Allen Lowe – December 14
as for me “making up this story.” Moderators: I do believe Photon has crossed a line here, accusing me of lying in a public forum. Your move.
Days
Hours
Minutes
Technical assistance courtesy of the Mary Ferrell Foundation | Designed by iWebResults
I do not know if anyone has mentioned this at all but once upon a time, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth, Dale Myers was actually a “buff”. In fact, he was interviewed by John Kelin for Kelin’s show on a Michigan radio station to discuss his views, if I recall. One wonders how and when Myers had his “road to Damascus” moment and how he joined the dark side.
Another thing I notice about Misters Photon, DVP, and McAdams is that they never raise the political aspects of the case such as the withdrawal plan for Vietnam and the winding down of the Cold War. Jim DiEugenio, who I greatly respect, has written extensively about the post-coup foreign policy changes and how they haunt us even today.
I think this is a wonderful site. A large part of what makes it what it is is divergent opinions and different analysis of information. Those who think/believe that there wasn’t a conspiracy of some sort are clearly in the minority here. They do add something. They also help to keep us on our toes. I think the site would be poorer without them. If they aren’t welcome then what might be next? Possibly quibbles over this or that theory and so forth until others aren’t welcome too. Respect for those one disagrees with can be easy if those one disagrees with are also respectful. It may be a bit harder to remain respectful of someone who is perceived as being snippy or smug but I think that is when it’s most important to be polite.
Diversity of opinion and diversity of interpretation of information is not a bad thing.There is a broader consensus. That being that everyone who visits here has an interest in the JFK assasination.
Allen is in good company. Photon has also accused David Talbot, Josiah Thompson, and numerous other researchers of fabricating their evidence, while simultaneously contending that JFK’s mythical “abnormal neck” explains the Single Bullet Theory and refusing to provide any source when asked.
Why bother engaging with other people when you can just dismiss them as “buffs,” accuse them of lying, or pose as experts on everything under the sun?
Maybe they are trying to use psychological warfare techniques.
“Maybe they are trying to use psychological warfare techniques.”
~Gerry Simone
Ya think???
Hahahaha… I’m not laughing at you Gerry, it’s just such an understatement that I find it a bit humorous.
\\][//
I don’t recall ever posting anything stating that JFK’s abnormal neck condition was a requirement for the validity of the Single Bullet Fact, because the ballistic results would have been just as valid for a normal neck.I brought up the topic originally to highlight the medical inaccuracies of certain individuals posting here who do not understand that 3-dimensional conclusions should not be based on 2-dimensional illustrations.
The original description of Kennedy’s neck abnormality was from RFK. It was clearly observed at autopsy by one of the pathologists present.
“I don’t recall ever posting anything stating that JFK’s abnormal neck condition was a requirement for the validity of the Single Bullet [Fantasy] . . .”
Don’t worry, Paul, we remember, and will be happy to remind you of it at every opportunity. Some people get drunk, drop trou, and dance on tabletops with lampshades on their heads. You post comments about JFK’s abnormal neck proving A. Spector’s dubious theory about the magic bullet. In the morning, you’re the only one who doesn’t remember . . .
Be well, and Happy Holidays! Go easy on the egg nog, and stay off those tabletops.
Fairfaxer, I challenge you to post any message on this blog with time and date where I have stated that JFK’s abnormal neck condition was necessary for the Single Bullet fact to be correct.
As none of the CTers that post on this site have a clue about what I am talking about the conclusions that you and others think I have made in regard to JFK’s neck abnormality are not logical.
I have stated the source for the pathological finding twice. If you don’t understand that a pathologist at the autopsy noted the abnormality there probably isn’t anything that can convince you.
Fearfaxer, you made an allegation that you have yet to support.
Where is an example for your claim that I stated that JFK’s abnormal neck condition was necessary for the Single Bullet Fact to be valid?
Paul, unless you can document that JFK’s “neck abnormality” caused his cervical and thoracic vertebral bodies to move significantly to the left of his spinal cord, you cannot explain why a bullet entering right of T-3 would leave an apparent entrance wound at the midline above the knot of his necktie.
You can’t get there from there.
Call it “Ed’s Paradox” if you like, but, given your obvious familiarity with anatomy, you can’t explain the lack of obvious injury to the vertebral bodies (not the transverse processes).
First off Ed, the bullet didn’t enter @ the T3 level-read the autopsy report. The only mention of the T3 entry is Burkley’s death certificate-and states that the round entered ” at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra”- even here CTers accept an approximation as a definitive diagnosis, ignoring everything else the Admiral wrote.
Nowhere will you find that Burkley even MENTIONS a throat wound.
Of course, the neck abnormality might have contributed to Burkley placing the entrance too low.
I’m not going to waste my time digging through comment threads to find the specific post. The fact that so many people remember it is proof positive that you, at the very least, insinuated that JFK’s abnormal neck is a reason the Single Bullet Fantasy is correct. Whether or not you meant to say that, your possibly sloppily written comment certainly implied it, and you have yet to answer the very simple question: Just what the hell did you mean by saying JFK had an abnormal neck, and even if he did, what possible relevance did it have to that particular argument?
You have also yet to state what USMC rules concerning liberty would have made a possible Oswald trip to San Diego impossible. Once again, put up or tacitly admit you’re nothing but a spouter of hot air and cattle manure.
I’d say “put up or shut up,” but you do such a horrible job of arguing the case for the WC Report I’d be very sad if you ever stopped posting here. Keep it up, please!
MCO1050.3j is the current updated guide for liberty restrictions. It is actually more liberal than USMC policies in regard to Liberty Limitations from the 1950s.
On December 19, 2015 at 10:41 PM, Photon wrote:
“MCO 1050.3j is the current updated guide for liberty restrictions. It is actually more liberal than USMC policies in regard to liberty limitations from the 1950’s.”
My Dearest Photon, would you please provide documentation that details what regulations were in place that would have made it impossible for Oswald to travel from El Toro to San Diego?
The document you provided was not materially different from anything I supplied, yet you implied that my reference was not sufficient.
For a number of reasons, I have been, and shall remain, reticent about referring to my family during this discussion. Primarily, my offering, being anecdotal, does not meet my standards for a properly documented rebuttal. However, to the extent the following contributes to our exchange, I am willing to make an exception.
Photon, in ’54 and ’55, my mother was a Marine stationed at El Toro. According to her, there was no regulation, nor logistical impediment, that prevented her and her boyfriend (my father,) from visiting her future brothers-in-law and their families in San Diego, when time permitted. You should have trusted me when I wrote that I knew more about this than you.
Oswald was not at El Toro in 1954-1955. Nor was he a Woman Marine,
Nor ( I assume) did your mother have the disciplinary issues that Oswald had prior to assignment at MCAS El Toro.
Different time. Different setting. No relationship to Oswald’s situation.
Fairfaxer,
This is Photon’s first mention of JFK’s “abnormal neck” as far as I can determine. As you see it is in reference to Dale Meyers’ cartoon about the “Magic Bullet”, so it is in that context that Photon brings up the subject.
But he never would explain HOW this asserted neck anomaly had anything to do with the subject. And this joker Photon played his cat and mouse game to the hilt throughout several different threads here on this blog. Even unto this one today, with his disinginuous “challenge to you.
Photon’s proximate neck remark:
Photon — November 24, 2015 at 6:25 pm
“Dale Myers presents facts. If you can confirm one inaccurate statement in his review please identify it.
Unlike Drs. Thompson and Aguilar he doesn’t have to make up quotes, put Corpsmen into Graduate School or make up requirements for FBI 302 forms.
And as he states the scientific evidence over 52 years has only strengthened the case against Oswald- at least to those who have the scientific and medical background to understand that evidence.
Such as JFK’s abnormal neck condition.”
Then play on…
\\][//
This site is brilliant because it attracts people genuiniely worth listening to. On the lone nut side these people are McAdams, Photon, DVP and Jean Davison. It is naive to expect a clear’win’ in argument against with them but there is loads to learn.
There is the rare admission (Photon accepts there was a cover-up) but more crucial are the ommissions, and arguements never entered into (McAdams has never explained how Joannides was a completely innocent man, who did an honest job with the HSCA for example)
I think the moderation is excellent.
What is your point?
Jeff assumes that his relationship with the DRE is terribly, terribly important, so he should have told the HSCA about it.
But if it wasn’t terribly important, it doesn’t matter.
You might critically examine the issue of whether Joannides and the DRE conspired to murder Kennedy. Jeff has no evidence of that. So he plays the usual game of “wow! Isn’t this sinister!”
Jeff seems to be assuming what he needs to prove: that Joannides and the DRE conspired to kill Kennedy.
“But if it wasn’t terribly important, it doesn’t matter.”
Nonsense. Any investigation of the CIA link to the DRE would involve many activities in which Joannides was involved. As liaison to the committee, he was in a perfect position to deny the committee access to this information. It’s a textbook conflict of interest, like having a crooked ADA lead a criminal inquiry into matters in which he helped out his gangster friends.
When you post stuff like this, you perform invaluable service to the people whose arguments you imagine you’re dismissing. Thanks for that. 😉
“Joannides relationship with the DRE” is a rather gentle way of putting it. I wonder with whom Oswald had a similar “relationship?” Do you think their encounter in New Orleans was a spontaneous event?
McAdams wrote:
“Jeff seems to be assuming what he needs to prove: that Joannides and the DRE conspired to kill Kennedy.”
To my knowledge Mr. Morley has never made that accusation. Please post a source or a retraction, whichever is appropriate.
You have Morley come here and explain exactly what he does believe.
Mostly he just implies stuff, in a rather cagey manner.
What do you mean by “spontaneous?”
Oswald decided he wanted to “infiltrate” the anti-Castro movement. That’s what he claimed in his “Revolutionary Résumé”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autobiography.htm
Mr Morley!!, Mr Morley!!
McAdams : Re Joannides link to the DRE.
“Jeff assumes that his relationship with the DRE is terribly, terribly important, so he should have told the HSCA about it.
But if it wasn’t terribly important, it doesn’t matter.”
I think he’s trying for quote of the week. More like barrel scrape of the week.
John McAdams, Dale Myers, and other WC apologists always go into attack mode when they have nothing left to say to bolster their case. For example, on Myers’ site, when a commenter made some good valid points about the case, Myers’ first word in his reply was, “Rubbish!” It’s pretty much their modus operandi.
I recently sent an animated GIF to another – as McAdams calls them – “buff” about the head wound. This “buff” was respectful of my ideas, pointed out his disagreements to my thoughts, and I then went on and mentioned that I disagreed with some of the points he made on his website. There were no personal attacks.
Meanwhile, because McAdams, Myers, Posner, and others have pretty much sold their souls down the pike to be “mockingbirds” of the WC, they probably believe they can get away with attacking (Rubbish! Buffs!) folks like us who disagree with the case. Arrogance breeds arrogance. Just ignore them.
I just posted this at the Original thread….
Pardon me for being Pedantically, impertinent perhaps importantly so but was your service at the hospital in patient awaiting disability review or approval, or as a Volunteer?
Therefore, full-time operational/support service performed by Guard personnel in ACDUTRA status does NOT qualify as active duty for purposes of VA benefits UNLESS the member or former member has a service-connected disease or injury that was incurred or aggravated during the ACDUTRA period.
Just Curious, always National Guard or was their Active Duty? How long Volunteer as Candy Striper or How Long National Guard, Mr Photon Torpedo?
Willy Bova
Photon, John McAdams, and David Von Pein are all liars on behalf ot the discredited Warren Omission.
I further believe that to call you a liar is an attempt to discredit all Conspiracy Realists including Jeff, Tom and may others including myself.
Bingo.
(Sometimes however, some conspiracy proponents who are uninitiated may be misinformed and make mistakes. This doesn’t mean that all conspiracy realists in this case are uninformed or have wacky theories.)
Gerry Simone writes:
“This doesn’t mean that all conspiracy realists in this case are uninformed or have wacky theories.”
Furthermore, not all of us reject the entire body of evidence. A few Examples: I believe Oswald killed Tippit. The Zapruder film is unaltered. The backyard photos are authentic. Oswald probably went to Mexico City. The autopsy doctors were competent.
Nevertheless, all things considered, the official theory is an untrustworthy mess.
I hear you Bill but I may not agree with all your examples he, he.
Further to what you say, not all of the evidence gathered by even the Warren Commission is useless because some of it if not a lot of it circumstantially points to possible conspiracy.
I’m on your page on these as well, Bill.
“The backyard photos are authentic.”
They may well be, but there’s a good chance Marina didn’t take them. Her testimony includes a good deal of confusion about the camera. One possible candidate for the real photographer is Michael Paine, who seems to have been a good deal more involved with Oswald than he’ll admit.
I cannot leave here, btw, without commenting on my absolute wonder at Photon’s incredibly broad expertise – he has seen all of LHO’s medical records, knows where he was at every moment, and clearly has detailed, encyclopedic knowledge of “the hospital, the Marine Corps or the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery.” Certain he is a man of great Intelligence (connections).
Is there any subject photon is not an expert on, any government organization of which he has not been a member, any location he has not spent most of his life? Talk about hard to believe. Maybe there are a team of sock puppets posting with the same moniker?
I have no idea about the story, but it is amazing how certain someone can be that someone he didn’t know could not have been somewhere and talked to a stranger. Like how impossible it is that a mafia member referred to Ruby as a goombah. It’s more than a bit odd how every random and inconsequential statement of anybody with a different view has to be challenged by our resident foil.
Mr. Lowe, as I’ve stated before on the site I believe Photon’s, he, she or they are not a person but an amalgam. They know “fact’s” so quickly, so extensively, and respond so quickly it is not a person. I believe I hear Operation Mockingbird singing.
Ronnie,
How does your opinion of a source of criticism of Allen Lowe’s facts, as told to him by an unidentified third party, steer readers to
any actual fact checking of Allen Lowe’s presentation? Photon made specific points that can be researched further by interested readers.
You offered your opinion of Photon. Can you address any of the points Photon raised? You mention “so quickly, so extensively,” and if they
are checked out and are valid, how does it matter how quickly they emerged? I’ve sped up the interaction here dramatically but only for less than the last two months. You’ve had a much longer period to observe Photon’s comments. How could you possibly sense how quickly he replied,
when comments spent a longer period in moderation? Who comments at Jfkfacts.org, multiple times, but does not have an agenda? Would it be more interesting to read comments either all in agreement or less forceful, less intelligent disagreement?
Your right Tom. I did not steer readers to fact checking Mr. Lowe. If I recall correctly Photons “specific points” were mot backed up by any quotes or links regarding USMC policy on stateside leave. Maybe my aging memory is incorrect. It would be nice if the comment of the week provided a link back to the full statement it comes from/article it was in response to for the context it was originally made in.
I took Photons comment as his opinion of Mr. Dale’s comment, which he used to impinge the credibility of someone who’s work I respect.
I forgot to take it with the grain of salt suggested above. Maybe I should have just steered readers to his work which I personally consider more informative than anything I’ve ever read here or anywhere else by Photon, McAdams or DVP.
http://www.jfkconversations.com/
Readers might want to start with either of the conversations with Jeff Morley, or the one with Rex Bradford for insight into this site.
No it would not be more interesting to read comments all in agreement/less forceful/less intelligent. I think the current moderation has probably increased readership of the site. It has obviously brought back Photon and McAdams who had been inactive for a while. I would like to note Conspiracy Realists can and often do disagree over points on the conspiracy site with no help from the lone nutters.
Just My Opinion. Cheers to all.
Ronnie Wayne, one of the 2 or 3 most perceptive, intuitive posters on JFK Facts:
Your original judgment above is correct, “They [Photon] know ‘facts’ [= canards]so quickly, extensively, and respond so quickly it is not A person.”
Now, a great deal of the Mass-less One’s commentary is knee-jerk easy. For instance, if someone notes the suspicious nature of Jack Ruby’s quick cancer, diagnosed first as pneumonia and the heebie-jeebies, all Photon has to do is type, “Are you an oncologist? If not, you have no right…” Someone who notes the War Con moving the back-wound from where it was in the shirt and jacket, 5 1/2″ down, to the shoulder is asked, “Ever done an autopsy? If not, you know not of what you speak.” That’s easy; any monkey-wrencher can do it.
But then there’s a whole other category of Pho Bia’s distractions: the barely-related microscopic detail, posted with lightning speed. Not long ago, Leslie Sharp asked Photon, “Please give your evidence that Adele Edisen [majoring in medicine — ha ha Maxwell] is a fraud.” Within minutes: “Blackie’s is closed Mondays.” I’m guessing Blackie’s is a bar or restaurant where AE claimed she met someone or did an interview. I didn’t want to chase it down. But first, note the machine-like, not-real-world disqualification that a place not open to the PUBLIC on a day of the week, could not possibly be opened on that day for private parties or powwows, or a million other reasons. As if none of the fifty or a hundred keys to the joint would work on a Monday. Or maybe they met outside AT Blackie’s. Who knows, who cares.
And second, more importantly, WAG that Adele Edisen has written at least a million words on the general subject of the JFK assassination. No way could one person find that needle in a haystack in one minute. Somewhere, there’s a bank of Kennedy cavils. And I notice in a Photon post in this topic above, he throws out “the Carlos Hathcock myth” and “Cheryl McKinnon” something or other. Now, I know at least a thousand names related to the subject, and these 2 names ring such a faint bell that I can’t hear it. They are both almost entirely irrelevant and inconsequential to whatever he’s trying to say. But bam, they’re right there, Johnny on the Spot.
So Ronnie, you are more right than you know. A group of smelly red herrings is giving my old 1970s friend, Pho, all these baits-and-switches. They’re giving him the sugar to pour in the gastank of JFKFacts. Don’t be bugged, Ronnie.
Meinin aeide, thea, Photon.
Roy,
I spent ten hours on the telephone conversing with Adele Edisen a few years ago. Fascinating, personable, extremely intelligent professional.
I contacting her to share leads I developed of the background of the Secret Service SAIC of the NOLA office, John W. Rice, who she claims interviewed her on 24, November, 1963.
In 2013, I informed Adele that Mike Wallace’s secretary of the mid 1960’s had gone on to a career as a prominent Don Hewitt production executive at 60 Minutes and had married Dr. Col. Jose Rivera’s nephew in 1990.
I cannot vouch for the reliability of Adele Edisen’s claims because, putting myself in her place to the extent it is possible, I’d like to
think I would be more relentless in seeking evidence to back such extraordinary claims, than I sense she has been. The observation that Dr. Col. Rivera’s daughter remains nonplussed about Adele Edisen’s claims against her father to the point of leaving public access to her Facebook profile family photos of Dr. Col. Rivera, her own friends list, including the name of the CBS 60 Minutes producer, and that producer
leaving her own FB friends list public with Linda Rivera King’s name included, seems confirmation that Edisen has not been forceful enough.
https://twitter.com/tjscully/status/225228073866498048
Col. Jose A. Rivera accused in this letter, sent to the HSCA, in 1976. He was cleared, when? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/AyArvWiCEAAGuZe.jpg
Shortly after I sent this tweet to Kyra Darnton, she no longer had the 60 Minutes producer on her (Kyra’s) FB friend’s list.:
https://twitter.com/tjscully/status/534795626534690816
Kyra Darnton’s “foot in the door” for her journalism career was not hurt by her being John Darnton’s daughter.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Polk_Awards
In 2009 former New York Times editor John Darnton was named curator of the George Polk Awards.[5]
Adele Edisen will turn 88 years soon, it will be up to others to publicize her claims.
TomS. extremely interesting, and imo significant, particularly the chance that the Carlucci family surfaces with a Rivera link to indicate some degree of trajectory. Carlucci for those who don’t know was with the State Department” and active in CIA efforts in the Congo when Patrice Lumumba was murdered in 1961. Some allege he was behind the assassination. A protege of Donald Rumsfeld, he went on to serve as Reagan’s Sec Def and eventually became director of defence investors Carlyle Group, a board member of General Dynamics and Wackenhut among other military contractors, and a senior advisor at the Centre for Strategic International Studies. This is continuity.
Tangential to the SS Agent Rice inquiry should be the Orrin Bartlett question. In spite of the fact he was based in New Orleans with Rice and present at the Edisen interview(s?), he still managed to be the carrier of critical evidence (bullet fragments from the limo) from Dallas to Washington DC as Secret Service liaison with the FBI. What was that?
I guess everything is a conspiracy!
Once you start down that road, why stop? Why can’t everything you dislike or disagree with be a conspiracy?
McAdams
The terminology and context of Ronnie Wayne’s comment; “I believe Photon’s..” is clearly one indicating it is Ronnies OPINION. Presenting an opinion needn’t be attended by specific proofs as though one is attempting to prove something they have asserted as fact.
That you don’t like Ronnie’s opinions, doesn’t give weight to your opinions against his. They are both opinions.
Now you often admonish us to speak to the facts and not to the personalities here, but it seems to me that you spend an inordinate amount of your commentary doing the very thing you advise against.
\\][//
Not everything, but Photon’s persona certainly draws suspicion.
No John, not everything. But in regards to our Government, the Main Stream Media and Corporate America I’ve become much more cautiously suspicious and pessimistic over the years. I think that cynicism for many began with the splattering of JFK’s brains on the streets of Dallas November 22,1963 and the cover up/poor excuse of an investigation of it.
So true. He’s the Cliff Clavin of JFK Facts.
I knew I knew that name from somewhere but had to google it. The “know it all”/big mouth from Cheers!
http://www.bing.com/search?q=cliff+clavin+&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&refig=37bd178313b64dee89692a6ae1c48538&pq=cliff+clavin+&sc=8-13&sp=-1&qs=n&sk=&cvid=37bd178313b64dee89692a6ae1c48538
All Hail the Buffalo Theory!
actually, Tom, upon reflection, though I do not enjoy being called a liar, it really comes with the territory of this subject. I cannot object to being called something which I do believe, in fact, characterizes accurately the dominant characteristic of the LN crowd.
Well, somebody is lying. Having served at the duty station mentioned in the story it was easy to see where somebody not really familiar with the area, the hospital, the Marine Corps or the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery thought that they could get away with a story that not only was implausible , but logistically impossible.
It is amazing how many stories accepted as gospel by CTers have nothing to corroborate them aside from unsupported statements by the original authors. Like this one from Allen-an unsourced claim from an unidentified individual 40 years ago with terms that might impress a civilian but recognized as bogus by someone who would actually know.
‘Like this one from Allen-an unsourced claim from an unidentified individual 40 years ago with terms that might impress a civilian but recognized as bogus by someone who would actually know.’ — photon
How much more significant is photon’s assertion that he or she (or ‘they) is someone who would ‘actually know’ about terms vs. the specifics of Lowe’s personal vignette? From the outset, Allen Lowe has been up front, he has qualified the sources of the story he presents, he’s merely recounting an episode that could be of interest to those pursing the truth – a group I presume photon considers him/her/themselves a member – yet photon on the other hand makes veiled claims of being “one who would actually know” with no transparency whatsoever. Why should anyone trust photon’s version of events in Balboa, unless and until photon can present records that Oswald never walked thru the doors. The burden of proof is on photon, and I suspect photon has no such proof. Even if photon can produce the ‘sign in sheet’, is photon prepared to argue that Oswald did not enter the hospital surreptitiously? This can go on ad infinitum as has most other optimistic (and in my opinion naïve) assertions that there is a paper trail to prove or disprove Oswald’s innocence. Beyond 2017, there will be more decades of debate over documented revelations (or not) to no purpose. Accepting that fact is a step past the path of denial into acceptance of the coup d’etat.
What are the specifics of Lowe’s personal vignette? I don’t recall any specifics.He certainly hasn’t qualified any source-no name, no military history, no specifics of duty station, no context of why or how his source was hospitalized, no dates, etc-just a vague claim from “somebody” that convinces him that Oswald was somehow a recruiter for the ONI.
I find it almost comical the level of desperation posters are resorting to to find any possible way to place Oswald in San Diego when he couldn’t be there. For instance, the claims that Oswald could have traveled from El Toro to the Naval Hospital in San Diego. That claim betrays a fundamental lack of knowledge about liberty rules and ignorance of travel restrictions for enlisted personnel.
Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the person making the claim? Particularly if they make claims that are demonstrably false?
“Shouldn’t the burden of proof be on the person making the claim?”
Your counter claim carries an equal burden of proof, photon. Can you prove that Oswald did not enter Balboa? As to liberty, are you suggesting that when a young corpsman has leave, he or she cannot travel at will, be it to visit family or friends? Please educate us with citations.
‘comical the level of desperation posters are resorting to to find any possible way to place Oswald in San Diego’. Oswald in San Diego is not at issue; Oswald as a possible recruit of ONI is. There are significant sign posts to suggest he was working for a disparate bunch of intelligence operations. The possibility he attempted to recruit someone in San Diego is worth pursuit, unless of course it makes you a bit crazy; that is usually a ‘sign post’.
Photon, I brought up El Toro, but I didn’t claim he traveled from there to San Diego. I merely opined that it was possible. As a former enlisted man, I know more than you ever will about the liberty rules and travel restrictions thereof. Again, in the States, if I had a few days off no one asked or cared where I went, so long as I reported back for duty on time. Overseas, it was different. Please demonstrate for everyone how it’s impossible for an enlisted man to travel from El Toro to San Diego.
Please refer to USMC regulations concerning Liberty definitions and travel restrictions. Unless you were in the USMC your personal Liberty experiences are not applicable to what Oswald would have been permitted to do.Perhaps you can enlighten us on what Liberty opportunities Oswald had during his Boot Camp duty.
Didn’t Oswald visit the Cuban consulate in LA? How restrictive could his leave had been for chrissakes?
@ Photon
“Please refer to USMC regulations concerning Liberty definitions and travel restrictions.”
Why don’t YOU refer to them, i.e., tell us what they are? If you don’t specifically state what prohibitions you’re talking about, this is just one more example of you claiming textbook knowledge of a subject without delivering the goods.
Photon does not seem to be aware that the USMC is part of the Navy, and subject to the same rules and regs regarding liberty and travel for enlisted men.
No JohnR, the USMC is not part of the Navy. That kind of drivel is typical of the uninformed trying to appear knowledgable .
The USMC is part of the Department of the Navy but by law a separate service. The rules and regulations for liberty are NOT identical
Photon wrote:
“No JohnR, the USMC is not part of the Navy. That kind of drivel is typical of the uninformed trying to appear knowledgeable.
The USMC is part of the Department of the Navy but by law is a separate service. The rules and regulations are not identical.”
Well, Photon, here’s the regs for the Marines:
http://www.quantico.marines.mil/Portals/147/LEAVE%20AND%20LIBERTY%20REGULATIONS_MCBO%201050%201C%20v3%20-.pdf
For the Navy:
http://navyadvancement.tpub.com/12018/css/12018_582.htm
You need to stop.
“The rules and regulations for liberty are NOT identical[.]”
Then specifically state what they are, and how they are at all relevant to whatever argument it is you’re trying to make. Otherwise, you stand exposed as a troll who simply wants to waste people’s time on trivial argument.
Your regulations for only the Quantico Marine base are for 2013. They are not for the entire Corps, nor do they have any relationship to those established for MCAS El Toro sixty years ago during the height of the Cold War. At the time the major mode of passenger travel was by train.
They are not even pertinent to USMC liberty policies of 30 years ago.
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.
“Having served at the duty station mentioned in the story it was easy to see where somebody not really familiar with the area…” ~Photon
So here we have this anonymous poster claiming to have worked at this particular station. Yet why should anyone take his weird necked word for this??? Why should this completely anonymous character be given the benefit of the doubt on anything whatsoever?
Anonymity on the web is both a blessing and a curse for those who chose to use it. On the one hand they can shield themselves from personal abuse against their real identity. On the other hand they can dish out claims of any expertise they wish without challenge.
Personally I do not take a single thing “Photon” says – whatever and whoever it is – seriously.
This quote, “an unsourced claim from an unidentified individual 40 years ago” from “Photon” is pretty hypocritical considering “Photon” is itself an unidentified individual.
\\][//
Identifying Photon’s real name would reveal a basis of presence in this forum that is designed only to discourage any well meaning exploration of the truth of JFK’s assassination and the truth of history. There is little doubt that identification would reveal why this figure systematically defends the indefensible; why CIA-like styles of communication are employed to deter contributors from the scent trail of truth; and why anonymity is so critically important to Photon’s cover.
I have prior experience moderating comments related to the JFK Assassination and enforcing a rule prohibiting anyone from calling another participant a liar. I prefer not to enforce a similar prohibition at Jfkfacts.org . At what point does disagreeing over the reliability of a claim escalate to an accusation that the presenter of a claim is a liar if the accusation is not delivered explicitly? Do you really want that point defined by a moderator? Do you prefer to read only comments in mild disagreement with your claims? If you pass along the claims of another along with your opinion of their weight, are you even in a position to be labeled a liar unless you are accused of inventing your source and quotes from your source? Can we get by here simply by taking the comments of our critics with a grain of salt, or is more moderation the solution?
Tom, I think I’m fairly typical of the 10,000 daily site visitors in that I am seeking new information and analysis. Were this not the case I’d just cozy up with the Warren Report each night. The great majority of commentators are presenting their studied, well-reasoned positions. I learn from them. However I learn nothing from the triumvirate of Photon, McAdams and Davison. Their function it seems is to parrot the long ago discredited official line. I am confident the hundreds of fact seekers on this site can self-police non-WC claims and conjectures without insults, condecension or incivility. I politely invite Photon, McAdams and Davison to leave the dance if they don’t like the music.
You would really love to drive away people who disagree with you, wouldn’t you?
Do you really think the nastiness you buffs dish out helps your case?
“Do you really think the nastiness you buffs dish out helps your case?”~McAdams
In what is there any “nastiness” in the comments of Sandy K.?
If you find Sandy’s rather gentle rebuff “nastiness”, you are really projecting your own unpleasant personality on her. Do the mirrors crack when you try to peer into them?
\\][//
I agree with John Kirsch’s comment above.
How can he (Photon) dispel myths based on his unverified credentials?
He must then back up whatever he says with sources or links.
Just to remind all readers of the comment submission policy here at Jfkfacts.org . Our goal is to foster an inviting and welcoming atmosphere
to encourage first time and regular commenters to contribute facts and opinions. Currently there is no requirement to provide real names. We
ask for your cooperation in submitting your valid email address with each of your comments, and assure you that your email address will not
appear if your comment is approved and appears. Since widespread adoption of the internet is now a twenty year old trend, a large majority are aware that comments accompanied by a representation of a real name may be taken more seriously. One of the reasons for this particular comment of the week is that moderation should not become more restrictive without deliberation and feedback, and less likely if the catalyst driving calls for tightening are in reaction to criticism, facts challenge, or perceived insult submitted under an unidentifiable alias.
There is nothing nasty in this post by Sandy K. It is all gentle, good humor with good logic and info. Same as JFK, disarming. It brings a smile to the face of anyone except the Grinch types who hated our dear Jack. Heck, they hated him just because he had a full head of hair.
As Kennedy used to quote the Bible, “The wicked [and the terminally p.o.ed] flee, when no one pursueth [or affronts].”
It is the standard fare of CTers who refuse to deal with the facts. They would rather not know about facts that contradict their position and prefer that nobody else is exposed to those facts. I don’t care if people don’t accept the WR, the HSCA results or any other investigation What I do care about is people posting false information, unconfirmed narratives and made-up stories. I have tried to point out these unreliable claims by addressing facts that make the claims impossible . From exposing the author of the Carlos Hathcock myth ( who later admitted that instead of a close relationship with Hathcock his only interview was a single undocumented phone call) to revealing the Cheryl McKinnon fiction to actually challenging the incorrect statements and unsupported claims of Tink Thompson I have attempted to point out that several prominent CT advocates put out information that is simply not true.
Oh Photon,
“It is the standard fare of CTers who refuse to deal with the facts.”
Is it a “fact” that JFK had a carbon fiber neck that only YOU and “any third year medical student” knew about? Humes, Boswell and his buddies did not know about it, having looked at it during the autopsy? But, YOU, and only YOU, know that fact?
That is a fact?
I object to your use of the term ‘buffs’ Dr. McAdams.
Steven Barber* was a buff but you’ve always welcomed him with open arms.
*(I like Steven Barber btw).
I have no idea what a “buff” is. Is this some term elderly people use that they consider a diss?
@ Greg,
I found this definition which seems to be the best fit:
a person who is enthusiastically interested in and very knowledgeable about a particular subject.
“a computer buff”
synonyms: enthusiast, fan, devotee, lover, admirer;
However, I recall that Groden comments in one of his books about the use of that term by lone assassin proponents to describe students of the assassination or amateur researchers, in a disparaging sense.
On the flip side, some of us call WC proponents “nutters” (short for lone nutters which is derived from lone nut assassin) which might sound derogatory, although to me, it’s more for the sake of convenience when referring to them.
Mr. McAdams,
“Do you really think the nastiness you buffs dish out helps your case?”
Perhaps you could remind the posters and readers of this website which one of us is having a little trouble at work?
Calling someone who disagrees with the WR a “buff” is a nastiness in and of itself. Telling Mr. Morley, who runs the BEST JFK website on the net that he “huffs” is nasty, considering that he allows you to say that and continue to post. My guess is if someone said you “huff” on your site, you would block them from posting again. Your buddy, Photon, calls Bob P. “open casket Bob” because he wanted clarification on an issue.
Her is a FACT, John. The government that you defend and that you continue to insist made “simple mistakes” has a track record of abuse, deception, and placing value on lives based on financial needs, wants and gains. You can hem and haw all you want, but the literature is quite clear: the USA is deeply, deeply flawed. What makes it worse, we are SUPPOSED to be an open society.
People have the right to question anything and everything about this government. It is called free speech. It is also called transparency, and in a democracy it is a wonderful thing.
So, keep up your double standard. Cry “ad hominem” when someone disagrees with your views, while calling people “buffs” because they don’t buy what Ford, Specter, and the other buffoons tried to shove down our throats as “truth.”
“Do you really think the nastiness you buffs dish out helps your case?”
I assume that comment was addressed to your bathroom mirror as you shaved, you being a Lone Nut Buff and all, and the general nasty, sneering tone of just about every comment you post.
Either that or you’re relating an argument between your pot and your kettle. 😉
Tom S.
December 15, 2015 at 8:15 pm
“Can we get by here simply by taking the comments of our critics with a grain of salt, or is more moderation the solution?”
Moderation is just right. Please don’t change a thing.
Well Mr Clarke,
We do agree on one thing here; Moderation is just right.
I too would have nothing changed in the manner of moderation here since Tom has taken the helm.
\\][//
For Mr. Whitten and Mr. Clarke:
Holy smokes! I never thought I’d see the day. If you two ever wanna go on a cross-country road trip, I’m driving. 🙂
For the record, while I rarely understand the relevance of his posts, and I’ve yet to agree on his choice for “Comment of the Week,” I too enjoy Tom’s moderation.
Agree with Bill.