietnam. I won’t tell you what I said to him but I was the only one in the battalion to come down on orders for Vietnam that day. So we would have to track down a lot of individual records and that would be difficult. There was a name for the order drawing troops out of Fort Hood at the time. This might help but I can’t remember what the order was called.
The combat advisers were trained at Fort Benning (infantry MOS), Fort Knox (armor MOS) and Fort Sill (artillery MOS). Trouble is they sent them all over hell before sending them to Vietnam. Be hard to trace that one.
I wish you good luck and I’ll help you all I can. I’ll get back to work on this too. This has become rather interesting to me.
Willy Whitten
December 21, 2015 at 10:26 am
“Who ordered the build up Mr Clarke? As much bluff and bravado as you have spewed here, anyone paying attention knows that you do not know, that you cannot prove that Kennedy knew of the massive build up until it was a fait accompli.”
This is much like Ronnie Regan and the Contra affair. If the old fart didn’t know he damn well should have known. And again I point out your silliness about this.
11 May 61; In National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 52, President Kennedy approves the deployment of a 400-man Special Forces group to Nha Trang to accelerate ARVN training.
11 August 61; In NSAM 65 Kennedy agrees to support an increase in the ARVN to 200,000 men, if Diem produces a plan for using the forces.
11 October 61; President Kennedy, in NSAM 104, authorizes the introduction of the ‘Air Force “Jungle Jim” Squadron into Viet Nam for the inital purpose of training Vietnamese forces.’ Codenamed “Farm Gate”, detachment 2A of the 4400th Combat Crew Training Squadron departs for its covert mission in Vietnam on November 5th.
22 November 61; In NSAM 111 President Kennedy adopts most of Maxwell Taylor’s “limited partnership” recommendations, but decides not to send combat troops to Vietnam. The U.S. will substantially increase the number of advisors and provide GVN with helicopters and transport aircraft. In return Diem is expected to broaden his government and streamline the military command structure.
31 Dec 61 U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam: 3,205
Bill Clarke, “The combat advisers were trained at Fort Benning (infantry MOS), Fort Knox (armor MOS) and Fort Sill (artillery MOS). Trouble is they sent them all over hell before sending them to Vietnam. Be hard to trace that one.”
If they were deploying “one at a time” it’s a fool’s errand. But School of the Americas makes complete sense and it’s probably fairly easy to track the commander and his subordinates during the time frame, ’61 thru late ’63. How to extract the records? FOIA filed on a federal or state level?
leslie sharp
December 21, 2015 at 7:45 pm
If they were deploying “one at a time” it’s a fool’s errand. But School of the Americas makes complete sense and it’s probably fairly easy to track the commander and his subordinates during the time frame, ’61 thru late ’63. How to extract the records? FOIA filed on a federal or state level?
Bill. I went through all of the NSAM dealing with Vietnam during the term of JFK. Didn’t help much. The 400 Special Force troops is the only one I found that gave the number of troops. One deals with Farm Gate but no numbers here. From the NSAMs I believe it is obvious that Jack knew what was going on. I’ll try again.
Bill Clarke’s comment of December 21, 2015 at 7:42 pm mentions these National Security Action Memorandums:
(NSAM) 52, NSAM 65, NSAM 104, NSAM 111
Every one of these concerns US trainers, ie, “advisers” as well as increases in Vietnamese forces. In every instance with the purpose of getting the Vietnamese up to speed to fight their own war.
We have gone through all of these issues, including these very NSAM’s before. We have gone through all of these arguments before. And never once has Bill been able to prove that Kennedy would be willing to introduce ground forces or escalate the situation in Vietnam into an “American war”.
Clark dismisses the work of John Newman, who has made the most intense and well documented study of the situation of Kennedy and Vietnam yet written. Newman has access to documents that no one had ever accessed before. We are dealing with more than mere opinion with Newman’s works, we are dealing with facts, facts that have been unearthed for the first time. But Mr Clarke discounts all of this and calls Newman “dishonest”.
As we have seen time and again, Clarke considers anyone who disagrees with his amateur historical analyses as “dishonest” which is a euphemism for “liar”. But then Bill Clarke claims to be “humble”…
I cannot take Bill Clarke seriously. I have never been able to. As is the nature of these conversations, it will be up to the individual reader to decide for themselves who they agree with.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 22, 2015 at 5:48 am
Bill Clarke’s comment of December 21, 2015 at 7:42 pm mentions these National Security Action Memorandums:
(NSAM) 52, NSAM 65, NSAM 104, NSAM 111
“We have gone through all of these issues, including these very NSAM’s before. We have gone through all of these arguments before. And never once has Bill been able to prove that Kennedy would be willing to introduce ground forces or escalate the situation in Vietnam into an “American war”.
Er…that would probably be because I’ve never tried since I don’t know what JFK would have done. Neither do you. Hard to prove “what Jack would have done”.
“Clark dismisses the work of John Newman, who has made the most intense and well documented study of the situation of Kennedy and Vietnam yet written.”
In my defense Willy I am not alone in dismissing Newman and his “JFK and Vietnam”. He and his book were roundly booed by the likes of some of the leading historians of the Vietnam War. The Camelot boys draw Newman to their breast since he says what they want to hear; not so much the true historian. Plus I think Newman is a bit of a flake.
“Newman has access to documents that no one had ever accessed before.”
Please; do tell us more.
“We are dealing with more than mere opinion with Newman’s works, we are dealing with facts, facts that have been unearthed for the first time. But Mr Clarke discounts all of this and calls Newman “dishonest”.”
BS Willy. Newman deals not with facts but with speculation he claims are fact. That makes him dishonest.
“As we have seen time and again, Clarke considers anyone who disagrees with his amateur historical analyses as “dishonest” which is a euphemism for “liar”. But then Bill Clarke claims to be “humble”…
“I cannot take Bill Clarke seriously. I have never been able to. As is the nature of these conversations, it will be up to the individual reader to decide for themselves who they agree with.”
How serious do you think I take your “Max Taylor escalated Vietnam without JFK’s knowledge”? I realize you think you are a master historian Willy but you are so wrong most of the time that I have to wonder about your lack of common sense. I think most of the people here are above average in intelligence and I think they can determine who is right and who is wrong.
Bill,
My experience influences me to disagree with you about Newman.:
Because of Newman’s research, I located the birth record of CIA agent Tom McCoy’s wife, Priscilla Livingston Johnson.:
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3-g1yJLNZMk/UEoaae5UuCI/AAAAAAAAA0c/b5c3d8NmnRk/s720/USConsularReportsofBirths19101949_187253755.jpg
Bill, you run the risk that further research will confirm that John Newman has done much more than you give him credit for.:
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/listen-in-on-lbj-and-hoover-talk-about-warren-commission/#comment-836269
Rex Bradford : http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8045&p=76301
Or maybe, Bill, you’ve got a reasonable explanation for why so many CIA connected figures* involved themselves in the ’68,
“Clean for Gene” presidential campaign, and when that campaign lagged, and RFK won the California primary….what happened immediately?
*Tom McCoy, his best friend and Clark Clifford law partner, Tom Finney, Larry Merthan spouse of Bill Harvey’s secretary, Rita Chapowicki Merthan……
It seems to me a straightforward test question, is this researcher/commenter/author making “things” more clear or
thickening the murkiness. To his credit, Newman, when he could not solve something that piqued his interest, presented it without spin, in the hope it could be carried further by others. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Further_%28bus%29 )
“ . . . To his credit, Newman, when he could not solve something that piqued his interest, presented it without spin, in the hope it could be carried further by others.” — TomS
This is an example of “good faith” investigation – one that relentlessly and fearlessly poses the questions to bring the Warren Commission Report and subsequent investigations under even more intense scrutiny?
Of particular significance is TomS’ questions related to the history to the George Town Club. Thru the murkiness of this detail which some foolishly dismiss as minutiae at the expense of accurate history, and assuming one is educated in the history: Washington lobbyist Robert Keith Gray was a facilitator of the club on behalf of Park. He had also been an exec of Hill & Knowlton which was later responsible for the public relations of the US branch of Bank of Credit and Commerce in spite of allegations BCCI was involved at the very least on the periphery of Iran Contra and Clark Clifford played his own unique role in that scandal; the murky Franklin abuse scandal also involved the George Town Club … founding president of Franklin Credit Union Larry King who performed at a campaign rally at the Southfork Ranch outside Dallas for Ronald Reagan; the shadow of George H.W. Bush can be detected in each of these episodes. The astute observer can discern the development of the careers – political and private that have shaped our country’s history since November 1963. Determining their direct role in the coup is the challenge.
Weave into this series of national/international events the fact that the US branch of BCCI, fronted by Clark Clifford (and for a brief time his law partner, former Sec of Air Stuart Symington) was established on a foundation built by Ret. General George Olmsted, CEO of First American/Financial General whose board included such DC luminaries as San Antonio native Henry Catto – close friend of George HW Bush when the two were intent on establishing the Republican Party in Democrat stronghold Texas and host in Aspen, CO (while Ambassador to the Court of St. James under Bush) to his boss and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on the eve of Sadam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait; Gen. Olmsted was a long time board member of Bell Helicopter and its financial affiliate Equity Corp (1963), a board member and investor of military contractor Atlas General, and a close business colleague of former Chief of Naval Operations Arleigh Burke who influenced the founding of the military think tank Centre for Strategic and International Studies.
Considering this composite, one of a half dozen similarly stunning networks of individuals, one is forced to confront the implications of the detailed research TomS has compiled related to Priscilla MacMillan who was at best a conspicuous figure in events leading to and following the assassination of President Kennedy. Having assimilated that information, one is then confronted with the implications of a continuity of the coup d’état of 11.22.63.
Tom S.
December 22, 2015 at 5:02 pm
“Bill, My experience influences me to disagree with you about Newman.”
As is your right and I appreciate that we can disagree and remain civil about it. From reading your post I know you are an intelligent fellow with good knowledge of the subject before us. I respect what you have to say although we don’t always agree.
“Because of Newman’s research, I located the birth record of CIA agent Tom McCoy’s wife, Priscilla Livingston Johnson.”
I should have noted that I’ve only read the one book from Newman; “JFK and Vietnam”. After that disappointment I didn’t feel the need to read anymore of his stuff. So I am not as knowledgeable about Newman’s other work as I should be.
“Bill, you run the risk that further research will confirm that John Newman has done much more than you give him credit for.”
Of course. If someone proves this is true I’ll state that I was wrong and apologize to Newman and his fans for being wrong.
I’ll give you an example from Newman’s book, page322. This is the basis of the book. Newman provides no reference for this, no support what so ever. This lack of support for the very basis of the book is very concerning to me as I think it should be to everyone.
_________________________________________
“Kennedy decided to use Taylor’s and Harkin’ reports of battlefield success to justify the beginning of the withdrawal he was planning.” Italics by Newman.
“Kennedy kept his plan a closely guarded secret, but by March he was determined not only to withdraw—come what may—after 1964, but, if possible, to take a clear step in that direction….”
_________________________________________
“To his credit, Newman, when he could not solve something that piqued his interest, presented it without spin.”
I have to disagree here Tom. Looks to me that Newman spun the hell out of the example from “JFK and Vietnam” that I just listed.
Yes, we all know that government officials never make mistakes.
If something goes wrong, there has to be some nefarious motive behind it. These folks are way too competent to ever mess up.
At nearly every juncture, McAdams? Cut the crap. Modus operandi not only applies to multiple crimes, but the commonalities of the semantics within a crime also bare out a modus operandi (not the Wikipedia definition). Either your “how to think about the jfk assassination” agenda is preventing you from seeing it or you’ve gouged out your eyes in blind submission to the script, or maybe both concepts are your modus operandi. Either way, your contra-butions have been fruitless on the topic.
Where the JFK assassination is concerned, they didn’t mess up nearly as often as you folks claim.
But in any extensive, complicated case, there will be a fair number of screw ups.
Look at the LA cops and the OJ case.
The OJ case had nowhere near the level of the “continuity of screw up” as the JFK assassination. It is the continuity that you are flailing at to scatter from being ascertained or don’t understand for yourself. Considering something irrelevant like the OJ case as a proper comparison is legitimizing the opposite of what you don’t seem or are pretending not to understand but is exposing your spirit of simple sabotage (i.e. “intellectual terrorism”).
Your approach (to the explanations of the most important events that have undergone heavy historical revision) is called “purposeful stupidity”. You’ve been teaching and writing it for a while now, so you know better than anyone about its collectivist origins and how it is used against unwitting individuals born into and indoctrinated within the globalist-collectivist surveillance state fishbowl.
The preprogrammed obfuscation was not a case of “a fair number of screw ups” – it was not only deliberate, it was made possible and an absolute certainty by the 360° systemically embedded continuity of screw up/sabotage/”mistakes happen”, exposing the modus operandi that the globalist-collectivists’ “intelligence” community is becoming better known for in destabilizing societies i.e. consistent, systemic incompetence “just happens” and poor investigations should not be interpreted as anything else other than poorly done.
(More about “purposeful stupidity” from the declassified “SIMPLE SABOTAGE FIELD MANUAL” at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/26184/pg26184-images.html or https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/CleanedUOSSSimpleSabotage_sm.pdf; the ContrivanceIntelligenceAgency and its offshoots (i.e. intelligence community; media; academia; globalist-collectivist corporations) profligate these concepts)
No matter who was going to be investigating what was going to be an enormous investigatory effort that would enlist the deliberate continuity of incompetence from within multiple agencies, each agency had already been designed to fail the larger investigations get, especially where their or their unelected board of directors mercenaries’ behavioral (and actual) fingerprints are likely to be identified. This is why LBJ and Hoover wanted to keep the Senate out of the investigatory process; their commission would rely on the same “purposeful stupidity” apparatuses that had the native architecture of plausible deniability, as did the 9/11 Commission.
P.S. Each individual is not “you folks”. Each individual … is individual.
Or the LAPD and the RFK case, for that matter.
It is now is so abundantly clear after 52 years that it was decided that a made up story with Oswald as a patsy was what was best for the country.
I agree with B Binnie that “those powers were wedded to a fixed even before the smoke settled on the angled fence of the GK”.
I also agree with bogman “had Oswald no ties with intel ……we wouldnt be having this conversation right now”.
And yes Jean Oswald did it. At least that’s what the Warren Report said over fifty years ago. That is obviously good enough for you.
MDG,
“And yes Jean Oswald did it. At least that’s what the Warren Report said over fifty years ago. That is obviously good enough for you.”
No, it wasn’t “good enough for me.” That’s why early on I checked many of footnotes in the WR to see if they were accurate just as I checked Mark Lane’s. I wanted to know who was lying to me. That would be Lane. That’s also why I’ve continued to study the case: because I really, really wanted to know who killed the first President I ever voted for.
Don’t assume you can read minds and know what other people are thinking. You are projecting your suspicions onto them, that’s all.
Jean, give us a break. You are referring to the footnotes containing references to testimony derived from leading cross examination? Or the documentation and testimony in the 26 volumes that contradict the findings in the report itself? Or the testimony taken without benefit of adversarial cross examination? Or the testimony of dozens of relevant, reliable witnesses, many of whom were the closest to JFK when his head was blown off? Or the first night evidence of the Zapruder film showing an obvious, immediate shot from the front that was hidden away immediately, to be explained away by “jet effect” nonsense, or some phony neurological reaction? And you dare say Mark Lane deceived you? At least he had corroborating witnesses on video to back his claims. What did the WC have? Why did they not videotape their witnesses. The whole government case is a load of horseshit, and always has been.
A lot can be said about Lane, virtually all of it bad.
Telephone interview where he tries mightily to force Helen Markham to say the shooter did not look like Oswald (she resists):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt
Lane intentionally misleads his readers about the Howard Hunt libel trial:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
Hugh Aynesworth on how Lane distorted witness testimony:
http://web.archive.org/web/20031219051029/http://www.jfkbook.com/chapter_fifteen.htm
Lane’s claims of atrocities by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Anti-war journalist finds them bogus:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smearing.htm
Left wing mag Mother Jones calls Lane “hearse chaser.”
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lane%20Mark/Lane%20Mark%20Citizens%20Commission%20of%20Inquiry/Item%20003.pdf
John McAdams
December 19, 2015 at 10:04 pm
A lot can be said about Lane, virtually all of it bad.
Lane’s claims of atrocities by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Anti-war journalist finds them bogus:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smearing.htm
Neil Sheehan, a very anti-war writer that was in Vietnam during the Kennedy years tore Lane a new one about his dishonest book.
Mark Lane is hardly the only source U.S. atrocities in Southeast Asia.
BBC News – Was My Lai just one of many massacres in Vietnam War? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23427726
Civilian Killings Went Unpunished – LA Times http://fw.to/ChqVkqb
The burden of atrocity: How Vietnam was exposed as a “dirty war” http://www.salon.com/2014/05/02/the_burden_of_atrocity_how_vietnam_was_exposed_as_a_dirty_war/
It’s interesting to note the obvious disdain the LN camp has for Mark Lane. An attorney who has been able to do something they have not – convince the general public the Warren Commission and it’s conclusions were a total sham. Gerald Posner even admitted if Lane had represented Oswald at trial “he would have won an acquittal”.
David Regan
December 20, 2015 at 8:57 am
“Mark Lane is hardly the only source U.S. atrocities in Southeast Asia.”
Very true David. You have two different groups of these sources. One group has done research on the subject and attempts to find the actual facts. We have excellent books on the My Lai tragedy.
The other group does not let the truth interfere with a good story and it seems some creeps think it doesn’t get any better than an atrocity story.
It is in this second group that Lane’s book, “Conversations with Americans” can be found. Along with John Kerry and Jane Fonda’s, “Winter Soldier Investigation” and the works of other dishonest writers.
Lane is a dishonest man.
CONTENTS
PRINT
CITE
In one of the most horrific incidents of violence against civilians during the Vietnam War, a company of American soldiers brutally killed the majority of the population of the South Vietnamese hamlet of My Lai in March 1968. Though exact numbers remain unconfirmed, it is believed that as many as 500 people including women, children and the elderly were killed in the My Lai Massacre.. Higher-ranking U.S. Army officers managed to cover up the events of that day for a year before revelations by a soldier who had heard of the massacre sparked a wave of international outrage and led to a special investigation into the matter. In 1970, a U.S. Army board charged 14 officers of crimes related to the events at My Lai; only one was convicted. The brutality of the My Lai killings and the extent of the cover-up exacerbated growing antiwar sentiment on the home front in the United States and further divided the nation over the continuing American presence in Vietnam.
http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/my-lai-massacre
To propose that this single incident was a gross anomaly is in my view jejune and naive.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 20, 2015 at 3:42 pm
“To propose that this single incident was a gross anomaly is in my view jejune and naive.”
And your view, Willy, is about as worthless as “The View” on TV. The size of the body count of My Lai does in fact make it mostly a “gross anomaly”. Or do you know of another “My Lai” size atrocity? My Lai is now a tourist trap in Vietnam. Do you know of others dealing with atrocities. I don’t think so.
This certainly doesn’t mean there wasn’t numerous other atrocities in Vietnam because of course there was. Best I can tell My Lai was overwhelming the biggest.
These things happen in war, Willy. I’m not using that as an excuse because it certainly isn’t. But if you have your wars you are going to have these problems.
Willy and Bill,
I would consider the Christmas bombing campaign aka Operation Linebacker II as the largest atrocity of the war. As it was policy, it was not an anomaly by any means. Mad killers are not just in the field, the most dangerous ones usually have offices.
Charles,
Willy and I can take it, but please take it easy on Bill C. He was in Nam and is still a Nam-monger/apologist/prevaricator (Kennedy started the Vietnam War, you know). Bringing up Operation Linebacker II could make him cry if he knows anything about it.
I haven’t googled it yet (should have before I started this post), but I believe LbII was one of those “Operations” when I was a senior in high school class of ’72, either the mining of Haiphong Harbor (Paul and Linda McCartney are still crying about that one, and John Lennon’s still cursing.) OR the bombings of Hanoi. All over the States, even in my Southern high school, youngsters under 30 wore black armbands. Man, it was almost like the funeral train of Abraham Lincoln or FDR. We were mourning and p****d. Some of us still are.
“The most dangerous ones (mad killers) usually have offices.” OUCH. I know Bill Clarke had a fit of pique over that one. Willy Whitten’s still laughing. I’m reminiscing about The Good Old Days and those gorgeous, brave hippie chicks and their black armbands.
“But if you have your wars you are going to have these problems.”~Bill Clarke
I have never had MY war Mr Clarke, never engaged in one my entire life.
However you have. Haven’t you.
\\][//
Charles
December 21, 2015 at 12:20 am
Willy and Bill,
“I would consider the Christmas bombing campaign aka Operation Linebacker II as the largest atrocity of the war.”
A good choice. I’d vote for the use of Agent Orange however. Perhaps the 3,000 or so found after TET 68 in Hue killed by the communist. Hard to tell since both sides of the Vietnamese lie like hell about their losses and their kills.
“As it was policy, it was not an anomaly by any means.
True. So was Agent Orange.
Roy W Kornbluth
December 21, 2015 at 1:08 am
Charles,
“Willy and I can take it, but please take it easy on Bill C. He was in Nam and is still a Nam-monger/apologist/prevaricator (Kennedy started the Vietnam War, you know). Bringing up Operation Linebacker II could make him cry if he knows anything about it.”
I don’t have to google Linebacker II to know more about it than you and I haven’t cried since my mother passed away in 1999. While I appreciate your concern for my well being you shouldn’t worry. I didn’t say JFK “started the war”; I said JFK escalated the war. It is very clear that he did so what is the problem.
“The most dangerous ones (mad killers) usually have offices.” OUCH. I know Bill Clarke had a fit of pique over that one.”
Not really Roy. I’m trying to decide how to tell a “mad” killer from just a regular old killer.
“Willy Whitten’s still laughing.” He has a lot to laugh about.
“I’m reminiscing about The Good Old Days and those gorgeous, brave hippie chicks and their black armbands.”
Roy, you old dog you! You and the hippie girls! I think me and you are going to be just right.
Willy Whitten
December 21, 2015 at 2:37 am
“But if you have your wars you are going to have these problems.”~Bill Clarke
“I have never had MY war Mr Clarke, never engaged in one my entire life.”
Perhaps you should have Willy. Combat is a humbling experience. You could use a lot of that. Plus the experience would have taught you how ridiculous it is to think Taylor escalated in Vietnam without the knowledge of JFK.
“However you have. Haven’t you.”
Yes I have, Willy. I was a member of the Americal Division, the one that bought you the My Lai incident.
No question Agent Orange was bad stuff but I would have imagined it was arguable at the time just how toxic it really was. I understand at briefings they used to drink it to demonstrate their confidence in its saftey. Everybody knew what a B-52 does.
There was at least a plausible military purpose to defoliation and a desire to prevail. The Christmas bombing was only persuade the North to return to negotiate a treaty which no side had any intention to abide by. The resulting treaty did not conform to military or political facts on the ground.
The war was over for the U.S. and the North knew it. “Peace with honor” was only a face saving gesture so the U.S. could point fingers at the North when they filled the vacuum created by U.S. withdrawal.
“Perhaps you should have Willy. Combat is a humbling experience. You could use a lot of that. Plus the experience would have taught you how ridiculous it is to think Taylor escalated in Vietnam without the knowledge of JFK.”~Bill Clarke
Your infantile idea that someone would need combat experience to understand history is part and parcel to your entire juvenile conceptualization.
If combat experience is so “humbling” as you claim why are there so many wise ass belligerent veterans of combat? I have met plenty in my life – and those life experiences count for as much as your own.
If you are so exquisitely “humble” why is your commentary here so self righteous and arrogant?
\\][//
Charles
December 21, 2015 at 1:03 pm
I mostly agree on what you say here Charles. No mention of the 3,000 the communist killed in Hue during TET 68? You know that was policy too. So was the assassination of SVN officials. That could run up to 6 or 7,000 per year.
Willy Whitten
December 21, 2015 at 4:29 pm
“Your infantile idea that someone would need combat experience to understand history is part and parcel to your entire juvenile conceptualization.”
The fact that you don’t think a little military service would have kept you from claiming Taylor escalated in Vietnam without the knowledge of JFK is telling on your arrogance. This one is a hoot Willy.
“If combat experience is so “humbling” as you claim why are there so many wise ass belligerent veterans of combat?”
Because you can’t spot a wannabe from a combat veteran, that is why. You were probably talking, at best, to a blanket counter that never got out of Saigon. At worst you were talking to a wannabe that had never seen Vietnam. A little experience here would have helped you Willy. Most times I can visit with these wannabes and spot them in 5 minutes max. They can’t speak the language. If you meet a stranger and he begins telling you war stories then a little red flag should come up.
“I have met plenty in my life – and those life experiences count for as much as your own.”
No, you just think you have met plenty. And hanging dry wall doesn’t compare to combat. That is rather silly, Willy.
Willy, the only form of history taught to soldiers is a type of indoctrination in a perspective that is useful for the maintenance of morale. Anything too intellectually adventurous or imaginative obviously would be too dangerous. An army that begins to think for itself is no longer an army. High school textbooks are no better.
Go to the K school at Harvard and you will see many serving officers up to OF-6 and 7s pursuing graduate degrees. Even their course work and the programs tailored for them only exist in a fairly narrow and circumscribed ideological range.
After retirement things can get pretty interesting. I have been following the public statements Col. Lawrence Wilkerson with interest. At first he was widely regarded as Colin Powell’s unofficial mouthpiece but in the last few years has wandered far off the reservation.
This interview is stunning and overlaps with many areas of Tabott’s book. I dearly wish he would review it because Wilkerson still carries weight in security circles. https://youtu.be/kgig1QVU2lY
So Willy, don’t let the Hooahs get you down.
Bill, the distinction that is important to me is the purpose of an action, not the body count. In war a lot of people die and usually badly. I can forgive or accept many things like Hue or Phoenix as there was a military purpose but Linebacker was pure politics for NOTHING but empty posturing at a significant cost of civilian lives and infrastructure in the north, and B-52 crews for the U.S.
Charles
December 21, 2015 at 6:52 pm
Willy, the only form of history taught to soldiers is a type of indoctrination in a perspective that is useful for the maintenance of morale. Anything too intellectually adventurous or imaginative obviously would be too dangerous. An army that begins to think for itself is no longer an army.
Charles, you keep hanging around Willy and your credibility is going to suffer.
Be advised the only history class the military gave me was a study in past wars with an emphasis on studying the tactics, strategy and leadership that had prevailed in the past. If you want “intellectually adventurous or imaginative” you need to read Willy.
Charles
December 21, 2015 at 7:15 pm
“Bill, the distinction that is important to me is the purpose of an action, not the body count. In war a lot of people die and usually badly. I can forgive or accept many things like Hue or Phoenix as there was a military purpose but Linebacker was pure politics for NOTHING but empty posturing at a significant cost of civilian lives and infrastructure in the north, and B-52 crews for the U.S.”
I’m not so sure every thing we did wasn’t political, Charles. They say war is simply politics out the barrel of a gun and I believe that. Since we were not going to “win” the war in the old sense all we could hope for was to pressure the communist to negotiate. Nixon did bring them back to the negotiating table. At a terrible cost, sure.
Moderator,
I’m begging you to stop Bill Clarke’s broken record that “JFK escalated the “‘”‘war'”‘””, hence that LBJ only continued the SE Asia policy of his predecessor.
A few FACTS:
— 1954, that slacker DDE takes SVN over from the French and makes them our lackey. SE Asia becomes the new place for American officers to practice their criminality. There’s never a shortage of work-allergic Am. military ‘volunteering for duty’ in the new land of easy pickins.
— 1963, up to 16,500 ‘advisors’, CIA-DIA adventurer types just wanting to get out of the house and see what they could steal from the ‘gooks.’ Kennedy very disturbed to find out when Am. dead surpassed 100, and made immediate plans to get all the ne’er-do-wells the hell out. But then, he couldn’t follow through because his brains were shot out in the streets of the state of his successor.
— 1964, troops pouring in, Tonkin, troops pouring in like grains of sand through an hourglass.
— 1965, LBJ inaugurated for the second time, first active combat troops, Marines land at Da Nang. 200,000 soldiers by year’s end. Bombing, chemical weapons, anti-personnel devices begin tentatively, then in earnest. Curtis LeMay, “We are going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.” At Quangngai, 3/4 of the patients from napalm are village WOMEN. NONE of this happened under Kennedy.
— 1966, 400,000 troops.
— 1968, 500,000+.
— 1969, Nixon does the yeoman’s work of getting us out gradually. So the MI Complex does everything they can to get HIM out of office.
— 1973, virtually all out.
All accounts date the Vietnam War from 8-5-1964 to 5-7-1975, nearly 11 years. Notice that’s after the term of JFK. In that time:
— 9,000,000+ active military personnel.
— 2,709,918 in uniform (combat). Average age 19; WWII was 26.
— 58,148 killed, 61% of them before their 21st birthday.
— 3,000,000 SE ASians dead, more than one million wounded.
(cont.)
(cont.)
In Southeast Asia, we dropped 7 to 8 million TONS of bombs, mostly on Vietnam. That’s two to three times more than all the world expended in Europe and Asia in World War Two. That’s a half ton of ordnance per capita, every man, woman, child on little old Indochina. A comparison in density is off the charts. AND JOHN KENNEDY DID NOT DROP A ONE.
Nearly all the American dead came during Johnson’s time, well over 40,000 by 1969. So in 4 of the 11 years of THE REAL WAR (a little over a third of it), LBJ killed 3/4 of our boys in Nam. Nixon killed the other quarter in 2/3 of the war’s time, though he inherited it. That makes a difference.
From Legacies of War, “Land of a Million Bombs,” half of Laos TODAY has unexploded ordnance. 78 million bombs left over from 1973. 34,000 Laotians have been killed by these since then.
I won’t bore y’all with the stories of a thousand My Lais. We bombed and burned this ancient land and its people because they wouldn’t be our slaves. Mohammed Ali put it succinctly why he wouldn’t go: “No Viet Cong ever called me n****r.”
Moderator Tom S.,
Bill Clarke has hundreds of posts of pure dreck, all saying the same misrepresentative falsehood. It’s gumming up the works. Just imagine, as this site is archived, it will be so much harder for anyone to dig through BC’s BS to find the facts.
Roy,
I dropped the last part of your post because you attributed to Bill Clarke what was recently contributed by
commenter Bill, a brief, personal account of meeting JFK. Both Bills provide enough information to satisfy me
they are two distinct contributors to Jfkfacts.org comments.
See Bill’s comment, re: his mother.:
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/ballistics-experts-agree-oswald-lone-gunman/#comment-824542
Yes, let’s shut up dissenting views. We wouldn’t want people examining the archives to have to sort out truth and falsity. We have to decide for them.
Or at least, we buffs need to decide for them.
Roy W Kornbluth
December 22, 2015 at 5:36 am
Moderator,
I’m begging you to stop Bill Clarke’s broken record that “JFK escalated the “‘”‘war’”‘””, hence that LBJ only continued the SE Asia policy of his predecessor.”
Stop whining Roy. It isn’t becoming of you. Now Roy, it is a documented fact that JFK escalated the war in Vietnam when he was president. Not only in raw numbers of troops but also in equipment. I’ve posted references for this on my broken record.
A few FACTS:
— 1954, that slacker DDE takes SVN over from the French and makes them our lackey. SE Asia becomes the new place for American officers to practice their criminality. There’s never a shortage of work-allergic Am. military ‘volunteering for duty’ in the new land of easy pickins.
— 1963, up to 16,500 ‘advisors’, CIA-DIA adventurer types just wanting to get out of the house and see what they could steal from the ‘gooks.’ Kennedy very disturbed to find out when Am. dead surpassed 100, and made immediate plans to get all the ne’er-do-wells the hell out. But then, he couldn’t follow through because his brains were shot out in the streets of the state of his successor.
— 1964, troops pouring in, Tonkin, troops pouring in like grains of sand through an hourglass.
— 1965, LBJ inaugurated for the second time, first active combat troops, Marines land at Da Nang. 200,000 soldiers by year’s end. Bombing, chemical weapons, anti-personnel devices begin tentatively, then in earnest. Curtis LeMay, “We are going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.” At Quangngai, 3/4 of the patients from napalm are village WOMEN. NONE of this happened under Kennedy.
— 1966, 400,000 troops.
— 1968, 500,000+.
— 1969, Nixon does the yeoman’s work of getting us out gradually. So the MI Complex does everything they can to get HIM out of office.
— 1973, virtually all out.
All accounts date the Vietnam War from 8-5-1964 to 5-7-1975, nearly 11 years. Notice that’s after the term of JFK. In that time:
— 9,000,000+ active military personnel.
— 2,709,918 in uniform (combat). Average age 19; WWII was 26.
— 58,148 killed, 61% of them before their 21st birthday.
— 3,000,000 SE ASians dead, more than one million wounded.
(cont.)
Tom S.
December 22, 2015 at 10:12 am
Roy,
I dropped the last part of your post because you attributed to Bill Clarke what was recently contributed by
commenter Bill, a brief, personal account of meeting JFK. Both Bills provide enough information to satisfy me
they are two distinct contributors to Jfkfacts.org comments.
See Bill’s comment, re: his mother.:
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/ballistics-experts-agree-oswald-lone-gunman/#comment-824542
Thanks Tom. I have always used my real name and I am certainly not this other Bill.
John McAdams
December 22, 2015 at 10:38 am
Moderator Tom S.,
Bill Clarke has hundreds of posts of pure dreck, all saying the same disrepresentative falsehood. It’s gumming up the works. Just imagine, as this site is archived, it will be so much harder for anyone to dig through BC’s BS to find the facts.
“Yes, let’s shut up dissenting views. We wouldn’t want people examining the archives to have to sort out truth and falsity. We have to decide for them.”
“Or at least, we buffs need to decide for them.”
In my defense I have posted creditable references time and time again to back up my claim that JFK escalated the war in Vietnam. Willy and Roy; not so much to prove their BS that JFK didn’t know about the escalation going on in Vietnam. That it was Max Taylor, the dirty rascal.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKNSF-328-013.aspx
“Willy and Roy; not so much to prove their BS that JFK didn’t know about the escalation going on in Vietnam. That it was Max Taylor, the dirty rascal.” — Bill Clarke
Bill C. For the record, I believe I was the one that introduced the issue of Maxwell Taylor’s role in what can credibly be argued as escalation from ’61 thru Nov. ‘63 by providing the quote from Arthur Schlesinger’s book on this thread. My purpose is not to prove or disprove Kennedy’s position but to attempt to unravel this bowl of spaghetti. Relying on conflicting interpretations by numerous authors’ accounts of the NSAM’s and other records that reveal how the number of military personnel, advisors, Navy, Air, medical or “ground” combat troops increased from early February, 1961 thru November, 1963 seems to only fuel the debate. Maybe mine is an exercise in reinventing the wheel.
However, thanks for the list of NSAM’s you provided, and I owe a qualified apology to the JFK Library; although they do not link directly to supporting documents from their Vietnam overview claiming the escalation, they do provide the NSAM’s. Then one can wade thru those to begin to understand the trajectory to a limited degree.
NSAM #12: February 6, 1961, ‘Memorandum for General Lemnitzer’, “ . . . It is my recollection that the Vietnam Army now numbers 150,000, and that WE (emphasis mine) are planning to add 20,000 more, making a total of 170,000. . . . ”
This suggests to me that Kennedy was confronted with a hold over policy from the Eisenhower administration.
“Description: This folder contains a memorandum to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Lyman L. Lemnitzer in reference to National Security Action Memoranda number 12 (NSAM 12) discussing the distribution of United States military forces in Vietnam to more effectively combat guerilla warfare.”
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKNSF-328-013.aspx
(apologies if mine is an amateur effort here, but so far, the conflicting interpretations espoused by credible authors do not satisfy, and simply yelling the loudest doesn’t either.)
Next: how many Navy personnel might have been involved in that ship movement?
Tom S.,
Thank you once again for saving me from a real bad embarassment. Also it could’ve given Mr. Clarke more ammo about the sloppy slackertude of this particular CR. I coulda/shoulda found that post myself; it’s in my bookmarks. But then when someone bookmarks so many posts from JFK FActs, it almost defeats the purpose, you know?
I think you, as moderator, are not only indefatigable, but you may be psychic as well, some kind of JFK ESP. Once again, mucho mucho gracias.
Bill Clarke and Tom S.,
I don’t object to BC saying JFK “escalated” something because, sure he did send more “advisors,” whatever they are. I strenuously object to the word “WAR” in this context, which I thought was obvious by my putting about six sets of quotes around it in my first post about this. LBJ’s war, now that was a war. It was different from JFK’s not only in degree (oh boy, how much!), but in kind. If Nam through 1963 was a war, then there is no word for what it was 1965 on. Or if JFK’s war was as big as this three-letter word right here, about 3/16ths of an inch, then LBJ’s war was as big as Biltmore House (it’s big) in Asheville, North Carolina.
Roy W Kornbluth
December 24, 2015 at 11:51 pm
Part 1.
“Bill Clarke and Tom S.,
“I don’t object to BC saying JFK “escalated” something because, sure he did send more “advisors,” whatever they are. I strenuously object to the word “WAR” in this context, which I thought was obvious by my putting about six sets of quotes around it in my first post about this.”
Bombs were falling (American pilots), Armored Vehicles were rolling (American “Advisers” sitting on top (3 killed at Ap Bac), ground combat going on with American “advisers” in the thick of it.
Now I don’t want to offend you with the word “WAR” Roy but if that wasn’t “WAR” I don’t know what the hell is.
Now Roy, I have never claimed that JFK escalated to the degree LBJ did. That would be stupid and we don’t want to be stupid here. But he did escalate.
I’ll post the remarks of Dr. Edwin Moise of the history department of Clemson University. He is an expert on the Tonkin Gulf and other aspects of the war. He is of the left wing but I’ve never found him to be dishonest about the facts. He lets the chips fall. I gave Willy several opportunities to comment on these words but he didn’t do so for one reason or the other. Do me a favor and tell me what a real historian has to say about this. With all due respect Roy, you don’t know much about the war. If you are going to speak of it then please try to learn something about it. Use some references instead of simpy your word. Dr. Moise would be a good place to start.
The words of Dr. Edwin Moise.
part 2.
AnthonyMarsh wrote in message …
A. Marsh. > Can we agree that Eisenhower >increased the number of advisors in South
>Vietnam before JFK came into office? And
>that the number exceeded the Geneva >Accords?
Dr. Moise. I believe the answer is yes to both questions, though I would not claim to have rock-solid documentation. Bear in mind that I have never tried to do a serious scholarly study of the 1960-61 period.
Ed Moise May 13, 2004
Marsh. > Can you explain to some people
> here the difference between pilots and
> ground combat troops?
Dr. Moise. LBJ was the first president to send regular U.S. ground combat troops to Vietnam; JFK had not done that. If we take out that word “regular,” the issue becomes more ambiguous. In 1962 and 1963, JFK had Special Forces A-teams in Vietnam, training Montagnard troops and leading them in combat. Were those Special Forces guys “ground combat troops”? My answer would probably vary between “yes” and “well, maybe sort of” depending on what mood I was in on any given day. I don’t think there would be any days when I would give a simple “no.” Ed Moise
13 2004, 6:02 pm
________________________________________________________
I can’t quite agree with this. Kennedy did take the United States to war
in Southeast Asia. When he came into office, there were less than a
thousand U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam, and they were just
advisers. When he died there were over fifteen thousand there, and they
were conducting combat operations. A pretense was maintained that they
were still just advisers, but this was just a pretense. U.S. Air Force
pilots were flying bombing missions; U.S. Army and Marine helicopter
pilots were flying combat missions both in troop-transport helicopters and
helicopter gunships; U.S. Army Special Forces troops were commanding and
leading locally recruited CIDG units in ground combat.
Kennedy did reject some proposals to take the United States to war on a larger scale, but that does not mean he did not take the United States to war at all.
He also initiated the program of paramilitary harrassment against North
Vietnam that eventually, under Johnson, grew into OPLAN 34A.
Ed Moise
Tom – you have done a great job of moderating – but please reprint my response to Bill Clarke from August 2015 that is still under moderation (after 4 months – why?)
The August 2015 post certainly gives credibility to those insiders who worked with JFK on foreign policy & believed he never would have sent combat troops or bombed Vietnam as LBJ.
R. Andrew,
Thank you, and I cannot explain why your comment was not approved shortly after you submitted it in August.
My guesses are that it appeared to Jeff to include more than 500 words, or it was a lengthy comment that did not include supporting links, or Jeff was pressed for time and thought it was too long to read. I really don’t know, but I will approve it now. Here is a link, https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/roger-hilsman-on-jfks-vietnam-plans/#comment-792355
If you want more timely placement of it, copy it, submit it again, and I will approve the newer comment and disappear the
original.
R. Andrew Kiel
December 25, 2015 at 10:53 pm
Tom – you have done a great job of moderating – but please reprint my response to Bill Clarke from August 2015 that is still under moderation (after 4 months – why?)
“The August 2015 post certainly gives credibility to those insiders who worked with JFK on foreign policy & believed he never would have sent combat troops or bombed Vietnam as LBJ.”
I have never claimed JFK would have done the same as LBJ in Vietnam. I don’t know what he would have done and neither do you. To suggest otherwise is pure speculation. But it seems speculation is very acceptable to some people here.
As Jean has often pointed out, much of this crap about what JFK “would have done” came late in the game, after the war had turned very ugly. Any of them saying this in 1964?
And I assume you do realize that JFK bombed hell out of South Vietnam?
Speaking of Mark Lane, how ironic is it that he was retained by none other than Gerald Posner to represent him in media case against the Miami New Times.
Posner offered his explanation for hiring Lane to defend against allegations about his work. “Although I’m convinced Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy, I’ve always believed that had Mark Lane represented Oswald, he would have won an acquittal. That’s why Mark Lane was the obvious choice as my own attorney.”
Attorney Mark Lane Retained by Author Gerald Posner to Represent Him in Media… — NEW YORK, May 13 … http://prn.to/1QS4bZv
Mark Lane, communicant of the controlled opposition and collaborator of Jim Jones who “went missing” during the Jonestown massacre. Only one thing connects the two – CollectivistInfiltrationAgency.
Bill Hicks Puppet Show – “The Elite”
https://youtu.be/B8IvKx0c19w?t=60
\\][//
Julian Assage said he’ll release them 2016
“…it is my opinion, the information within the files yet to be released is in fact so sensitive, that they cannot be released by 2017 in their current form. They are probably so sensitive, that they can not be released even in 2038…or ever for that matter!
“What if…” what if, everything that they American people have suspected over the past fifty two years, would in fact, only be confirmed by those documents? Can you imagine what implications that would have on our Country?
Let’s face it: Every single, solitary piece of evidence points toward only one conclusion: That the murder of the 35th President, was an orchestrated coup d’etat and cover-up by people on both sides of the aisle! It would’ve had to have been.
Not only that; but every elected official on the Federal level, would either have been, or would be guilty of murder and…treason! they would be accessories either before or after the fact; guilty of withholding evidence of a capital crime, and on and on…
First of all, try to imagine people in front of the White House! People throughout Lafayette Park, all the way past the Washington Monument and Reflection Pond, to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial…and beyond! People everywhere throughout Washington, D.C. protesting their government, demanding change?
I caught one anecdote of LBJ watching Huntley/Brinkley spending a few minutes of air time contemplating a conspiracy scenario. LBJ was heard to mutter, “Keep it up, boys, if you want a revolution” or something to that effect.
That’s what the establishment was truly concerned about – internal strife not nuclear war.
Actually, here’s the story:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-lbjs-home-the-night-after-jfk-died/
And an excerpt:
He started talking back to NBC’s Huntley-Brinkley Report. He was determined that the country should be calm, and whenever the broadcasting duo said something he thought was inflammatory, Johnson would bark: “Keep talking like that and you’ll bring on a revolution just as sure as I’m standing here.”
“Keep talking like that and you’ll bring on a revolution just as sure as I’m standing here.”~Johnson
Yes indeed, a revolution that was needed to make sure that S.O. B. did not remain standing there. Still long overdue.
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”~John F. Kennedy
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 14, 2015 at 2:29 pm
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”~John F. Kennedy”
Well Willy, I guess JFK knew that from his tragic policy of removing (and attempting to remove) governments in foreign countries.
“I guess JFK knew that from his tragic policy” ~Bill Clarke
Yea, guessing, that’s it Clarke. JFK inherited the policies in place when he was elected.
If you want to know his preferred policies read his own words. Enough of your jejune guessing games here.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 15, 2015 at 3:59 am
“I guess JFK knew that from his tragic policy” ~Bill Clarke
“Yea, guessing, that’s it Clarke. JFK inherited the policies in place when he was elected.”
Well Willy, couldn’t the president change a policy he didn’t like? Insert his own new policy?
“If you want to know his preferred policies read his own words.”
The words of a politician mean nothing. It is what he DID Willy that matters.
“Enough of your jejune guessing games here.”
Damn, now I have to look up “jejune”.
“The words of a politician mean nothing. It is what he DID Willy that matters.”~Bill Clarke
It is what he was attempting to do and got cut down before he could accomplish it that counts; because those who cut him down did not want him to accomplish it and take their gravy train away.
You keep trying to pretend that all Kennedy had to do was wave a magic wand to change the direction of a train with such momentum already built up that it would take a superhuman effort to turn around.
Kennedy was vividly clear on his intent, your denial here is utterly disingenuous
If you want to see jejune, just look in the mirror and look straight in it’s face.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 15, 2015 at 4:00 pm
“You keep trying to pretend that all Kennedy had to do was wave a magic wand to change the direction of a train with such momentum already built up that it would take a superhuman effort to turn around.
Kennedy was vividly clear on his intent, your denial here is utterly disingenuous”
You might use your argument to some extent to justify the JFK excuse on the Bay Of Pigs but it would be marginal at best. There is no way you can use your argument on the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem. JFK had around 3 years to handle that one and he handled it badly.
It seems to me that the intent of JFK is rather hard to tie down here; He is trying to make peace with the Soviets but at the same time he allows the BOP to proceed and he escalates sharply in Vietnam. Look at what he did Willy, not what you wish he had done.
If you want to see jejune, just look in the mirror and look straight in it’s face.
Of course the fantasy you write is more thrilling to the Camelot Crowd than the hard fact I write. I have seen you very wrong many times here Willy. I don’t need your opinion.
Kennedy never introduced ground troops to Vietnam Clarke, A simple fact you can never defeat.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 15, 2015 at 9:36 pm
“Kennedy never introduced ground troops to Vietnam Clarke, A simple fact you can never defeat”.
If it is such a simple fact why can’t you get it? I would have more to say here but I don’t want to push my luck with Tom.
I’ll spot you the escalation in total numbers JFK sent to Vietnam. I’ll spot you the 400 Special Forces troops he sent to SVN. I’ll spot you the air crews JFK sent with the air craft and helicopters units. I’ll even give you the 7th Fleet sent by JFK. I know you had rather forget these facts but they don’t go away.
So Willy, JFK sends men to SVN to train ARVN. These men have a combat MOS. Do you know what that means? It means their training and experience has been in the combat arms, not some blanket counter. To train a small combat unit you have to go with them. If you get into a fight you fight with them. Sometimes you die with them.
So if this ground combat trained soldier is killed in combat on the ground how in the hell can you say he wasn’t a ground combat troop? What more can the man do to be declared a ground combat soldier?
I’ve helped you with this before Willy but here goes again. JFK sent ground combat troops to Vietnam as I’ve explained. This joke about calling them “advisers” was common back then. What he didn’t send was intact U.S. Combat Units. It wasn’t necessary during JFK’s time. It became so under LBJ.
“This joke about calling them “advisers” was common back then..”~Bill Clarke
Semantics, that is your argument!
“What he didn’t send was intact U.S. Combat Units. It wasn’t necessary during JFK’s time. It became so under LBJ.”~BC
And just why did LBJ happen to end up as “Commander & Chief” rather than Kennedy, who obviously had an entirely different agenda for solving the crisis of S.E. Asia?
This is your obvious blind spot soldier boy. Kennedy was removed by coup d’etat precisely so that the MIC could attend to the provocations needed to escalate the conflict into full blown war.
You said earlier that you don’t need my “fantasies”; well, I don’t need your irrational interpretations of the history as it exists, that any candid observer can see for themselves.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 16, 2015 at 12:15 am
“This joke about calling them “advisers” was common back then..”~Bill Clarke
“Semantics, that is your argument!”
Not at all. That is the argument of the Camelot crowd. “Hey, we’ll send some ground combat troops but call them advisers and fool the public again.” Well the only people they fooled was you and Anthony Marsh. It was what it was Willy. Just like I told you.
“What he didn’t send was intact U.S. Combat Units. It wasn’t necessary during JFK’s time. It became so under LBJ.”~BC
“This is your obvious blind spot soldier boy. Kennedy was removed by coup d’etat precisely so that the MIC could attend to the provocations needed to escalate the conflict into full blown war”.
“You said earlier that you don’t need my “fantasies”; well, I don’t need your irrational interpretations of the history as it exists, that any candid observer can see for themselves.”
BS Willy, just as so much of your other stuff. Well Willy, you very well need help from someone.
“BS Willy, just as so much of your other stuff. Well Willy, you very well need help from someone.”~Bill Clarke
Your entire argument is just silly, like the dialog of a “Chatty GI Joe” from Mattel.
A script driven into your psyche by military indoctrination. Obviously after half a century of this ingrained nonsense you are never going to snap out of it.
Old soldiers never die, they are just melted down and recast in modern molds, in the military industrial toy factory.
\\][/
And now we’re sending so-called “advisers” and “trainers” to Syria and Iraq.
The joke’s on us.
lysias
December 16, 2015 at 12:01 pm
“And now we’re sending so-called “advisers” and “trainers” to Syria and Iraq.”
“The joke’s on us.”
I’m afraid so Lysias. It seems we never learn. The history of sending ground combat troops to SVN and calling them “advisers” is well known despite Willy’s total lack of knowledge here. For some reason you never hear about JFK sending air and naval combat soldiers, which he certainly did. But it is always about the “ground” combat soldier. This always puzzles me. Did the Air and Navy not count?
Please don’t get me wrong here; there is a world of operational difference between the men JFK sent and the Infantry Divisions that LBJ sent. And that difference is more than semantics s Willy suggest. A grunt is a grunt is a grunt and home is where he digs it that night.
Willy Whitten
December 16, 2015 at 11:21 am
“Your entire argument is just silly, like the dialog of a “Chatty GI Joe” from Mattel.”
I agree Willy, sometimes history is very silly. But it is what it is; not to be revised by you. Do I think it silly to send combat military personnel and call them advisers? Yes I do. It seems you are the one that missed the boat here.
“A script driven into your psyche by military indoctrination.”
Actually Mr. Military History, the military was part of this cover up and supported JFK on this subject. As far as I know they still do.
“Obviously after half a century of this ingrained nonsense you are never going to snap out of it.”
And you have spent the last half a century regurgitating the cry of the Camelot shiners. I don’t expect you to come up with any original thought at this late date.
“Old soldiers never die, they are just melted down and recast in modern molds, in the military industrial toy factory”.
Toy Factory? Very cheap shot Willy.
Bill Clarke said:
They didn’t let President Kennedy live long enough to fulfill what he wanted to do, regardless of his words (eg. speeches) and written policies (eg. NSAM 263).
Gerry Simone
December 17, 2015 at 12:22 pm
Bill Clarke said:
The words of a politician mean nothing. It is what he DID Willy that matters.
“They didn’t let President Kennedy live long enough to fulfill what he wanted to do, regardless of his words (eg. speeches) and written policies (eg. NSAM 263).”
Please don’t tell me you think NSAM 263 ordered “ALL” American personnel out of Vietnam by 1965
@ Bill Clarke,
Not ‘all’, but the ‘bulk of U.S. personnel by that time’ according to the McNamara-Taylor report approved in NSAM 263.
“Do I think it silly to send combat military personnel and call them advisers?”~Bill Clarke
That was their official designated role. How can an amateur “advise”?
You are speaking to this as though Kennedy knew that these ‘advisers’ would end up acting as combat troops.
You are insinuating that you somehow know his intent was to deceive. You cannot know any such thing, it is only conjecture on your part.
Soldiers are toys in the game of war…pawns, as Kissinger once remarked:
“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”
I know, nobody wants to fell like a chump. But I don’t see it as a “cheap shot” to point out the obvious.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
December 16, 2015 at 8:09 pm
“Do I think it silly to send combat military personnel and call them advisers?”~Bill Clarke
“You are speaking to this as though Kennedy knew that these ‘advisers’ would end up acting as combat troops.”
Oh, he did know. My god Willy, JFK wasn’t a stupid man.
“You are insinuating that you somehow know his intent was to deceive. You cannot know any such thing, it is only conjecture on your part.”
Wrong Willy. I read “any such thing”. In fact I read it from several different sources. If you knew anything about the history you would know this too. But you don’t.
Soldiers are toys in the game of war…pawns, as Kissinger once remarked:
“Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”
I know, nobody wants to fell like a chump. But I don’t see it as a “cheap shot” to point out the obvious.
“Oh, he did know. My god Willy, JFK wasn’t a stupid man.”~Bill Clarke
That’s it Bill, stomp your foot and insist when you don’t have any evidence to support you suppositions.
You’re just a broken record, it is useless trying to make sense with you.
\\][//
Bill Clarke
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
December 22, 2015 at 1:27 pm
Roy W Kornbluth
December 22, 2015 at 5:36 am
“Moderator, I’m begging you to stop Bill Clarke’s broken record that “JFK escalated the “‘”‘war’”‘””, hence that LBJ only continued the SE Asia policy of his predecessor.”
I hit send too soon. My apologies.
Stop whining Roy. It isn’t becoming of you. Now Roy, it is a documented fact that JFK escalated the war in Vietnam when he was president. Not only in raw numbers of troops but also in equipment. There was also a mission creep from true advisers to advisers involved in combat but we don’t have to discuss that since it seems to upset you and Willy. I’ve posted references for this on my broken record. If you and Willy would stop your broken record that Jack played no role in The Vietnam War (that dirty Max Taylor did it) I would gladly stop mine. This is JFKfacts, not JFKbull manure. For a fact LBJ continued the policy of JFK for 1964. 1965 was a different story.
“A few FACTS”:
Yes Roy, a damn few facts are correct.
“— 1963, up to 16,500 ‘advisors’, (you don’t call that escalation?) CIA-DIA adventurer types just wanting to get out of the house and see what they could steal from the ‘gooks.”
The “gooks” that I knew mostly lived in grass hooches. And you are going to rob them? That is funny.
“Kennedy very disturbed to find out when Am. dead surpassed 100,”
Are you saying these dead men were a surprise to JFK? What happened Roy, these men die of old age or what.
“Bombing, chemical weapons, anti-personnel devices begin tentatively, then in earnest.”
Do you not understand that these are indeed tools of war? They were used before Vietnam and are still being used today. What did you expect them to use; sticks and stones?
“At Quangngai, 3/4 of the patients from napalm are village WOMEN. NONE of this happened under Kennedy.”
It is the Quảng Ngãi Province, Roy. Two words. Quang Ngai province is home to My Lai and a hard core communist redoubt since the late 1940s. And yes, some of this did occur under JFK. Pray tell why JFK sent bombers and American pilots to Vietnam in 1962 if he wasn’t going to use them? Neil Sheehan has a good account of JFK bombing South Vietnam and the damage it caused the people trying to win “the hearts and minds”.
“All accounts date the Vietnam War from 8-5-1964 to 5-7-1975, nearly 11 years. Notice that’s after the term of JFK.”
Pure BS Roy. Some say the war began with Ike. Many say 1962 was the start of the war and others say 1965 when LBJ sent intact combat units to Vietnam was the start. I don’t remember anyone voting for 1964 except you.
bogman
December 14, 2015 at 1:50 pm
“I caught one anecdote of LBJ watching Huntley/Brinkley spending a few minutes of air time contemplating a conspiracy scenario. LBJ was heard to mutter, “Keep it up, boys, if you want a revolution” or something to that effect.”
“That’s what the establishment was truly concerned about – internal strife not nuclear war.”
I agree 100% and I wonder why more emphasis isn’t placed on this fact. If you understand this fact I find it easier to understand the Katzenbach memo.
“I agree 100% and I wonder why more emphasis isn’t placed on this fact. If you understand this fact I find it easier to understand the Katzenbach memo.”~Bill Clarke
Yes indeed, imagine the “internal strife” if the people grasped that the nation was taken over by a coup d’etat, and the usurpers were the very ones supposedly “investigating” themselves.
That a goodly portion of the youth of the nation DID get this is obvious in the “internal strife” that in fact did ensue as protests against the illegal war of aggression against the people of Southeast Asia. Perhaps theirs was an ‘intutitive’ understanding of the situation, but history has proven that understanding correct. This despite the fact of 52 years of outrageous propaganda and lies to keep the lid on the burbling strife, that is just under the surface to this very day.
\\][//
DE Mitchell, I am counting on someone at NARA letting a document “slip through the cracks”. No, it won’t be a smoking gun, but maybe a strong clue that only a very knowledgable researcher would recognize. Assuming most government employees are not experts on the assassination, I think it is possible that a very important document could pass through the gauntlet of agency reviewers, and find daylight. The ARRB yielded a trove of evidence previously unseen, as Jeff Morley has so eloquently posted on this website.
We can hope it happens, to the benefit of all Americans.
You can make a case for these records to stay hidden, but that is what the shadows want. They would tell everyone that you are not yet ready to know of this information. Of course not in our LIFETIMES!Remember that it was the peoples history that they hijacked and we should demand to get some of it back.
Jeff:
As you probably know by now, my big defect is my lack of diplomacy.
One of my favorite maxims is:
“Those who are afraid to offend are not interested in the truth”.
Many writings of mine here have never seen the light of day.
Having said that, I am encouraged by what seems to be a more open policy, which I applaud (are kudos to Tom S. in order?). Let’s not forget that we are competing for attention with the typical election scandals AND the Trumps of the word.
Here it goes:
The return of our esteemed professor McAdams (not to mention Photon and David Von Pein) can only indicate one thing. The 2017 release will be a big joke. At least that is the way the forces seem to be aligning.
Will have more to say, of course.
The Powers that be have had half a century to set up this so called release of all the files. To spin it to the favor of the same old official narrative.
If this turns out to be anything but more ‘Theater’, it will be an almost inconceivable stroke against precedent.
\\][//
You mean to say I’m not the only one who doesn’t get every one of his posts past the censor? 🙂
Why do they continue to push these lies in which so few people believe so long after the fact?
Ramon F Herrera
December 14, 2015 at 4:32 am
Jeff:
“As you probably know by now, my big defect is my lack of diplomacy.”
I admire your self criticism Ramon. Keep up the good work.
I hope you mean a joke against the government or CIA, and not on the People or those who contend conspiracy.
If there are no smoking guns, then maybe there’ll be just a lot of smoke, but that won’t make the mystery clearer.
BTW, who decides what get’s redacted? Who oversees that so that it’s not abused? I hope someone from outside the agency.
If the current CIA wants to come clean, they should let it all hang out.
Past misdeeds need only to be used as a guide on how not to repeat mistakes or operate. They should not be afraid or culpable for the crimes of those involved long, long ago.
We should encourage openness and the truth.
Any redaction of past treasonous acts, whether blatant, implied or suspect, by the current administrative regime, would be a crime and should not be tolerated under any circumstances.
To add:
o Hoovers calls “foul” on the discrepancies of the wounds described by the Parkland doctors and his own G-men and the autopsy, alerting the president and calling for a full investigation.
But in the final analysis, all these failures really lie at the feet of LBJ and the media.
If LBJ had ordered the fed govt to marshall all its forces to find the truth in the first hours and days, today we’d all have more faith in our govt. Same with the fourth estate.
It seems to me that the burden of proof has been misplaced. The government cannot prove:
A) that Oswald was in Mexico City
B) Oswald visited Russian and Cuban government facilities
C) Oswald communicated via telephone with anyone inside
If the government could prove any of the aforementioned, they would have. Tapes and photos would certainly bolster their case. Yet we are to believe that the government destroyed their best evidence.
It doesn’t matter who flew what where, or wrote this or that in a memo. What matters is the tapes and photos exist(ed,) and they are not Oswald.
Explain Oswald’s signature on the visa application.
Explain Duran’s phone number in Oswald’s address book.
Explain Oswald’s signature on the register of the Hotel Commercio.
Explain Oswald handwriting on a letter he sent to the Soviet Embassy in DC complaining about how he was treated by the Soviet’s in Mexico City.
“Explain Oswald’s signature on the visa application.
Explain Duran’s phone number in Oswald’s address book.
Explain Oswald’s signature on the register of the Hotel Commercio.
Explain Oswald handwriting on a letter he sent to the Soviet Embassy in DC complaining about how he was treated by the Soviet’s in Mexico City.”~McAdams
One simple word: FORGERY
\\][//
Mr. Whitten, you’ve taken my luff. Kindly yield so that I might fire upon my adversary.;.)
Professor, Mr Whitten is right. Every one of your aforementioned items COULD have been forged. Though I suspect even you would agree that they would be infinitely more incriminating were they accompanied by photographs and tapes. The fact that they have not been produced in 50 something years speaks volumes.
I vaguely recall reading somewhere that his signature was fairly easy to forge, but I can’t pinpoint the source of that discussion.
Yep. Every piece of evidence against Oswald must be faked or forged.
Have you ever tried to count the number of things you have to believe to be faked or forged in order to let your boy Lee off the hook?
Have you ever tried to count the number of witnesses, investigators, and experts you have to claim are lying scum to let your boy Lee off the hook?
When the number gets to a few hundred, don’t you think that maybe you should consider that Lee might be guilty?
“Have you ever tried to count the number of witnesses, investigators, and experts you have to claim are lying scum to let your boy Lee off the hook?”~McAdams
How juvenile ‘professor’, have you never heard of “Compartmentalization” and “Need to Know”?
Using these dumb arguments, that any rookie debunker knows won’t fly with anyone with adult thinking capacity, is quite insulting here.
You seem to forget that you are not addressing a class of your inexperienced 18 – 19 year old college students here.
\\][//
McAdams wrote: “Have you ever tried to count the number of witnesses, investigators and experts you have to claim are lying scum to let your boy Lee off the hook?”
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never wrote that all the evidence WAS forged, I wrote that it COULD be forged. When it comes to evidence, I obviously have higher standards than you. Moreover, show me one time where I described ANYONE as being “lying scum.” That’s the way YOU choose to interact with your fellow human beings, not me. Trust me, I will never debase myself by sinking to your level.
One thing for you to consider: Oswald is not “my boy.” Oswald was an American citizen who was never extended his right to be judged with the burden of proof being placed where it belonged, on the state. Apparently, this means nothing to you. While we are asking questions, have you ever approached the assassination evidence with the presumption that Oswald was innocent? If the answer is no, I have another question: To what other parts of the constitution do you object?
“Have you ever tried to count the number of things you have to believe to be faked or forged in order to let your boy Lee off the hook?”
Yes, this is why I’ve often asked that someone please present a frame-up scenario showing how “they” might’ve framed Oswald. I’ve never gotten one and never will. Explaining each item of evidence would have to go something like this: “fake, fake, planted, switched, forged, altered, they lied about it…” over and over again. It would be ludicrous.
Not only the physical evidence, but Oswald’s behavior suggests guilt. Going to Irving unexpectedly, bringing a package to work, not bothering to view the man he “admired” pass by, being seen near the only stairway that went to the 6th floor approximately when the shooter would’ve been there according to re-enactments.
All “coincidence”? Or “he was following orders”? Those seem to be the only frame-up alternatives. He was either the unluckiest man in the world or one of the stupidest.
Jean Davison,
I want to reiterate this comment made by JohnR
December 15, 2015 at 5:16 am, and reapply it to you, and ask you to answer the question yourself:
“One thing for you to consider: Oswald is not “my boy.” Oswald was an American citizen who was never extended his right to be judged with the burden of proof being placed where it belonged, on the state. Apparently, this means nothing to you. While we are asking questions, have you ever approached the assassination evidence with the presumption that Oswald was innocent? If the answer is no, I have another question: To what other parts of the constitution do you object?”
\\][//
Jean —
The problem as I see it is the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Oswald was an intel asset – and I mean could’ve been used wittingly or unwittingly – is just as strong. And the fact that the feds were so quick to decide Oswald was the sole assailant and then make all the evidence fit that and “lose” or destroy any evidence that did. And the recent evidence that JFK truly was up against a fanatical, Dr. Strangelove MIC.
My question is – if a faction of the govt is guilty of the murder, is there any evidence you can trust from the govt?
If Oswald has no ties to intel and the gov’t plays it straight up and gets him to trial, I don’t think we’d be having these conversations. But THINKING people, not nuts, have reasonable cause for concern and doubt. Because the feds are STILL not providing explanations or full disclosure.
I guess my question back to you and John is:
Have you ever tried to count the # of times the government lied, lost or destroyed evidence, held onto suspicious files, and ignored compelling leads in this case?
Guaranteed, it’s way more than all the forged documents needed to make Oswald a patsy.
Mr. McAdams,
“Have you ever tried to count the number of witnesses, investigators, and experts you have to claim are lying scum to let your boy Lee off the hook?”
John, how many people from the CIA and FBI worked to “solve” the case in ’63 and ’64?
That will give you the answer you seek.
And the fact that two top investigators – Tanenbaum and Sprauge (again, not “nuts”)-smelled something wrong in JMWAVE/Atlee/Anti-Castro Cuban wing of the CIA but the agency blocked their efforts.
Not sure about Sprauge but Tanenbaum said he came in with no conspiracy/lone gunman leanings either way. And the govt once again didn’t let them get to the bottom of it.
‘Yes, this is why I’ve often asked that someone please present a frame-up scenario showing how “they” might’ve framed Oswald. I’ve never gotten one and never will. Explaining each item of evidence would have to go something like this: “fake, fake, planted, switched, forged, altered, they lied about it…” over and over again. It would be ludicrous.’ – Jean Davison
Ludicrous? Tell that to those involved in the Manhattan Project:
‘Compartmentalized knowledge,’ wrote Leslie Groves, military leader in charge of the Manhattan Project, ‘was the very heart of security. … my rule was simple, each man should know everything he needed to know to do his job, and nothing else.’ “Need to Know: UFO’s, the Military and Intelligence.” Timothy Good
General Groves was the architect of an intelligence revolution that took security measures to unprecedented heights. …These operated outside of regular military channels, kept separate records, and reported directly to him . . . As the only person knowledgeable about the entire project, Groves stood at the pinnacle of power. He controlled the project’s pace, priorities, and direction through his decisions . . . Knowledge was compartmentalized. Workers were told only what they needed to know and were forbidden to discuss their jobs with anyone other than designated supervisors. —
http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/security-and-secrecy
The development of the most destructive weapon ever to be conceived was kept a secret in spite of involvement of 125,310 active employees at its peak located at 4 primary sites spanning the United States including the U of Chicago, [Clinton Laboratories] Oak Ridge National Labs in TN, the Hanford Site, WA, and Los Alamos National Lab, NM.
I think during fifty-two years, “someone would have talked” and I am not supporting the idea that compartmentalization would have preserved
secrecy either, before, during, and after. It was the cold war era, and JFK must have had some supporters, as well as others who believed in
constitutional government, alert to threats such as assassination. I don’t see that compartmentalization would have prevented awareness to the extent that a large, well coordinated conspiracy could have been anticipated to be contained, viable.
It is one thing to maintain secrecy in wartime, since everyone is expecting they are working and maintaining secrecy to achieve a broad gaol
of winning or shortening the length of the war. It seems much more complicated to achieve both the secrecy and the control that seems to have been required in this instance, starting with the Secret Service at some level cooperating to compromise its own reputation and core mission, and FBI, CIA, and DPD, military intel. This seems more in keeping with what could be realistically planned and achieved.:
Irrelevant. If some bunch of people were told (for example) to forge autopsy photos, they know they forged the autopsy photos, even if nobody told them about a Grassy Knoll gunman. And so on through all the pieces of evidence you think were forged.
The 18-19 year old students are a lot smarter.
TomS. The purpose in drawing the analogy was to highlight that tens of thousands of people can keep a secret. I don’t disagree with your contention that it would be possible only in war time. I argue that for tens of thousands of Americans, there was an internal and not so silent war going on against President John Kennedy and those whom he supported including as you have so adroitly identified in another comment (and I paraphrase), the disenfranchised and those without a voice to speak to the power of the looming oligarchy in the early ‘60’s.
“someone would have talked”. I believe some have. I also believe that their stories have been dismissed or discredited by application of the fog of the Warren Commission Report which continues to be perpetuated by people the likes of which participate on this forum in particular.
“ . . . since everyone is expecting they are working and maintaining secrecy to achieve a broad [gaol].”
Researchers and authors over the decades have identified numerous possibilities of a collective that could have been ‘working and maintaining secrecy to achieve a broad goal.’ Among them are the John Birch Society and those further to the right ideologically living in Dallas, The “Military-Industrial Complex” (not exclusive from the JBS in many instances), and my personal favorite, the oil and finance industry operating on a global stage where stakes were high enough to rationalize the assassination of an elected US president who was also the leader of the ‘free world’. Within the latter, one can recognize a decades long agenda beginning at Achnacarry, Scotland, and ongoing as we speak in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria et al. This is THE continuity of the coup d’etat, the very structure of which feeds on secrecy.
I apply the theory of compartmentalization to the planning and execution, not to the cover up. The cover-up only needed a jump start – the issuance of the description of a defector to Russia with ties to Cuba. I consider the autopsy an essential hurdle … confusion reigned precisely as anticipated by the time Kennedy’s body was removed from Parkland (whether or not it was legal seems not to been a problem for the Warren Commission unless I’ve missed that testimony). It could also be argued that the chaos ensued the moment the first shot was fired, and that no amount of planning – compartmentalized or not – was necessary because confusion was guaranteed much like the sleight of hand in a magic trick. In fact here we are today, still attempting to sort thru the illusion. The minds of those whose careers were quickly coming into question, most specifically the Secret Service agents and Dallas law enforcement must have been whirling, as must have others who knew they had failed the president … they were hardly paying attention to the rogue elements behind the manipulation of #399, the conflicting data between Parkland and Bethesda, etc. No one was talking openly let alone reporting any suspicions. By the time many began to speak out, memories had faded, the Warren Report had intimidated, and accusations of personal gain compromised credibility. The rest is the history of the cover up. But for these forums, private citizens might not have the courage or facility to begin to tell their own stories. I count myself among them.
So “the government” can’t be trusted. So the Warren Commission, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, the Dallas cops, all of them were involved with the coverup.
Then, when people not connected with the government produce evidence or testimony that you don’t like, they all become government stooges. Look at how you buffs treat the Paines.
And the independent experts working for the HSCA were all government stooges too, eh?
And of course, all the mainstream media are government stooges.
Mr. Whitten wrote: “…I want to reiterate this comment made by JohnR…”
Thank you for your support. I trust that one day soon, I’ll be presented with the opportunity to return the gesture.
Sometimes I think there’s no point in these exchanges. The defenders of the Warren Commission know they’re on the wrong side of history. I’ve never understood their seemingly pathological need to convict Oswald. They will never answer my question. They can’t.
Jean Davison wrote:”…being seen near the only stairway that went to the 6th floor approximately when the shooter would’ve been there according to re-enactments.”
I answered this question before. I’ll do it again: I do not find that strange or coincidental at all. I find it rather common-sensical that Oswald was seen in the lunch area of the building where he worked during the lunch hour. It is you and your ilk that have to invent from whole cloth implausible scenarios to place Oswald in the sniper’s nest.
In the end, neither you, McAdams, Photon nor Pein can place Oswald anywhere besides the 1st or second floor from noon to half-past on that day. And you all know it.
Yes, John, the government can’t be trusted. Were you the last to find out?
But my question was a hypothetical – IF a cabal was able to put the assassination together, COULD the govt be trusted to root it out?
I say no. The government wouldn’t be institutionally capable to honestly investigate a high crime of such magnitude within its midst.
It’s called self-preservation. Better to take the easy out than dig any deeper.
Speaking of govt and media stooges, you never did answer the question why neither Dan Rather or the WC pointed out the obvious hit from the front in the Zapruder film.
The lone nut theory side has the same amount of unanswerable questions in this case, doesn’t it?
I have another question or two for you, Ms. Davison. Really, anyone can answer it, be it Madams, Photon, or Von Pein.
Earlier this thread centered around the Mexico City tapes. Let’s re-visit them, shall we.
You all maintain that Hoover was mistaken when he told the President about the tapes. You all maintain that the tapes in question did not exist. You all maintain that all the FBI had in it’s possession were transcripts. You all maintain that no FBI agent listened to the tapes. So here’s my questions:
Where did Hoover get the idea that the tapes did not match Oswald’s voice? From the transcripts? Did Oswald possess such a unique vernacular that his identity could be ascertained or eliminated from consideration by the written word? I think not.
You watch Mr. Whitten. No answer to these questions will be forthcoming, either.
“Look at how you buffs treat the Paines.”~McAdams
Hah! Look at how you WC cultists handwave all the evidence of the Paine’s connections with Intelligence and the arms industry, as well as their obvious manipulation of the Oswald’s.
As far as the experts the HSCA, it is the management of the committee and directions of the management that defines the hand of the clear cover-up this “government body” was. Does the name George Joannides still ring no bells for you McAdams? Our host Jeff Morley revealed his as the guiding hand of HSCA.
And yes indeed the MSM, is nothing but a propaganda organ of the deep state.
\\][//
Keep burying your head in the sand if you want to believe the media was not influenced by Operation Mockingbird.
The CIA and the Media http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php
JohnR and Willy,
“…. Oswald was an American citizen who was never extended his right to be judged with the burden of proof being placed where it belonged, on the state. Apparently, this means nothing to you.”
None of the dozens, maybe hundreds of people accused, living and dead, have ever gotten given their day in court. They are certainly not “presumed innocent.” Apparently, this means nothing to you.
“While we are asking questions, have you ever approached the assassination evidence with the presumption that Oswald was innocent?”
Of course. I believed Rush to Judgment years ago, until I checked the footnotes and found out I’d been deceived.
“If the answer is no, I have another question: To what other parts of the constitution do you object?”
What part of the constitution forbids me from expressing my opinion on the guilt or innocence of anyone? Ever heard of the First Amendment? You think it applies only to you, not to me?
See Jean’s post. In brief, Belmont talked to Shanklin, and was confused about what he was told. Everything at the FBI HQ in Washington followed from this conversation.
You watch, Jean, you have given the conspiracists here an answer, but they will blow it off.
You can’t place him anywhere besides the sixth floor at 12:30 sharp.
There is no evidence, none, that Oswald was on the sixth floor “at 12:30 sharp.”
McAdams re-posted my question: “Where did Hoover get the idea that the tapes did not match Oswald?”
McAdams provided this brief answer (much to my astonishment.)
“See Jean’s post. In brief, Belmont talked to Shanklin, and was confused about what he was told. Everything at the FBI HQ in Washington followed from this conversation.”
You still don’t seem to understand my point. No one would have made the statement “…do not match Oswald’s voice…” unless SOMEONE else originally listened to actual tapes. It is virtually impossible to draw that conclusion from reading transcripts.
Jean Davison wrote:
“What part of the constitution forbids me from expressing my opinion on the guilt or innocence of anyone? Ever heard of the First Amendment? Why would you think it only applies to you, and not to me?”
Nothing in the constitution prevents me, as a private citizen, from applying a religious standard to a candidate for public office. However, if I wish to act in a manner consistent, I refrain.
At the very least, the WC violated the spirit of the constitution, with regards to Oswald. You, through your efforts, perpetuate this error.
“How could Oswald have been framed? But that’s what I expected. If there were a plausible frame-up scenario someone would’ve presented it by now.”~Jean Davison
* * * * *
How about an explanation of how Oswald WAS framed, not how he COULD have been? Isn’t that more precise?
Oswald being a deep agent of counter espionage, was sent on an assignment to the Soviet Union, perhaps just as a test to see the ways in-which the authorities there would react to the presence of an “American defector” with Oswald’s odd profile; with his fairly obvious ‘sheep dipping’ – to give him the appearance of being a “Marxist”.
[FFWD>>] Oswald returns to the US with Russian Wife. And his assignment is now augmented with his period in the USSR, he is even more convincing as a “Commie”; his then current mission is to infiltrate the radical anti-Castro Cuban network.
While on this assignment Oswald is successful enough in his penetration into the midst of the organization that he becomes privy to a plot to kill Kennedy in revenge for their “betrayal” at the Bay of Pigs.
What neither Oswald nor the Cubans realize is that there is a larger overarching operation guiding the Cubans, stoking their anger and providing them with weapons and organizational direction (Banister et al).
At this point, the counter intel group that has been penetrated realizes the penetrating org is being tipped off by Oswald of this plot to kill JFK. This is the point at which it is decided by the higher echelon plotters to keep Oswald in place, and use him as the patsy in their plot. Oswald is maneuvered into place from New Orleans to Dallas where deM and the White Russian milieu surrounds, absorbs, and directs his fate.
Of course this is where the Paine’s come into Lee and Marina’s life, and the final leg of placing Oswald in the building on the obvious route to the Trademart, the obvious venue for a speech by JFK, who was being manipulated into place concurrently with the manipulation of the patsy.
\\][//
I’m reminded of the East Texas mother who once said to her refractory son: “Bubba, I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.”
Belmont talked to Shanklin. Shanklin described photos and transcripts of tapes. He said the photos were not of Oswald, and Belmont somehow understood that “photos and tapes” were not of Oswald.
Please read this:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm
We answer your questions, but then you insist that all the evidence we provide is faked, forged, tampered with or comes from lying witnesses.
Well somebody was shooting from the sixth floor at 12:30 sharp, and that person left a bag in the Sniper’s Nest with Oswald’s palm print on it, three spent cartridges in the Sniper’s Nest that matched Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons, Oswald’s rifle near the stairwell, two fragments in the front seat of the limo that matched Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons, etc.
And virtually every Depository employee was in plain sight of another employee, with Oswald (and I think Dougherty) as exceptions.
And nobody among all the Depository employees saw any strangers inside the Depository (an elderly man wanting to use the restroom the only exception).
You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to put all this together.
“Well somebody was shooting from the sixth floor at 12:30 sharp”~McAdams
Maybe, maybe not. You haven’t actually proved that. And the following words after that opening statement you just made have all been contested with most reasonable arguments – ones that you simply never acknowledge, nor make reasonable counter arguments against.
If somebody was shooting from that window, you most certainly have NOT proven it was Lee Harvey Oswald.
\\][//
Who says 100?
Nice try Professor.
Any of the best critics who have examined the so called evidence in minute detail can certainly persuade people to call it into question.
(And we’re not even including the 70% of Americans that believe in a conspiracy who probably haven’t delved into this case like the rest of us here).
Bogman,
“The problem as I see it is the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Oswald was an intel asset…”
I don’t agree. What is the best piece of evidence you have that he was an intel asset?
“And the fact that the feds were so quick to decide Oswald was the sole assailant and then make all the evidence fit that and “lose” or destroy any evidence that did.”
Other than the Hosty note, what are you referring to?
The HSCA and every other investigation have agreed that the only shots that hit anyone were fired by Oswald, and it didn’t take long because there’s an abundance of evidence against him and none tying anyone else to the shooting.
“My question is – if a faction of the govt is guilty of the murder, is there any evidence you can trust from the govt?”
You don’t need to trust the government or anyone else. By and large the evidence against Oswald didn’t come from the federal government. Much of it was collected by the Dallas police or sheriff’s office. Most of the FBI findings on fingerprints, etc. has been verified by other, non-government experts.
Since suspicion can easily lead someone down dead ends, my suggestion is to start with the things that are certain or virtually certain and build on that. We know from news photos that Oswald was brought out of the Texas theater after leaving work, for instance. I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt that he went to Irving on Thursday and brought some kind of package to work.
Then there are the first-day TV interviews from Zapruder and others describing JFK’s explosive head wound on the right side of his head, and the first bulletin by Merriman Smith in the motorcade saying three shots were fired. And so on.
“If Oswald has no ties to intel and the gov’t plays it straight up and gets him to trial, I don’t think we’d be having these conversations. But THINKING people, not nuts, have reasonable cause for concern and doubt.”
In my opinion there’s doubt mostly because the “JFK literature” in general, which imo is loaded with myths and faulty assumptions, has done a good job in creating doubt — especially the movie “JFK,” which is a well-done film, but it’s basically two hours of misinformation.
Tom S.,
“It is one thing to maintain secrecy in wartime….”
I agree, but I think I should point out that most of the tens of thousands working at Manhattan Project facilities didn’t know any secrets. They were clerical workers and others with routine jobs who had no “need to know.” I happen to know this only because when I was a child my dad was a construction worker at Oak Ridge for a couple of years. The regular workers there knew there was something highly classified going on but they didn’t know what.
I remember my dad mentioning a fellow worker who worked at what we now know was the uranium enrichment facility (K-25), who told him he didn’t know what they were doing there except that some kind of material arrived in boxcars and went out in very small containers.
Of course, the visa application was turned over to the WC by Castro’s government, and likewise with another copy turned over to the HSCA by Castro.
So now you have Castro trafficking in forged documents at the behest of the CIA!
Jean: “I don’t agree. What is the best piece of evidence you have that he was an intel asset?”
Geesh, where do I begin? What average American interfaces with the FBI and CIA assets on the SAME DAY? The fact the US embassy, DPD all said he seemed trained. His passing through rain drops without getting wet (e.g. no charges upon his return, etc.). And yes 544 Camp Street also validated by many including William Gaudet, CIA asset with NO reason to make it up. And the NO parking garage manager who said he saw Oswald take and give envelopes to FBI cars… on and on.
Jean: “Other than the Hosty note, what are you referring to?”
Gees, there’s a ton either lost, mangled or destroyed. The Harper fragment comes to mind — “losing” the skull fragment of the frickin president? Really? No inquiry, no investigation, no one loses their job (please don’t say they got the photo). Films mangled. Just recently saw something on Oswald’s radio which was finally seen by research and it was in a mess as well.
Jean: “The HSCA and every other investigation have agreed that the only shots that hit anyone were fired by Oswald, and it didn’t take long because there’s an abundance of evidence against him and none tying anyone else to the shooting.”
The HSCA was taken over by intel after Sprague and Tanenbaum. I don’t believe it was an honest investigation after that.
Jean: “Since suspicion can easily lead someone down dead ends, my suggestion is to start with the things that are certain or virtually certain and build on that.”
Been studying the evidence for decades.
Jean: In my opinion there’s doubt mostly because the “JFK literature” in general, which imo is loaded with myths and faulty assumptions, has done a good job in creating doubt — especially the movie “JFK,” which is a well-done film, but it’s basically two hours of misinformation.”
This is where I tend to lose it with LNers. Do you really believe rational adults can’t come up with a different conclusions than LNers without some counter-authority figure? Bertrand Russell, top journos and many world leaders doubted the findings. This is always insulting.
Bogman,
The reply to yours of 4:04 I was writing suddenly disappeared. Maybe tomorrow. But I wanted to get to this part because I think you may have misunderstood me.
“Jean: “Since suspicion can easily lead someone down dead ends, my suggestion is to start with the things that are certain or virtually certain and build on that.”
Been studying the evidence for decades.”
Okay, but I was answering this question you asked me:
“if a faction of the govt is guilty of the murder, is there any evidence you can trust from the govt?”
I was saying you don’t have to trust the govt.
“Jean: In my opinion there’s doubt mostly because the “JFK literature” in general, which imo is loaded with myths and faulty assumptions, has done a good job in creating doubt — especially the movie “JFK,” which is a well-done film, but it’s basically two hours of misinformation.”
Bogman’s reply: “This is where I tend to lose it with LNers. Do you really believe rational adults can’t come up with a different conclusions than LNers without some counter-authority figure? Bertrand Russell, top journos and many world leaders doubted the findings. This is always insulting.”
I don’t see why it’s insulting.
Are you denying that conspiracy books and “JFK” influenced public opinion and that most people haven’t read the testimony or studied the other evidence? If so, I’m amazed.
Even Bertrand Russell seems to have gotten his information from a conspiracy source when he wrote, e.g., “Why was the President’s route changed at the last minute to take him past Oswald’s place of work?”
You know that’s a myth, right?
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Bertrand_Russell_Questioned_the_JFK_Assassination/39360/0/38/38/Y/M.html
Jean –
Just at cursory glance of the government’s case, confidence in it falls apart.
I’ll say it again – Dan Rather and the WC HID the fact of JFK’s violent back and to left from the final bullet. That alone disqualifies both as honest seekers of the truth in this case. The American people didn’t now this until 12 years after the fact when the Zapruder was finally – and illegally – shown publicly.
Where do you have to go after that, really, to lose your trust of the WC’s conclusions?
Trusting the FBI and CIA for most of their information who should have suspects in the case.
Then HSCA with the DRE’s handler brought out of retirement by the CIA to feloniously run interference against a Congressional investigation.
Sorry, no faith in the govt reports at all. Not quite sure how you or anyone else does. Because the govt could clear up most if not all these questions anytime. But they don’t. And that should tell you a lot.
Mr. McAdams,
Let us turn to the CIA for a picture of LHO in MC as he prepared to turn violent and shoot JFK by not getting enough margaritas down there. A picture really is worth a thousand words.
Wait, what? The picture is not LHO? Wait, what? The cameras were not working that day? Then why do we have a Russian man who wrestles bears? Why is he in the official record? Who is he? Wait, what? There is a voice recording? Wait, what? They have destroyed the tape as a matter of routine practice. Wait, what? The CIA made a transcript? And, this time, they are telling the truth? Wait, what?
Good luck, John, as you try to use the CIA as a “witness.”
Do you think all the handwriting evidence was forged?
Do you think Duran, and Mirabal, and the three guys at the Soviet Embassy are all liars?
Is Marina a liar when she says that Oswald told her he went to Mexico City?
What about the negative, matching the photo on the visa application, found in Oswald’s effects in Dallas?
C’mon McAdams,
Did you ever personally talk to Duran, and Mirabal, and the three guys at the Soviet Embassy?
Do you not realize that Marina was coached and essentially brainwashed while in captivity?
The negative matching the photo on the visa application, could certainly be another plant.
Either you understand the means, capabilities and methods of covert activities or you’re a chump.
You want to play the part of apologist for these spooks, then at least act like you know how such operatives work in real life.
\\][//
No, but I’ve seen Duran and the Embassy guys on video, and the HSCA interviewed Mirabal.
What are you up to now? A couple of hundred pieces of faked or forged evidence?
If the CIA were as competent as you think, we would have won the Cold War 20 years earlier.
Do you realize she has stuck by her testimony to this day, even after being persuaded in the 1980s that Lee was innocent?
“No, but I’ve seen Duran and the Embassy guys on video, and the HSCA interviewed Mirabal.”~McAdams
>We Know that HSCA was no less manipulated by the Intelligence community than the WC.
“What are you up to now? A couple of hundred pieces of faked or forged evidence?”McAdams
>What ever it takes to accomplish the mission.
“If the CIA were as competent as you think, we would have won the Cold War 20 years earlier.” ~McAdams
>”incompetence” has been a modified limited hangout for the Intelligence services since they began.
Ultimately ALL wars are theater, burlesques put on for profit by the bankers funding the arms industry and the profits of “reconstruction” after wars. The “Cold War” was not different than the hot wars of WWI and WWII.
This maxim is as old as the Napoleonic wars if not earlier.
I find your grasp of the architecture of political power to be quite lacking and uninformed.
\\][//
Oh, my! I guess Hitler, Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill were in all just staging a big show.
“Oh, my! I guess Hitler, Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill were in all just staging a big show.”
~McAdams
I suggest the “professor” read Antony Sutton’s on Wall Street.
\\][//
“Oh, my! I guess Hitler, Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill were in all just staging a big show.”
~John McAdams
https://youtu.be/kgig1QVU2lY?t=172
\\][//
Forgeries, all of the above. Especially the typewritten note to the Soviet Embassy conveniently found and provided by none other than Ruth Paine. The Soviets certainly saw through this obvious ruse.
Soviets Thought U.S. Forged Oswald Note – latimes http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/06/news/mn-63244
A manuscript copy was also found. The handwriting on that copy, as well as the signature on the copy sent to the Soviet Embassy were Oswald’s.
It’s interesting you cite what the Soviets thought, but think everything U.S. government officials said was a lie.
What is interesting is the opinion of the majority of Americans is in line with the Soviets. Kennedy was, after all, forging a strategy of peace with Khrushchev while seeking détente with Castro in 1963.
As for your draft letter, apart from the inconsistencies in Ruth Paine’s story, it is worth adding that virtually all the evidence that arrived separately to the authorities from the Paine household — the Walker note, the pristine Mexican bus ticket — is suspect.
The Walker note and the draft letter are in Oswald’s handwriting.
What is suspect is the buff’s baseless claims of fakery for any evidence they find inconvenient.
This ‘draft’ letter that Oswald supposedly was careless enough laying around Paine’s desk for her to be snoopy enough to read, (and which Oswald referred to his “meetings with Comrade Kostin”), does not appear in the listing of items taken from the Paine household on November 23rd 1963. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140&relPageId=351
Same problem for the Walker note. Ruth Paine’s home had been searched thoroughly on the afternoon of the assassination, and again the following day, when Paine claimed to have seen officers specifically looking for loose papers within books. The inventory of items discovered in her home is 49 pages long, but does not mention the note. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39#relPageId=95
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57701#relPageId=173
Because it was discovered later. Did you not know that?
It’s in Oswald’s handwriting.
Yes, I’m aware it was found, yet again, by none other than Ruth Paine on December 2nd. Quite amazing given authorities were unable to find it after thoroughly searching her home for 2 days on 22-23 Nov.
Only one of the three experts who were consulted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations considered the note to be authentic. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=236
That’s intentionally misleading. The results were as follows:
McNally: Oswald’s writing. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=239
Purtell: Opted out because of some Cyrillic characters used. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=242
Scott: For some reason did not examine the document. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=247
So none of the experts said it was not Oswald’s writing.
Cadigan of the FBI reached the same conclusion.
JohnR,
“You all maintain that Hoover was mistaken when he told the President about the tapes. You all maintain that the tapes in question did not exist. You all maintain that all the FBI had in it’s possession were transcripts. You all maintain that no FBI agent listened to the tapes.”
This was the conclusion of the HSCA also.
I believe it because of the contemporary record. Shanklin, who supposedly received the tape in Dallas, and the FBI Legat in Mexico who supposedly sent it to Dallas told FBI headquarters on 11/23/63 and 11/25/63, respectively, that there was no tape, only transcripts. Here’s part of the Lopez Report quoting them:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?
docId=799#relPageId=12&tab=page
So here you have two underlings telling Hoover that he was wrong at the time.
“Where did Hoover get the idea that the tapes did not match Oswald’s voice? From the transcripts?”
No, the HSCA thought the idea probably originated with a conversation between Belmont in Washington and Shanklin earlier on the 23rd:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=799#relPageId=11&tab=page
Belmont apparently misunderstood something he said, because Shanklin corrected him right away (see above). It’s like the children’s game Telephone — facts that started out one way may end up entirely different at the end.
Hoover said other things to LBJ that were plainly wrong. He was relying on second- or third-hand information. Where did he get the idea that “A. Heidel” was a woman, e.g.? Or that there was a gun battle at the theater?
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=807#relPageId=3&tab=page
“You watch Mr. Whitten. No answer to these questions will be forthcoming, either.”
What other question did you ask me?
Meantime, please notice that no one has answered *my* question: How could Oswald have been framed? But that’s what I expected. If there were a plausible frame-up scenario someone would’ve presented it by now.
You at least gave an explanation for one tiny part of it: Oswald’s presence near the stairs was a coincidence. What about his leaving his wedding ring at home that morning? Another coincidence?
“What about his leaving his wedding ring at home that morning? Another coincidence?”
That’s an absurd bit of minutiae promoted especially by Priscilla MacMillan to argue Oswald’s guilt. Who can prove that Oswald had never before left his wedding ring in Ruth Paine’s house in Irving?
Regarding the wedding ring…
Each side has details on its side that in any other case might cinch the deal in their own heads.
Mine is the letter Oswald wrote and sent to the FPCC about his activities causing a fracas in NO a week BEFORE it actually happened.
If that that’s not a flub in his Intel mission there, I don’t know how else you could portray it.
Regarding the wedding ring….
Each side has details on its side that in a normal, non-rabbit hole case, might cinch the decision in their own heads.
Mine is the letter Oswald wrote and sent to the FPCC about his activities causing a fracas in NO a week BEFORE it actually happened.
If that that’s not a flub in his Intel mission there, I don’t know how else you could portray it. Clear as a bell to me.
“Regarding the wedding ring…
Each side has details on its side that in any other case might cinch the deal in their own heads.
Mine is the letter Oswald wrote and sent to the FPCC about his activities causing a fracas in NO a week BEFORE it actually happened.”
That’s because you believe an assumption made by some conspiracy author years ago, and endlessly repeated. None of them seems to have noticed that Oswald wrote another letter AFTER the fracas that described what happened with Bringuier. Which suggests that there were two separate incidents.
August 1 letter:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137&search=letter_AND+oswald+AND+fair#relPageId=544&tab=page
August 12:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137&search=letter_AND+oswald+AND+fair#relPageId=546&tab=page
“If that that’s not a flub in his Intel mission there, I don’t know how else you could portray it.”
No, it’s a flub by the authors that say this.
Down the rabbit hole we go again, Jean.
Here’s what the WC had to say about the first letter (and I think you know this):
In his letter to V.T. Lee, he stated that he was then alone in his efforts on behalf of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, but he attributed his lack of support to an attack by Cuban exiles in a street demonstration and being ‘officialy cautioned’ by the police, events which ‘robbed me of what support I had leaving me alone. In spite of those claims, the Commission has been unable to uncover any evidence that anyone ever attacked any street demonstration in which OSWALD was involved, except for the incident which occurred eight days after OSWALD wrote the above letter to V.T. Lee. BRINGUIER, who seemed to be familiar with many anti-Castro activities in New Orleans, was not aware of any such incident. Police reports also fail to reflect any activity on OSWALD’S part prior to August 9, 1963, except for the uneventful distribution of literature at the Dumaine Street wharf in June 1963. Furthermore, the general tenor of OSWALD’S next letter to V.T. Lee, in which he supported his report on the BRINGUIER incident with a copy of the charges made against him and a newspaper clipping reporting the event, suggested that his previous story of an attack by Cuban exiles was at least greatly exaggerated.”
How often does ANYONE exaggerate about something that didn’t happen but THEN DOES HAPPEN a few days later.
Amazingly clairvoyant little rascal, wasn’t Mr. Oswald?
[Put previous post in wrong thread, TomS]
To add about the Oswald letter, you do know Jean that by that time the FPCC had been COMPLETELY infiltrated by the FBI, right? The second-in-command was an FBI plant who got access to all files. This the WC also never reported though likely one or two members like Ford probably knew or surmised.
So Oswald was really writing letters to an FBI front organization at that point. They would have full knowledge of the content of his letters.
So you either have to believe that Oswald was a true commie interfacing with all sorts of intel operatives but never getting much attention, or you have to believe he was a known quantity in US intel that got a “pass” and someone was working him behind the scenes.
Who was more clever – Oswald or the CIA?
My bet is on an element of the CIA.
Could it be that Oswald planned to provoke an incident, and wrote about that as though it happened, and then later wrote about a real incident?
As you know, Lee lied a lot. And he didn’t need some shadowy intelligence connection to provoke him to do so.
“As you know, Lee lied a lot.”~McAdams
No, I don’t know that. I certainly know that you THINK he lied a lot, but that is an entirely different proposition.
\\][//
Sure, everybody connected with this case was lying scum — except your boy Lee.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/leeslies.htm
“Could it be that Oswald planned to provoke an incident, and wrote about that as though it happened, and then later wrote about a real incident?”
If the WC and HSCA knew the DRE were CIA (and were honest, thorough investigative bodies) if they would’ve decided upon a more probable scenario: Oswald didn’t quite understand the instructions from his handler and pulled the trigger too soon on the letter.
As long as we’re talking about “lying scum,” nobody connected with this case was more of a liar than Lyndon Baines Johnson, whose habitual lying and cheating bordered on the pathological.
The difference, of course, is that Johnson lied about important matters, as opposed to Oswald lying to his new girlfriend about his age.
“The next morning, he nearly slept through the alarm clock, and he [Lee Oswald] got up reluctantly. He got dressed, and then he came over to her and he said, “Don’t bother to make breakfast for me,” which was unusual, because she never did. Then he said, “I’ve left some money on the bureau. Be sure and buy shoes for Junie and Rachel.” Then he said he would not be coming home for the weekend, because it wasn’t good for Ruth to have him there too much. “ — PBS Frontline transcript
The PBS transcript does not jive precisely with the video (see link below); anyone interested in the “wedding ring” scenario should watch and watch again beginning at 11:17. We’re not only lead to believe that because Marina rejected her husband’s plea to come live with him in Dallas that Oswald went into the Paine’s garage and retrieved a rifle with the intention of murdering the president of the United States in broad daylight the following day, we’re evidently meant to presume that Lee’s was a spontaneous decision because Marina would not come live with him. Yet by contrast, the Warren Commission determined that the evidence tying Oswald to the purchase of a rifle, to rifle practice, to packing the rifle in a paper sack that evening proves he had been preparing for the assassination for months. Something does not jive.
Did Oswald devise the paper sack after Marina rejected his overtures to join him in Dallas? We can hear Lee’s wheels turning: “Marina isn’t going to come live with me so I’m going to construct a brown paper bag to conceal a rifle to carry into work tomorrow where I’ll manage to avoid detection while I position myself on a box, stack some boxes in front of me (one of which might or might not collapse because it’s so precariously tilted against the windowsill) and fire as many rounds as it takes … at a moving target (in spite of the fact I’ve not been trained) in broad daylight, after which I’m going to stroll to the end of the room, drop my rifle, and stroll out of the building ……….
According to Priscilla McMillan (whose strange mannerisms are surely not lost on the astute observer) in in this obviously scripted interview, Oswald left his wedding ring in Marina’s grandmother’s “tiny little tea cup” (cue the music) as some sort of message when in fact there is no evidence that he had not frequently left his ring at the house in Irving. Yet we have Priscilla translating Marina’s thoughts? Frontline should be ashamed.
Stop and replay the video beginning 11:17 to grasp the macabre image of Priscilla Johnson McMillan discussing “the ring and the tea cup.” In my youth I sat around campfires listening to storytellers. Priscilla is a master of the art; PBS Frontline bought her story and then sold it to us.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/oswald/
Left my wedding ring at home on the dresser just the other day. I just was going to Lowe’s. Shucks, I should have shot a president too.
Bogman,
Yes, I know there’s no record of the first incident but if it did happen the way he described it, the policeman may not have written it up. Or it may well be that Oswald lied, describing what he must’ve known was likely to happen if anyone in the exile community caught him handing out pro-Castro literature. Vincent Lee had already warned him about the unfriendly reception he was likely to get in New Orleans.
My point was only that the usual story is that he “predicted” the Bringuier incident without mentioning the other letter that actually describes that incident accurately, unlike the earlier one.
I’m aware that the FBI had infiltrated the FPCC. In his testimony Hosty mentioned that he’d gotten a report on one of Oswald’s letters from the NY FBI office saying that he’d handed out leaflets in Dallas — that informant’s report is also mentioned in his FBI file online.
“So Oswald was really writing letters to an FBI front organization at that point. They would have full knowledge of the content of his letters.”
That’s an exaggeration, I think. The FBI
was reading some of the letters to the FPCC and other leftist groups but not all of them.
“So you either have to believe that Oswald was a true commie interfacing with all sorts of intel operatives but never getting much attention….”
Why should he get much attention? He was an oddball former defector and the FBI’s interest in him was the possibility that the Soviets might recruit him for an intelligence assignment. Was everyone who wrote to the FPCC “interfacing with intel operatives”?
“…. or you have to believe he was a known quantity in US intel that got a “pass” and someone was working him behind the scenes.”
What to you mean, “pass”? It wasn’t illegal to belong to the FPCC or hand out pro-Castro material and he was low on the totem pole as far as leftists go. What were they supposed to do, arrest him? For what? Watch him more closely than the others? Why?
Before the assassination nobody knew that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was going to be an important name some day.
If Lee Oswald lied, it’s because he was a low-level CIA operative and/or FBI informant.
The relevant section of the PBS Frontline video begins at 1:17:00.
Interesting tale Priscilla tells, Leslie.
That goes against what many lone nut buffs like Bugliosi and Posner I believe have put out there — that Oswald decided to kill the president the night before when his wife wouldn’t make up with him.
But to make the paper gun sack and bring it to the house, he would need to have made that decision at least the night before.
Jean: “Yes, I know there’s no record of the first incident but if it did happen the way he described it, the policeman may not have written it up. Or it may well be that Oswald lied, describing what he must’ve known was likely to happen if anyone in the exile community caught him handing out pro-Castro literature.”
That’s as much wild speculation as any CT you accuse them of. Star
Jean: “Why should he get much attention? He was an oddball former defector and the FBI’s interest in him was the possibility that the Soviets might recruit him for an intelligence assignment. Was everyone who wrote to the FPCC “interfacing with intel ”
“What to you mean, “pass”? It wasn’t illegal to belong to the FPCC or hand out pro-Castro material and he was low on the totem pole as far as leftists go. What were they supposed to do, arrest him? For what? Watch him more closely than the others? Why?”
I joined the Nuclear Freeze Initiative in the 80s and was to discover the small office was under constant surveillance by the FBI. Just a couple dozen college kids trying to save the world brought the attention of the feds.
When CIA assets put a PRESS RELEASE about an individual is a danger to America, and that individual had just recently asked for a meeting with the FBI, and he was a Russian defector, YES I would assume the attention would be constant.
If CIA assets had issued a press release about Atta three months before 9-11 as a danger to America, and he was also on first-name basis with the local FBI, and he had met with the head of wet operations for Al Qaida six weeks before in the most heavily monitored city in the Western World, what kind of reaction would you expect from the American people?
Heads would’ve rolled, and you know it. But they didn’t. So the question is, why not?
Jean: “Before the assassination nobody knew that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was going to be an important name some day.”
I think Morley’s CIA memos six weeks before the assassination show you could be wrong there.
So now Bill Clarke is going to trot on along making suppositions about not only the inner workings about the National Security State, but my own life experiences as well…He “can tell” … yea like a gypsy fortune teller…Lol
I have personal friends who served in Vietnam; Marines, combat veterans. They are the same sort arrogant self righteous indoctrinated dupes as Mr Clarke. Belligerence is their middle name. If you weren’t in Nam you are a no-count pinko-commie as far as they are concerned. They are like dogs with distemper. And if you disagree with them they are like dogs with rabies, foaming at the mouth maniacs. Humble? What a joke.
That video of Wilkerson should be watched by all here. Thanks for posting the link.
\\][//
“At the very least, the WC violated the spirit of the constitution, with regards to Oswald. You, through your efforts, perpetuate this error.”
I think that’s nonsense. Does concluding that Booth killed Lincoln violate the spirit of the constitution? Or does your rule apply only to people *you* think are not guilty?
Again Jean, your comparison of Booth to Oswald is like apples to oranges. Booth killed Lincoln at close range in plain sight of eye witnesses with a clear political motive (as did the assassins for Garfield and McKinley).
‘Does concluding that Booth killed Lincoln violate the spirit of the constitution?’ – – Jean Davison
Wasn’t Booth in Allen Dulles’ bag of tricks on December 16, 1963?
“Toward the end of the meeting, former CIA Director Allen Dulles passed out a book on the history of presidential assassination and attempts in America, noting that only the attempt on Truman’s life was a plot.
“The Lincoln assassination was a plot”, McCloy countered. Dulles refused to concede the point.
The Commissioners saw a clear need to obtain reports and files from the Secret Service, Dallas Police, CIA, and other agencies. Dulles brought up getting materials on Oswald’s Soviet stay into the hands of the CIA “to explain the Russian parts.”
Senator Russell commented: “I think you’ve got more faith in them than I have. I think they’ll doctor anything they hand to us.”
The phrase “nothing absolutely normal about any phase of it” has stood the test of time.
Read the entire transcript of the Dec 16 1963 Warren Commission executive session.”
https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/dec-16-1963-behind-close-doors-the-warren-commission-is-baffled/#comments
A Christmas present for Jean Davison.
Jean Davison wrote: “Does concluding that Booth killed Lincoln violate the spirit of the Constitution?”
Jean, you will no doubt be delighted to read that the answer is no. The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” appears no where in the U.S. Constitution. I could argue that it’s covered under “due process,” but I won’t. We both know that wasn’t my argument.
I apologize for my unwarranted assertion.
I still believe Oswald was treated unfairly. It’s too easy to “blame the dead guy.” It wasn’t so very long ago that I was a 24 year old guy blundering through life doing the best I could. I shudder to think the horrible things people would’ve said about me at that point in my life, had I been accused of a horrible crime.
Bogman,
“I’ll say it again – Dan Rather and the WC HID the fact of JFK’s violent back and to left from the final bullet. That alone disqualifies both as honest seekers of the truth in this case. The American people didn’t now this until 12 years after the fact when the Zapruder was finally – and illegally – shown publicly.”
The Z film probably wasn’t released publicly because it showed a President’s skull exploding. I don’t believe that kind of gore was ever shown publicly in those days, even in movies. I first saw it at the National Archives, where it was available to researchers well before Groden’s bootleg copy was seen on TV.
JFK’s “back and to the left” certainly looks like a hit from the front but experts say that’s a false impression. Forensic pathologist Vincent di Maio, for instance, has said, “No. That’s make-believe. That’s [something out of] Arnold Schwarzenegger pictures.”
Even Dr. Wecht and Dr. Mantik don’t believe the “head snap” indicates a shot from the front. You can read their statements here:
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html
Other experts have agreed with them in testimony to the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA.
As I understand it, Dan Rather saw the Z film only once on a small screen and not in slow motion. The whole film lasts about 26 seconds. Rather never got anything wrong? He had to be lying? I don’t think so. He’s fallible just like everyone else.
“Where do you have to go after that, really, to lose your trust of the WC’s conclusions?”
I’ve never “trusted” the WC conclusions, Bogman. I came to my own conclusions and they turned out to agree with theirs.
P.S.–
I should’ve recalled and pointed out that Dr. Wecht has said different things at different times. During the HSCA investigation he suggested that a soft-nosed bullet might’ve hit the right side of JFK’s head simultaneously with the known shot and disintegrated completely without leaving an exit wound. The rest of the panel “[took] exception to such speculation,” item 460 here:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82&relPageId=184&search=wecht_backward physics OR newton
Wecht testified to the Rockeller Commission that the available evidence pointed to only two bullets from the rear. An article he co-wrote in 1974 said that “if any other bullet struck the President’s head, whether before, after, or simultaneously with the known bullet, there is no evidence for it in the available autopsy materials.”
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=930&relPageId=276&search=wecht_backward OR back
Jean, I don’t know of many rational people who could, upon viewing the Zapruder film, describe the head shot saying “the President’s head went forward violently”, as Rather described to the nation on 25 Nov 1963. Was that your first impression upon viewing the film at the archives?
Really? Dan Rather just got it wrong when he said the president went violently FORWARD with the last shot? Weird how that’s what everyone in America immediately noticed when it was first shown publicly.
And you dodge the key question – the WC didn’t have to show the Z film but they should’ve described it accurately.
Not sure where you’re getting your evidence to conclusively say there was no conspiracy when the authorities prevaricate on this key piece of evidence alone. What other evidence wasn’t accurately described?
You know and I know the Feds settled on Oswald by the night of the assassination and let DPD know that. So the FBI was free to pick and choose its witnesses and evidence and “solve” the case in a fortnight.
Then have the CIA running iilegal interference on significant evidence in the WC, HSCA and the ARRB. Why that doesn’t raise your hackles I got no idea. They could’ve answered these questions but they played it so well on Cuba, DRE and the rest that the outrage was effectively diluted among the body politic.
And would love to hear your thoughts on my conjecture above if Oswald had been a modern-day jihadist and if you would’ve been so forgiving of the govt’s many “oversights.”
Jean,
You wrote: “Even Dr. Wecht and Dr. Mantik don’t believe the “head snap” indicates a shot from the front. You can read their statements here: … .”
When you click your link, you’re taken to Wecht discussing whether a “body will move in the same direction as a bullet that strikes it,” a disanalogous comparison. We’re talkin’ a head here, not a body.
Moreover, I’ve discussed this with Dr. Wecht and he’s come to the view, in light of the work of Don Thomas, that a shot from the grassy knoll might indeed explain the rearward jolt.
First, “Jet Effect” has been experimentally debunked as an explanation. Or, as Larry Sturdivan put it, “The question is, did the gunshot produce enough force in expelling the material (forward) from Kennedy’s head to throw his body backward into the limousine? Based on the high-speed movies of the skull shot simulations at the Biophysics Laboratory, the answer is no.” (JFK Myths, 2005, p. 162)
Sturdivan testified, “All 10 of the skulls that we shot did essentially the same thing. They gained a little bit of momentum consistent with one or a little better foot-per-second velocity that would have been imparted by the bullet … .” (They saw no recoil from a “jet effect.”)http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0204b.htm
Since jacketed bullets deliver momentum to skulls, it’s likely that skulls struck with soft-nosed, non-jacketed hunting rounds that flatten on impact would impart even more. Sturdivan also pointed out that “a similar explosion (to what we see in the Z film) would have taken place if the bullet had gone through in the opposite direction” – from, say, a tangential shot from the right front. (“JFK Myths,” 2005, p. 171.)
In my next note I’ll quote from Don Thomas’s duscussion that I believe is pretty compelling.
In his book, “Hear No Evil,” (p.345-6) Don Thomas explores the question of momentum transfer from a Grassy Knoll shot as an explanation for JFK’s rearward jolt after Z-313:
“For the purposes of this discussion let us suppose that the hypothetical killer on the grassy knoll was armed with a .30-.30 rifle … (which) happens to have a muzzle velocity (2200ft/sec) very close to that of the Carcano, and fires a 170 grain bullet, slightly larger than the Carcano bullet. At 30 yards the projectile would have struck at a velocity of approximately 2100 fps … the momentum on impact with the head would be 50 ft-lb/sec. If one postulates a hunting bullet (in accordance with the X-ray evidence) (sic) which is designed to mushroom and deposit its energy at the wound instead of a fully jacketed bullet, we will allow a deposit of 80% of the momentum, leaving a residual velocity for the exiting bullet. This results in a momentum applied to the target of 40 ft-lb/sec; considerably more than Sturdivan’s stingy allowance of 18.4 ft-lb/sec. It is important to realize that at the time Kennedy was struck with the fatal shot at Z-312-3, he had most likely been paralyzed by the shot through the base of the neck (Sturdivan agrees). Consequently, his head was lolling forward, not supported by the muscles of the neck. This fact tends to minimize any damping effect from the absorption of shock by the neck until after the head has snapped back. Assuming a head weight of 12 lbs, the velocity imparted to the head would be approximately 3.3 feet per second … .” (The same speed of the test skulls that Mr. Sturdivan reported in his book, though in JFK’s case it might have even been faster as most estimates put the weight of a human head at 10-11 lbs.)
From the study of the Zapruder film by Josiah Thompson, the observed rearward velocity for the head was roughly 1.6 feet per second after frame 313.
Thomas concludes, “Even given the uncertainty about the exact weight of the President’s head and the residual velocity of the bullet, the observed movement of the President’s head is well within the range, if anything less, than expected from the momentum imparted by the impact of a rifle bullet.” (“Hear No Evil,” p. 345-6.)
If Sturdivan is right that jacketed MCC shells moved blasted skulls forward at 3 ft/sec, imagine how much faster skulls would move if hit with heavier, higher velocity, soft-nosed bullets; perhaps enough not only to move JFK’s skull “back to the left,” but also enough to even nudge his paralyzed upper body backward. For the Z film shows that JFK’s body doesn’t arch backward, as per the “neuromuscular” reactions that have been proposed by Warren loyalists, his head moves backward, with his upper body following along limply.
Moreover, such a shot actually better explains that trail of tiny fragments along the upper part of JFK’s skull X-ray than a shot from behind.
Jean writes, inter alia, “Other experts have agreed with them (about the rearward head snap after Z-313) in testimony to the Rockefeller Commission … .”
Even without Dalbot’s “Devil’s Chessboard,” how can anyone ignore the absurdity of the govt appointing Rockefeller, of all people, to investigate the CIA’s crimes and misdeeds?
And who was chosen “exective director?” Why, David Belin, someone who only “patriots” would consider objective.
But, you may counter, Belin said that, “Since I had served as assistant counsel with the Warren Commission, I removed myself from the direct responsibility for any investigation pertaining to the assassination.” That, per usual, wasn’t precisely true. In 1988 he admitted that when Rockefeller’s medical experts convened to review JFK’s autopsy evidence, the irrepressible Belin personally attended that meeting, examining the autopsy photographs and X-rays right alongside his consultants.
It was Wecht who first emphasized Belin’s Warren Commission roots. Wecht also charged that, “The (medical) panel itself is made up of people who have been associated with the Baltimore Medical Examiner’s Office, the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, three facilities which either supplied the members of the original autopsy team or from which selected members of a previous panel had been appointed by the Justice Department in 1968 to defend the Warren Report.”
Wecht’s unrestrained assertions were not without foundation. Rockefeller appointee Werner U. Spitz, MD, the Detroit Medical Examiner, was a close professional colleague of one of the Clark Panel members, Baltimore Medical Examiner Russell Fisher, MD, under whom Spitz had served for several years.[227] Richard Lindenberg, MD, a Baltimore-based, State of Maryland neuropathologist, was described in a once-secret Commission memo as having provided “consultation to the Medical Examiner for the State of Maryland [Russell Fisher] – but is subordinate to him.”[228] Panelist Fred Hodges, MD, a neuroradiologist, was picked from Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins University, the institution that had contributed Russell Morgan, MD, the radiologist who had made the X-ray mistakes discussed above as a Clark Panelist. Pathologist Lt. Col. Robert R. McMeeken, MC was appointed from Pierre Finck’s alma mater, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The Warren Commission consultant who had failed to note the marked discrepancies between the test skulls he shot up and JFK’s skull, Dr. Alfred Olivier, completed Rockefeller’s team of independent and impartial consultants.
Among “patriots,” there seems to be the view that the rule, He who pays the fiddler calls the tune, just never applies to govt-appointed/paid “experts” who are tasked with investigating the govt. Were we talking about any other country, these same “patriots” would be the first to howl in derision at the conclusions of such a group.
And that’s without specifying the stupefying errors and omissions that characterized the work of Rockefeller Comm’s “experts.”
Further discussion, with hot-links to sources available, here: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_4.htm
Jean: I’ve never “trusted” the WC conclusions, Bogman. I came to my own conclusions and they turned out to agree with theirs.
Nice to learn this now. Any of the other LNers on this site don’t trust the WR? Complete news to me.
I START my consideration of the case from what the authorities lied about and concealed, THEN decide if any of the evidence they procured and presented is worth considering.
As they say in the legal system, if a witness is caught in one lie, you can choose to disregard the rest of their testimony.
For me, that’s the only rational reaction to the WR and HSCA.
The ARRB was a records release and had less chance of being tampered with, but tampered with it the CIA did yet again by deceiving the body into not releasing its Joannides files.
And we have found plenty from the files released – especially that the nation’s military leaders were willing to do just about anything in their insane obsession with fighting communism, including killing American citizens.
Not a huge step in conspiring to kill a president they believe was selling out the US to the communists, is it?
Bogman,
“Jean: I’ve never “trusted” the WC conclusions, Bogman. I came to my own conclusions and they turned out to agree with theirs.”
Nice to learn this now. Any of the other LNers on this site don’t trust the WR? Complete news to me.”
Don’t misunderstand me. By “trusted” I mean I’ve never accepted anything the WC or the gov’ment said based on faith.
“I START my consideration of the case from what the authorities lied about and concealed, THEN decide if any of the evidence they procured and presented is worth considering.”
That’s a big mistake IMO because you’d made up your mind that the “authorities lied” before you even started your investigation. Naturally that influenced what you decided was “worth considering.” How could I not?
“As they say in the legal system, if a witness is caught in one lie, you can choose to disregard the rest of their testimony.”
I agree. That’s exactly why I don’t trust Mark Lane after finding out how he’d misled me.
Jean —
I had the same experience with Lane. Great public defender, bad presenter of the facts.
I have read the WR and HSCA documents extensively. And from my POV, Oswald’s sole guilt is harder to swallow than a conspiracy.
One question I want to ask you:
Where and how did Oswald put together the rifle in the TSBD?
No one saw him bring it in. The FBI says it took at least 5 minutes to put together (and we all know how we can trust their accuracy).
Where and when does Oswald do it? He can’t put it together then leave it somewhere. Someone could find it or see him carry it to the 6th floor window.
The worker eating chicken on the 6th floor might’ve been there as late as 12:15 – a scant 10 mins before the president was scheduled to come by.
No screwdriver was ever found in “sniper’s nest” so he must have assembled it with a dime in his pocket? Not easy. And one dropped and lost screw and the president doesn’t die.
Seems as impossible as most conspiracy scenarios.
“Jean, I don’t know of many rational people who could, upon viewing the Zapruder film, describe the head shot saying “the President’s head went forward violently”, as Rather described to the nation on 25 Nov 1963. Was that your first impression upon viewing the film at the archives?”
I’m sure that my first impression was being shocked by the head wound explosion. I don’t remember any particular reaction to JFK’s movements after that. This was a long time ago and I don’t remember every detail clearly.
One thing I do know for certain, though. If I had interpreted the backward movement as evidence he was shot from the front, I’d remember that and still be saying it today.
So Jean, your first memory stopped with the explosion of JFK’s head. Go back and watch it again, it’s still back and to the left. From a front shot from the right.
Bogman,
Where and when does Oswald [assemble the rifle]? He can’t put it together then leave it somewhere.”
Yes, he could. I’ve replied to these questions earlier, but again:
Frazier saw him carrying a supposedly shorter but oblong bag through the back door. News photos show a long bag being carried out later that day. The witness inside, Dougherty, didn’t have a good view of Oswald as he came in. I’ve posted this before, but…
This photo taken from the back entrance shows the wrapping table where Dougherty was (wooden structure with an arch near the center of the photo):
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/28/Photo_wcd496_0011.jpg
Oswald could have taken the freight elevator on the right up to the 6th floor or walked around the corner to the stairs:
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/0/06/Photo_wcd496_0012.jpg
Where could he have hidden a brown paper package on the 6th floor? Just about anywhere:
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/7/78/Photo_wcd81-1_0101.jpg
He didn’t even have to wait for the floor-laying crew to break for lunch. They were working in the foreground here on the opposite side of the building:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10484&relPageId=115
He had all morning. He worked alone, nobody followed him around. If anything went wrong, like not being able to assemble the rifle, JFK would’ve lived and Oswald could’ve put the rifle back in the bag and told Frazier he needed a ride to Irving. (The bag was found intact, not ripped open, so maybe Oswald had foreseen this possibility??)
On another point, I’ve never “conclusively said there was no conspiracy.” Neither did the WC, by the way. I’ve seen no persuasive evidence linking anyone but Oswald to the assassination and don’t expect to after all these years.
OK, Jean, so Oswald’s reason to all this trouble of killing a president knowing full well he would be caught with an ID tying him to the weapon (and a photo at home allegedly), why do it and then deny it? Also, why not bring his revolver if he’s this desperate a character?
And if you could also answer my Atta question above, I’d appreciate it:
If CIA assets had issued a press release about Atta three months before 9-11 as a danger to America, and he was also on first-name basis with the local FBI, and he had met with the head of wet operations for Al Qaida six weeks before in the most heavily monitored city in the Western World, what kind of reaction would you expect from the American people?
Bogman,
“OK, Jean, so Oswald’s reason …”
That’s it? No comment on my reply, just move on to the next question?
“….to all this trouble of killing a president knowing full well he would be caught with an ID tying him to the weapon (and a photo at home allegedly), why do it and then deny it? Also, why not bring his revolver if he’s this desperate a character?”
If Hinckley had been killed on the spot (as I think Oswald probably expected to be), would anybody have guessed his motive? Does that mean Hinckley didn’t shoot Reagan?
I don’t accept the premises in your Atta comparison, Bogman, so no thanks.
Gary,
“You wrote: “Even Dr. Wecht and Dr. Mantik don’t believe the “head snap” indicates a shot from the front. You can read their statements here: … .”
When you click your link, you’re taken to Wecht discussing whether a “body will move in the same direction as a bullet that strikes it,” a disanalogous comparison. We’re talkin’ a head here, not a body.”
If you go back to that page and click on the link to Wecht’s Menendez trial testimony, he was actually talking about an arm.
I’m certainly no expert in physics or wound ballistics (may I ask, is Don Thomas?). From what I’ve read, I don’t think there was any one cause of the “head snap,” like jet effect. One thing the experts I’ve seen quoted seem to agree on is that JFK’s violent backward movement could not have been caused by a bullet.
Also, Wecht has pointed out that JFK’s head doesn’t start moving back until 2 or 3 frames after the head exploded. The bullet that caused Z313 was long gone by then. Any pushing it did was forward, between 312 and 313. Richard Feynman pointed this out to David Lifton long ago when Lifton showed him the frames and asked about the head snap.
If there were two shots, they would’ve had to be almost simultaneous, within “about a ninth of a second, maybe a little less,” according to Wecht.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31990&search=sturdivan_head+movement#relPageId=78&tab=page
So far as I know, Wecht found no evidence of two shots in the x-rays.
Jean: That’s it? No comment on my reply, just move on to the next question?
I understood your point. My recollection is that Frazier watched Oswald walk toward the building not in the building with the package. And you make it sound like there weren’t other workers walking around on all floors and could’ve come upon Oswald wherever he put the gun together. And if he doesn’t stash it on the sixth floor sniper’s nest, then he has to rustle out of it somewhere and walk it over there. Seems like a big risk.
Jean: If Hinckley had been killed on the spot (as I think Oswald probably expected to be), would anybody have guessed his motive? Does that mean Hinckley didn’t shoot Reagan?
Either Oswald wasn’t up there or he had a getaway plan. Which again begs the question – if you’re going to all the trouble of running down the stairs and leave why have the Hidell ID on you tying you to the gun? He leaves his ring at the Paine house but not his Hidell ID? If you throw away the shells at the Tippit scene, why not the wallet that IDs you as the assassin? What gives?
Jean: I don’t accept the premises in your Atta comparison, Bogman, so no thanks
OK. But for me there are 3 parts to this case – Oswald’s ability to do the crime alone, his motive and his intelligence connections.
You were the one who said Oswald was a “nobody” and I’m saying if Atta or Tim McVey or any other terrorist or would-be assassin was half the “nobody” Oswald was to the feds, you and the rest of America would be demanding a full investigation of the intel agencies and their competency, and rightfully so.
Not quite sure how you can rule out conspiracy without that issue explained. And the fact is the US govt has had 50+ years to explain itself and instead has prevaricated — unconstitutionally I might add — all along the way.
Bogman,
“My recollection is that Frazier watched Oswald walk toward the building not in the building with the package.”
I’ve seen that claim before, but:
QUOTE:
Mr. BALL – Now when he went in the door you were about 50 feet behind him?
Mr. FRAZIER – Right. The last time I saw him I was right in this area coming across these railroad tracks and I just happened to glance up and see him going through the door there and shut the door.
UNQUOTE
“And you make it sound like there weren’t other workers walking around on all floors and could’ve come upon Oswald wherever he put the gun together.”
What makes you think there *were* workers walking around on all floors? I’ve never gotten that impression, myself.
Do you wonder how the “real” SN shooter could avoid being seen, or only Oswald?
“Either Oswald wasn’t up there or he had a getaway plan.”
Why? No one could reasonably expect to shoot a President in full view from a 6th-floor window and escape, imo. I recall that the Walker note gave Marina instructions on what to do if he were killed or captured so evidently he’d foreseen that possibility.
“Which again begs the question – if you’re going to all the trouble of running down the stairs and leave why have the Hidell ID on you tying you to the gun? He leaves his ring at the Paine house but not his Hidell ID?”
I can’t read his mind, but he probably knew the rifle would be traced to his P.O. Box sooner or later. He couldn’t avoid been tied to the weapon.
“If you throw away the shells at the Tippit scene, why not the wallet that IDs you as the assassin? What gives?”
He threw down shells as he reloaded the gun. The wallet wasn’t his — Dale Myers has shown this with photos, imo.
What did the federal agencies know about Oswald pre-11/22 that made him a danger to JFK? He was a leftist and former defector who was apparently trying to get to Cuba or the USSR. He would be seen as a danger to JFK because…..?
I wouldn’t say a conspiracy has been ruled out. I’ve never seen evidence that convinces me that there was one.
Speculating about *why* someone did or didn’t do this or that isn’t evidence of anything or very productive, imo. It has to be speculation because nobody can read minds.