The CIA’s last assassination-related files might help us answer that question. These files constitute a significant body of material — more than 1,100 files containing up to 50,000 pages of material.
Days
Hours
Minutes
Technical assistance courtesy of the Mary Ferrell Foundation | Designed by iWebResults
Ramon,
JFKFACTS.org Can’t t control who writes a review of a new publication by an editor. Linking to a thoughtful Review, or any review does not endorse a website or magazine’s Zeitgeist, Many early groundbreaking research on the JFK Coup/Assassination appeared in what could be described as pornographic magazines, due to a lack of mainstream media outlets. Attacking a publisher, is not relevant to anything. It’s a distraction.
One last point the post title is the last “Secret” JFK assassination files. Granted the last “Secret” files may have been already released, what we are awaiting are the Last “Top Secret” files to be declassified. Their are many files that where missed by the various review’s by Congress or Board’s set up for declassification. What is really needed is a new JFK Records act to review files Known to exist in FBI and other agency files that contain information on the JFK Coup/Assassination in other open active investigation’s files. For instance the FBI 301 and 302 files on the Jimmy Hoffa case should be reviewed.For instance, just like the JFK case the Hoff case is an open missing person case. Their are numerous files ONI files, in Canada and Quebec files that are under seal at a foundation and in other Government archives that are currently denied declassification or access for unspecified reasons.
There are several people still alive whose closet’s and archives and ex Wives or Husband’s who have files yet to be released. As Ex President Ford was well know to say there is no proof “Yet” that there was someone other than Oswald involved in the assassination. Something to consider the qualification of “Yet” the Gerald Ford always carefully used to qualify his opinion of the JFK case, perhaps a day may “Yet” come were some clarity appears.
*(The police photo showing the shell casings laying next to the brick wall was staged later by crime lab people who did not see the original positioning because they were not called upon the scene until after the rifle was found nearly an hour later.)*~Tom Alyea,
“Facts and Photos”
From Connie Kritzberg’s Secrets from the Sixth Floor Window, pp. 39-46
http://www.jfk-online.com/alyea.html
\\][//
Just finished re-watching History Channel’s “Caught on Film” segment – Tom Alyea relates the following:
1. The officers searched the 4th floor, then the 6th, then the 7th & went back & searched the 6th floor AGAIN & THEN found the shells near the window.
2. Will Fritz picked up the shells so Alyea could film them – they still did not find the rifle & Alyea stated that they walked by it numerous times until they found it around 1 pm.
3. Alyea gave his film to WFAA – the tv station that he worked for & was shocked to find out on Saturday the 23rd that the only film left were short clips shown on tv Friday night.
4. Alyea actually filmed his original film being thrown into the trash & destroyed – this film had the complete search of the 4th, 6th, & 7th stories & WAS DESTROYED! What would the complete film have shown?
As for the make of the rifle – Sheriff Eugene Boone was on the 6th floor when the rifle was found & could not identify the rifle shown to him by the Warren Commission as the one found on 11/22/63 in the Book Depository (WR 3 294).
During the “Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald” (1986) Boone was asked:
Q. So far as you’re concerned, at the time, that gun, that you saw, in the stacks, was a Mauser isn’t that a fact?
Boone. At that point in time, yes sir.
Q.It wasn’t until a certain gun in the possession of the FBI suddenly turned out to be a Mannlicher, that it changed from a Mauser to a Mannlicher. Isn’t that true?
Boone.I would say that is an accurate statement.
Q. And isn’t true, that you, Officer Boone, were never able to identify the rifle you found at the Texas School Book Depository as the one that was later shown to as being the gun involved in the assassination. Isn’t that true?
Boone. That is correct
Alyea & Boone’s accounts certainly should cause one to question the official story – but of course some will dismiss their accounts because they already have their minds made up. Easy to do if you just pick “the facts” you want for your story.
In the manuscript Deputy Chief Roger Craig was also outspoken, and put it in writing about the atmosphere of disrespect and hate for JFK in the DPD.
“From these elite troops came the most bitter verbal attacks on President Kennedy. They spoke very strongly against his policies concerning the Bay of Pigs incident and the Cuban Missile crisis. They seemed to resent very much the fact that President Kennedy was a Catholic. I do not know why this was such a critical issue with many of the deputies but they did seem to hold this against President Kennedy”.
W. Whitten June 14
Craig survived a car explosion, was badly injured and died of a gun shot wound in a supposed suicide. In between these two events he lost his job as Deputy Chief and endured difficulties getting a job till his death.
I believe he was targeted and killed because he wouldnt change his story. And he was outspoken.
I am familiar with what Roger Craig said he saw in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 but was glad to read the whole manuscript in the following link with so much detail.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
He paid a terrible price for sticking to his story.
And it wasnt the Official Story.
Craig said he saw LHO come down the Grassy Knoll and get into a station wagon after the Ambush. I dont believe anyone else saw that.
This mystery needs more people like Deputy Chief Craig.
Actually at least three other people saw “that”. They were ignored. I just re read about this the other day but can’t remember names or provide links at the moment. Two were a man following the Rambler that almost ran into it when it stopped quickly, and, his employee following him. The other was a lady passing them. I think she gave a statement to the DPD or FBI. They gave a statement to the DPD, media or later a researcher.
I don’t think it is any less reasonable to accept Roger Craig’s take on things than it is to accept Allen Dulles’ take on things.
Like many insiders in the JFK affair, Craig was hounded and pursued, shot at and threatened . Many researchers now accept that Dr Perry was coerced into waffling on the throat wound issue because of such threats to his career.
Anyway, I don’t mind being rebuked by Warrenistas, but it pisses me off to high heaven when I am urged to change my personal opinions and conclusions to conform with some imaginary ‘consensus’by the WC critics.
\\][//
Why not change them in reaction to the evidence, or painstakingly support repeatedly presented positions that could be accompanied with links to a variety of supporting sources instead of a limited, repetitive few, or none, debating an extremely controversial issue
Do you debate more like this?:
(Is the above example even actually debate?)
Or, more similarly to this?:
Willy, I assume sharing that you are “pea owed,” is asserting you are angry. I find I am much less
prone to emotion when I pursue multiple sources to present in support of my arguments and find there is more controversy actually available and too few primary supporting sources, resulting in the abundance of controversy. Opinion should enter into debate as infrequently as possible. Avoid firm stances on issues impossible to resolve, or on the veracity of witnesses who have demonstrably conflicted claims and personal backgrounds. The issues we debate have long been embellished with one sided arguments. Each of us is appraised by readers of these discussions. If you comment a lot, you stand out. If you are involved in multiple conflicts that appear to readers less like debates and more like fights, consider presentation style. Do you present as angry and frustrated, or do you primarily post detail well supported with links of a variety of uncontroversial sources?
Consider the criticism some frequent commenters draw because of how infrequently supporting links appear in their comments, or because they cite the same, limited number of supporting sources again and again.
“If you embrace Roger Craigs claims because you believe he never changed what he said, it is difficult to take you seriously.”
~Tom S.
And by the same token;
If you embrace Dr. Malcolm Perry’s claims because you believe he never changed what he said, it is difficult to take you seriously.
As far as being “pea owed,” it has to do, like I said with the pressure to conform to groupthink. And it is not that I am sitting here shaking in rage. I am more shaking my head in wonder that people who claim to think for themselves insist I adopt their thinking.
\\][//
Willy, do you think I am conforming to “groupthink”? I’m fervently attempting to maintain this standard.:
You submit comments in which you require, “beyond reasonable doubt.” I’ve defined a standard I attempt to restrict myself to, Willy. Above is the standard of proof you asserted in your comments. IOW, you seem to hold others to that standard, at least with regard to the question of Oswald’s involvement in the assassination of JFK. Do you hold yourself to anything within a structure…confine yourself to ….?
Can you assert that the standard you impose on yourself, if you do impose one, is a reasonable one?
You comment here frequently enough to influence the overall tone. This is why I am interested in your answers to these questions.
“Reasonable person standard legal definition of Reasonable person..”
Yes I am a reasonable person according to that definition.
My question to you and the entire forum here is this: Did any of you actually read the whole of the Roger Craig manuscript that I offered?
WHEN THEY KILL A PRESIDENT – Roger Craig
This is the link to that page:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html
\\][//
Another problem, in that precise essay.
Craig says he heard that Tippit was shot, and looked at his watch, and saw it was 1:06.
He has changed his testimony on that too:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage10.jpg
We know what time the shooting was called in to DPD dispatch: 1:16. So there is no way in the world Craig could have known about it earlier.
“Craig says he heard that Tippit was shot, and looked at his watch, and saw it was 1:06.
He has changed his testimony on that too”
Lol, gee John, I wonder why he changed it to just enough time to place Oswald at the scene…
No coaching obvious there, aye John?
\\][//
Willy, earlier today you said what amounted to that you consider information as you expect a reasonable person does, according to the legal definition. Is it reasonable to embrace the claims of Craig and put yourself in a position to have to defend all of the contradictions that are part and parcel with embracing Craig? He is not a man who made some claims that were difficult or impossible to verify and then lived a very troubled life until his death, he is a belief system. Why even take that on?
A quick look at his death. It is 1975, twelve years after the assassination. He has developed a record of contradiction, he has not held a job in years, his manuscript is a least four years in public. Are you claiming in 1975, “the bad people” went to the effort of badly wounding him by gunshot and when that was unsuccessful, the bad people arranged another attempt to murder him, complete with a set up to alter the autopsy results and to position his daughter to provide cover for their murderous conspiracy and victim’s physiology alteration? Why all that? How much is it about your favorable impression of Craig’s prerecanted claims and dislike for the bad people, and how much is it about reasonably filtering information? Is their a “far fetched” optional attachment of your information filtering configuration?
No, he changed it to make it impossible for Oswald to be on the scene.
You need to read the 1968 article at the link.
Roger Craig served the USA in the Military, as far as I know with a Honorable discharge.
He was “Man of the Year” in (?) 1961 for the Dallas Sheriff’s Department. This would naturally have required the approval of Sheriff Bill Decker.
On the morning of 11/22/63 Decker Ordered his deputies to go out front and watch the parade but NOT participate in security.
On the corner of Main and Houston when Craig heard shots he reacted. He disobeyed old Bill Decker, the “Law” for the county (not the city) for I think 20-30 years.
After the Assassination and Craig’s statements he was “given” a desk job outside Decker’s office where he could be closer observed.
Craig talked more. Decker fired his man of the year.
“Now they’re going to find out about Cuba, they’re going to find out about the guns, find out about New Orleans, find out about everything.” –Jack Ruby, Oswald’s assassin, HSCA Report, vol. IX: V, p. 162. (Ruby made this comment to his former employee, Wally Weston who was visting him in jail.)
\\][//
I think that Ruby shooting Oswald was plan 3 to eliminate Oswald. I think the first was Tippit shoots Oswald, the second was police shoot ‘cop killer’ in movie theater, and the third was the manipulation of Ruby by his being told that the guy who had been helping him run weapons to Cuba was not running those weapons to anti Castro Cubans but was a communist who was aiding Castro and that Ruby would be branded as a communist for helping him unless Ruby took him out.
I totally agree with your assessment Mr Joseph.
\\][//
To Brian Joseph- I do not intend to insult you but your thinking is wide spread and a grave dis-service to the serious study of the JFKA. As Photon ET AL gleefully extol, every elaborate conspiracy concoction requires that another layer of co- conspirators doing bad things with knowledge afore thought- And eventually spilling the beans- The Real Plan was pure simplicity which involved 3 or 4 mechanics/ helpers ONLY- LHO and / or a look alike went to MC to make it look like there was a communist plot to kill JFK- LHO and / or a look alike went all over Dallas shooting things, visiting Car dealers, buying guns, and taking pictures with Guns and Pamphlets. The Day of the Killing, LHO MAY have taken some Pot shots ala Gen Walker while 2 professional assassins slaughtered JFK from front and back- LHO was either supposed to be at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico by 11 AM that day or was supposed to flee right afterwards to a very private place and be dispatched very quietly like Joe Pesci in Goodfellas- Then the vast trail back to LHO would fall into place, the Nation would seek vengeance against Castro, the Russians would acquiesce, and every thing JFK fought to stop would literally take place over his dead body- Something went wrong and Ozzy rabbit flew the coop to get his suddenly needed hand gun, and a bunch of unplanned events followed- The plan to invade Cuba fell away but all of the Coupe D Etat members otherwise got what they wanted- To speculate anything else in terms of a larger conspiracy flies in the face of logic and the evidence- BB
Bill Binnie,
WHUT???
I cannot make heads nor tales of what you are attempting to say in your comment.
\\][//
Dear WW- I am confident in my abilities to communicate, and am equally assured that your inability here owes entirely to a difficulty in accepting ideas counter to your own- As attributed to a few brilliant men, the mark of the intelligent man is the ability to entertain two divergent ideas- You are apparently overmatched here by a count of one- To sum up my thinking, any legitimate JFKA researcher who believes that on the day of 11.22.63, the assassin’s plan included having a street cop kill the alleged assassin, street cops kill him in a theater, multiple secret coffins, secret post mortem surgeries, Secret Service Agents slowing down the limo, agents criminally cleansing the car of evidence, or any of the dozens of nefarious conspiratorial concoctions bandied about within the JFKA industrial complex are themselves guilty of obstructing the pathway to the truth, and the eternal punishment of those responsible for a Coupe D Etat in a country that was once the best hope for freedom and Peace on this planet- Bill Binnie
“To sum up my thinking, any legitimate JFKA researcher who believes that on the day of 11.22.63, the assassin’s plan included having a street cop kill the alleged assassin, street cops kill him in a theater…”~Bill Binnie
Ah, more than a tad bit arrogant you are Mr Binnie. Yet you don’t seem to grasp the simple concept of “contingency” in momentum.
“agents criminally cleansing the car of evidence”~Ibid
That is in fact a felony Mr Binnie, destruction of a crime scene is criminal malfeasance.
And don’t mix me in with the BS from David Lifton about two coffins, and stealing the body, and the junk about altering the wounds.
You have no sense of discretion, or parsing the various arguments of several different cliques.
\\][//
I am more succinctly saying that other than the people who paid for the assassination, it is absurd to believe that anymore than 4 or 5 people (including Ruby and LHO) in Dallas on the morning of 11.22.63 knew what was likely to happen to JFK later that day, or had even the most inconsequential role in the aiding or abetting of the true crime of the century. As a result, believing that beat cops, rogue Secret Service agents, disgruntled FBI members or other sundry characters were brought into a plot of this magnitude is as asinine as a belief in switched coffins, body alteration, Kellerman as shooter, manhole killers ETC-The crucial mystery; why was the patsy still breathing at 1 PM ? What went wrong? If the Patsy evaporated from the face of the earth without a trace as he was supposed to that day, there would have been no Mark Lane and Friends, no parsing of the autopsy and Zapruder film and Cuba would now be a US territory. You may ascribe my position to arrogance- I would argue I am merely employing the known facts, common sense and a reasonable grasp of 3,000 years of Human History-
“I would argue I am merely employing the known facts”~Bill Binnie
No you aren’t, you are simply arguing “the known facts according to Bill Binnie” and ignoring a penumbra of known facts that have been put to this forum for several years now.
The need to remind you of these facts is preposterous, as you have access to the debate that has ensued on these pages. If you have not read them yet, do so.
\\][//
WHEN THEY KILL A PRESIDENT
By
Roger Craig – © 1971
The Dallas County Court House at 505 Main Street was indeed a unique place to come to hear what was WRONG with John F. Kennedy and his policies as President of these United States.
This building housed the elite troops of the Dallas County Sheriff`s Department (of which I was one), who, with blind obedience, followed the orders of their Great White Father: Bill Decker, Sheriff of Dallas County.
From these elite troops came the most bitter verbal attacks on President Kennedy. They spoke very strongly against his policies concerning the Bay of Pigs incident and the Cuban Missile crisis. They seemed to resent very much the fact that President Kennedy was a Catholic. I do not know why this was such a critical issue with many of the deputies but they did seem to hold this against President Kennedy.
The concession stand in the lobby of the court house was the best place to get into a discussion concerning the President. The old man who ran the stand evidenced a particular hatred for President Kennedy. He seemed to go out of his way to drag anyone who came by his stand into a discussion about the President. His name is J. C. Kiser.
He was a little man with a short mustache and glasses that he wore right on the end of his nose. He was a particularly good friend of Sheriff Decker, and he held the concession in the lobby for many years. Like Decker, he was unopposed when his lease came up for renewal. It was common knowledge that Bill Decker made it possible for him to remain there as long as he wished. This sick little man not only had a deep hatred for John F. Kennedy, he also hated the black people, even those who spent their money at his stand. He would often curse them as they walked away after making a purchase from him. He flatly refused to make telephone change for them even though he would be simultaneously making change for a white person.
This little man was a typical example of the atmosphere that lingered in this building that housed law and order in Dallas County.
Many of the deputies had a dislike for the President-some more so than others. However, there were those who would not degrade themselves by taking verbal punches at our President. One of these was Hiram Ingram. Although devoted to Bill Decker, he was also a good friend of mine. We often discussed the political debates that took place in the lobby. Hiram had a great dislike for this sick little man who seemed to lead the attack on the President. He also had little respect for the deputies, attorneys and court house employees who tolerated or even agreed with this philosophy of attacking John F. Kennedy.
\\][//
So who paid for the assassination Bill?
I have trouble with 4-5 people, including Oswald and Ruby. Two people were seen on the 6th floor. A probable grassy knoll shooter would have most likely have had a spotter, as would a shooter from Dal-Tex or wherever. Then there is umbrella man. Hicks with his radio in the pocket and wire…
As long as we are speculating, with no links.
Willy, surely you know by now Roger Craig has been discredited by both Tom and John.
Who laid the ground work for the LHO as Assassin/Patsy story? Who Paid for the assassins and covered their costs? Who was able to contain the post assassination blowback when every intern in DC knew what happened in Dallas was the overthrow of a sitting President by his own government? Deep Throat told W&B but they already knew- Follow the money- All wars are about one thing: Killing folks and taking their stuff- Assassinations follow the same schematic- Removal of an impediment for economic gain- In JFKs situation, the bonus was that he was also considered a traitor and a serious risk to US hegemony by deranged, and powerful cold warriors- The names of the malevolent cowards who arranged the Death of JFK are obvious to any casual observer- Hint: the 4 or 5 field folks who conducted this operation had multiple roles during the day so it is not as problematic as it seems- PS Willy- I have cases of original documents, letters and periodicals from the era- I own every book you know of on the subject- I have my 1964 letter from Life Magazine explaining why they printed the Z film out of order- I subscribed to journals like the Second/ Third/ Fourth Decade- I have been to Dealey Plaza 3 times- Because I am not a published researcher doesn’t mean I have arrived at my findings less honestly than you have yours-
“Willy, surely you know by now Roger Craig has been discredited by both Tom and John.”~Ronnie Wayne
And Roger Craig has just been re-credited by me.
\\][//
Odd that, at this late date, anybody should take Roger Craig seriously.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/craig.htm
I’ll just mention one problem:
He says he saw “7.65 Mauser” on the rifle (in 1974), but in 1968 said he didn’t know the make of the rifle.
And the Alyea film shows Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano.
“And the Alyea film shows Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano.”~McAdams
And Alyea later claimed that he was likely duped into filming a reenactment.
\\][//
You need to supply a source on that.
I corresponded with him via e-mail in the 1990s, and he said no such thing.
And you haven’t addressed the fact that Craig changed his story about the recovered rifle:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg
“Tom Alyea and I have talked about this several times. Tom was standing there next to Fritz when Weitzman stated that it was a Mauser rifle and that they saw 7.65 stamped on the action.
“Mannlicher-Carcano does have a 7.35 mm. In the heat of the `find’ Weitzman stated `Mauser’ and everyone simply agreed. It wasn’t until Day was showing the rifle off at the Police Station that it was properly identified as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano.”113
Although properly identified, it was officially reported to be a Mauser for the next twenty-four hours without an official correction. The point here is that this eyewitness account seems to confirm that there was no Mauser, and that Weitzman, imagining a “7” and a decimal point where there was none, somehow inspired the others present, including Fritz, the ranking officer in charge of the crime scene, to call it something it was not; and as discussed above, even something bizarre.
Given Alyea’s film of this event, it seems that is probably what happened. **The unnecessary complications involved in reenacting this scene make Alyea’s claim even more plausible.** There is no such thing as a 7.65 Mannlicher-Carcano. If “they saw 7.65 stamped on the action” it was some strange rifle. And if Weitzman misread the caliber on a 7.35 Mannlicher-Carcano, it was also another rifle. The question this raises is the same one we began with: Why in the world would the crime scene investigators enter into a criminal conspiracy to call a weapon easily linked to their suspect something else? Of course, it seems the other confirmation from Alyea’s film is that there was no clip seen or handled on the sixth floor.
There is some justification that the word “Mauser,” in its earliest use in Dallas, was a redundant generic term for what in effect were nearly all bolt-action rifles. Since “bolt action” would exclude just about all semi-automatic and automatic weapons, there is some justification that the redundancy was used to emphasize that very exclusion. It could even be argued that the redundant use of the word “Mauser,” in addition to deflecting attention from clip-fed weapons, served the purpose of deflecting attention from early reports of automatic gunfire in Dealey Plaza. Later, Commission attorney Joseph Ball was particularly careful to refer only to “Mauser bolt action” rather than an actual Mauser rifle in his questioning of Weitzman on April 1, 1964.114
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_2.html
\\][//
Ohhh..the Alyea film..? The one that shows a rifle with no clip..? That Alyea film..?
There is nothing about what you posted that has Alyea saying he photographed a recreation.
In fact, it’s just the opposite.
So what? It clearly had a clip with it:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid6.htm
You have been suckered by yet another buff book factoid.
No insult taken. I don’t think there were huge amounts of peopledirectly involved. Compartmentalization means that those invlved don’t know the outcome. I don’t think Oswald did. I think he thought he was involved in a false attempt wherein JFK would not be harmed at all — that it was a false flag that would lead to the invasion of Cuba.
I think similarly Brian. But it took a few more on site that 4-5 if your including Ozzie and JR.
Brian- I think you are right- It seems LHO was doing a Gen Walker/ fake attempt to force JFK into a Cuba invasion-
But then he must have known/ participated in the creation of the evidence trail back to Mexico City. Didn’t he think that being at the apex of this Ultra Black OP was going to be really bad for his long term health, no matter what his handlers told him? And once he saw JFKs head explode, and suddenly realized he was lied to, he knew he better get a weapon quick. I just don’t understand why LHO wasn’t dead by 11 AM that morning. A post assassination, living and breathing LHO was the worst thing imaginable to the Killers and their Government sponsors- That’s the part that doesn’t add up- My Key Point- There was a very small number of field people involved in this Operation. It is absurd to believe that this OP included ANYONE, doing anything, outside this small circle. And Photon/ the Mad Professor ETC are given undeserved credibility when they easily gather the low hanging fruit from well meaning CT’s who imagine layers and players behind every knoll-
PRESUMED GUILTY by Howard Roffman
From the inside front and back jacket
of the 1976 issue of “Presumed Guilty:”
If Howard Roffman is right, and his careful documentation argues that he is, Lee Harvey Oswald could not have been the assassin of John F. Kennedy. He could not have been the gunman in the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository building, as is shown by his close analysis of both the circumstantial evidence and the ballistics of the case.
The implications are serious indeed, and the Introduction deals with them extensively, besides assessing the contributions of other critics. The documentation here presented, extracted from the once-secret working papers of the Warren Commission, demonstrates conclusively that the Commission prejudged Oswald guilty and made use of only circumstantial evidence to bolster its assumption, while suppressing information that tended to undermine it.
Roffman in this book states the charge explicitly: “When the Commissioners decided in advance that the wrong man was the lone assassin, whatever their intentions, they protected the real assassins. Through their staff, they misinformed the American public and falsified history.”
©1976 by A.S. Barnes and Co., Inc.
©1975 by Associated University Presses, Inc. ISBN 0-498-01933-0
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Complete book online at:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PG.html
\\][//
Finally – Willy returns to the focus of this site – JFK Assassination Facts!
Howard Roffman & “Presumed Guilty” (1975) remains one of the best of the second generation of books that questioned the Warren Commission’s conclusions.
Joachim Joeston “Assassin or Fall Guy”(1964), Thomas Buchanan “Who Killed Kennedy” (1964), Mark Lane “Rush to Judgement” (1966), Richard Popkin “The Second Oswald” (1966), Sylvan Fox “The Unanswered Questions About President Kennedy’s Assassination”(1966), Edward Epstein “Inquest” (1966) & Josiah Thompson “Six Seconds in Dallas” (1967) are all first generation books that examined evidence & witness statements that the Warren Commission ignored & refused to consider while the trail was still hot.
Sylvia Meagher’s brilliant work “Accessories After the Fact” (1967) analyzed the complete Warren Commission volumes & exhibits & clearly argues that the Commission’s own documents do not support its own conclusions.
We owe a huge debt to the first generation of JFK researchers who had the guts & took the time to question the “official story” after Oswald was killed & there was no public trial & no presentation of defense witnesses.
All serious researchers should re-read these early books & then consider what the New York Times wrote on December 18,1963, “Most private citizens who cooperated with newsman reporting the crime have refused to give further help after being interviewed by the FBI.”
It is obvious that these early researchers had advantages (the trail was very hot – witnesses who were ignored could still be found) but a huge disadvantage – those in the know did not want the truth out.
Willy:
As usual, the first thing we will need is some definitions.
========================================================
“Far right politics commonly include authoritarianism, nativism and racialism. Typically, the term far right is applied to fascists and neo-Nazis, and major elements of fascism have been deemed clearly far right, such as its belief that supposedly superior people have the right to dominate society while purging allegedly inferior elements, and — in the case of Nazism — genocide of people deemed to be inferior.
“The far right claims that superior people should proportionally have greater rights than inferior people. The far right has historically favoured an elitist society based on belief of the legitimacy of the rule of a supposed superior minority over the inferior masses.
“Far-right politics usually involves anti-immigration and anti-integration stances towards groups that are deemed inferior and undesirable. Concerning the socio-cultural dimension (nationality, culture and migration), a far-right position could be the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate, and that the interests of one’s own group should be prioritized.”
========================================================
“Nazism was declared a Far Right ideology by those who invented it.
“National Socialism” was the ideology of the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. It is a variety of fascism that incorporates biological racism and antisemitism.
“Nazism relied upon the far-right racist Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture which fought against the communists in post-World War I Germany. It called for the Far Right platform of domination of society by people deemed racially superior, while purging society of people declared inferior.
“Hitler, Goebbels, Goering and all other leaders of the party defined the party as a party of the Nationalist Right. In its rise, it fought and murdered Communists, Socialists, and Social Democrats in the streets as their political enemies.
“When the seizure of power occurred in 1933, they put the leaders of Socialist, Communist and Social Democratic parties into prisons, and later into concentration camps, while incorporating parties of the Right into their movement.”
========================================================
Let’s see what your own government has to say, shall we?
“The US Department of Homeland Security defines RIGHT-wing extremism as hate groups who target racial, ethnic or religious minorities. The phrase is also used to describe support for ethnic nationalism. (ie: anti-immigrants)”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics
Note: The above definition was written by the GWB administration.
========================================================
Willy:
Before it was fashionable to denounce all the support from KKK, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, etc. to Donald Trump, guess who were the recipients not only of their vocal endorsement but their generous monetary donations?
That would be the Libertarian Pauls, father and son. Even after they were caught green-handed -pardon the pun- they refused to return those donations.
“The Southern Avenger” -huge admirer of John Wilkes Booth- was the right hand man and ghost writer of the Rand books. The young Paul refused to let him go, until he quit.
Now let’s go back to Thomas DiLorenzo, one of the authors that I found in the arguably Far Right web site:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/hispanics-go/
https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/thomas-dilorenzo/?ptype=lrc-blog
This is a cite from my post above: “far-right position is the view that certain ethnic, racial or religious groups should stay separate”
By using quotes around the Hispanic designation and despising that word, Mr. DiLorenzo (an obvious White Separatist as a minimum) is showing that he is pissed off about the fact that some of my ancestor Spaniard conquistadors decided to marry the locals.
Additionally, that web site is replete with attacks against their enemies. Who exactly are their enemies? It looks like they see themselves as the nemeses of the left:
http://www.dealey-plaza.org/~ramon/politics/Who-Attacks-the-Left.png
https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/build-wall/
This reminds me of my riddle:
Q: “Who killed Kennedy?”
A: “His enemies – Duh!”
Q: “Who were his enemies?”
A: The Far Right.
I respect the work of Jacob G. Hornberger in the JFK arena, but he owes some explanations.
(1) He is surrounded by racists in the list of contributors to that website.
(2) How dare Hornberger to demand the US to abandon Venezuela, where my friend Leopoldo Lopez (former major of Caracas and presidential candidate) languishes, his only crime being speaking against the regime? Ironically, I met Leopoldo when us (the gang of Venezuelans at MIT) were busy with the Al Gore people inventing the Internet and Leopoldo was a student at Harvard in the John F. Kennedy School of Government
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/04/jacob-hornberger/us-out-of-venezuela/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopoldo_L%C3%B3pez
http://www.freeleopoldo.com/
The two last documents that president Kennedy left on his desk, before embarking into the fatal trip, were related to Venezuela.
Hornberger may be Libertarian (whatever the Hades that means) but Kennedian he is not!
A Milestone For Women In Politics
Hillary Clinton’s lock on the Democratic nomination is a historic milestone for our country, and these libertarian women are so proud…
https://youtu.be/QFwdvMQHmOI?t=38
\\][//
Willy:
“WTF? I have no idea how you could possibly have interpreted anything I have said in such a fashion.”
===================
Willy, I will use my forum debating program. See your automated answer below. It is normally emitted as a response to folks who hate:
• The US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• The Hispanic Congressional Caucus
• NAACP, National Council of La Raza
• “Identity politics”.
but you are close enough to them, since you despise some labels (right, left, liberal, conservative) and like others (such as JFK aficionado/researcher, engineer, male, pro-Zapruder, etc.).
The remarkable part is that YOU are the one who gets to decide which groups can enjoy their Freedom of Lawful Assembly. Isn’t that convenient! I wish I had your power.
=========================================
Would you Far Rightie folks please clarify for the audience your position about the existence and organization of groups of interest such as the ones below?
– Hispanic Americans
– Black Americans
– Jewish Americans
– Catholic Americans
– Female Americans
– Gay Americans
– Veteran Americans
– Red Sox Nation Americans
– Engineer Americans
– Weight Watcher Americans
– Right Handed Americans
– Equine Americans
– Poet Americans
– Six-Fingered Americans
– Gun Loving Americans
– Churchgoing Americans
– Teabagging Americans
– (etc.)
Some of those groups look for alike voters and engage in political activity to elect their people to Congress and other positions.
Some of those groups work very hard to make political and economic advancements.
Some simply join to get the chicks (or mares).
You claim that being part of some of the above groups (those conveniently selected by you) equates to “not being an American” or being somehow less genuine or shameful.
So, which of the groups are acceptable and respected by the far right that you so clearly represent?
-Ramon
=========================================
Dear son [name here]:
Mr. Herrera -a newcomer- knows the rights of You The People better than you (a native)!!!
People classify THEMSELVES, subject to the
FREEDOM OF LAWFUL ASSOCIATION.
You are encouraged to read and study American principles and values.
-Signed: Jimmy Madison and His Gang of Founders
ps: This is the world you envision:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA
=========================================
A lunatic software program from a paranoid lunatic who thinks that any disagreement with him is hate directed toward Hispanic Americans.
In my not so humble opinion Herrerra, you are a class A screwball. And I mean that to you personally, and not to Hispanic Americans as a group.
\\][//
Willy, how many commentors should I suggest you trade email addresses with to spare the rest of us from reading what should be private exchanges? Besides yourself, can you describe anyone who benefits from reading exchanges that, in fairness to readers, should be confined to those trading the abuses?
I’m approving your comment only to provide the opportunity to put these questions to you.
Are you doing all you can to avoid this issue repeating itself, with a number of commentors?
“A lunatic software program from a paranoid lunatic who thinks that any disagreement with him is hate directed toward Hispanic Americans.”
=============
Actually, Willy, I am defending the Freedom of Lawful Assembly (even for horses 🙂 I included Tea Partiers, NRA types, etc., etc.
My point is that you only understand one side of the coin: the part where you can JOIN any of those groups (and accept to be labeled left, right, Liberal, Conservative, etc.) You need to comprehend that those forming a group are necessarily allowed to define it.
You are entitled not to be labeled “[XYZ]” but MUST respect those of us who want to:
(a) Found the “XYZ” group.
(b) Be labeled as part of the group.
(c) Attract followers to our group.
I cordially encourage you to withdraw your comment where you claimed the “left”, “right”, etc. are BS. Like Gay Marriage: If you don’t like them DO NOT JOIN THEM.
Sincerely,
-Ramon The One Who is Right on The Left.
“Actually, Willy, I am defending the Freedom of Lawful Assembly.”~Ramon F Herrera
I have never disparaged the Freedom of Lawful Assembly.
So what is your problem?
Why don’t you explain to the forum why you think that Oswald shot JFK from the TSBD?
Does it have something to do with your fancy new software?
\\][//
“Before it was fashionable to denounce all the support from KKK, White Supremacists, Neo-Nazis, etc. to Donald Trump, guess who were the recipients not only of their vocal endorsement but their generous monetary donations?”~Ramon F Herrera
Let’s get something straight here Herrera before you continue this straw man blablabla; I AM NOT A LIBERTARIAN.
Got it? I am not a Liberal, I am not a Conservative, a Fascist, nor a Commie. All these labels are BS.
\\][//
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno
“….progressive and regressive elements of society derive from a single source.”~Adorno
Yes, it is a synthesis. Do you disagree with this Tom?
\\][//
Willy, I don’t know how to react to it because I’m too distracted by this.:
I believe there are two reactions to “a constant tendency toward unequal distribution of wealth,” reaching a tipping point, and one seems prophylactic, ballots, if it is accepted that any society has a legitimate interest in avoiding the last resort of the impoverished majority, bullets.
I think it is too easy to declare nothing can be done because there are examples of “more government”
achieving what you believe is disqualified, philosophically.
I believe the poorest 80 to 85 percent can
and should define a societal purpose and endeavor to pursue it through political means.
“Willy, I don’t know how to react to it because I’m too distracted by this.”~Tom
Don’t you worry Tom, because neither what I think or you think, or any other of the common people in this country think; nothing is going to change for the better because the wealthy 0.1%, the POWER ELITE run this country, and they don’t care what anybody thinks.
It’s called Realpolitik.
\\][//
“I believe the poorest 80 to 85 percent can and should define a societal purpose and endeavor to pursue it through political means”.
How?
[Willy:]
“I am not a Liberal, I am not a Conservative, a Fascist, nor a Commie. All these labels are BS.”
============
Willy, it is very sad and tragic that you are so ingrate. The Founders and veterans -among many others- went through all the trouble to create this great nation and you have chosen to demean one of our most fundamental rights, calling it bovine manure: The Right of Lawful Assembly.
BTW: I just saw you in a video, Willy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zfqw8nhUwA
You know where you can stick that Herrera.
\\][//
“You know where you can stick that, Herrera?”
====================
Okay, fair enough. I would like to withdraw the video of the folks who are not to be labeled, and ask you again:
——————————-
[Willy:]
“I am not a Liberal, I am not a Conservative, a Fascist, nor a Commie. All these labels are BS.”
============
Willy, it is very sad and tragic that you are so ingrate. The Founders and veterans -among many others- went through all the trouble to create this great nation and you have chosen to demean one of our most fundamental rights, calling it bovine manure: The Right of Lawful Assembly.
“..you have chosen to demean one of our most fundamental rights, calling it bovine manure: The Right of Lawful Assembly.”~Herrera
WTF? I have no idea how you could possibly have interpreted anything I have said in such a fashion.
Quote the comment I made that you think insinuates such an absurd suggestion.
\\][//
Ramon, while I agree that the “far right” of 1963 hated Kennedy, I think that it is too reductive to say that all of his enemies were far right, period. Kennedy’s policies were deeply offensive to the views and ambitions of the Rockefellers, the Dulles brothers, Wall Street, big business, the Pentagon, and a lot of the other elitist powers in the U.S. “Far right” does not seem quite adequate to describe these views; these were very powerful mainstream forces, not the relatively small (if noisy) voices of the John Birch Society.
“As usual, the first thing we will need is some definitions.”
Ramon F Herrera
Fine, now you have given the definitions as defined by he pathological society itself.
I will repeat my definitions, which I stand by regardless of who agrees with me or not:
The Right/Left Paradigm is a burlesque, a strategy of tension, a strategy of divide and conquer, as old as Machiavelli, and updated theologically and philosophically by Georg Hegel as:
The Hegelian Dialectic; Thesis/Antithesis/Synthesis.
Some state that as; Problem/Reaction/Solution.
The effect is the same sociopolitically; bipolar tensions on every issue propagated: Left/right, Democrat/Republican, Terrorist/Antiterrorist, Vegan/Cannibal, Christian/Heretic, Prolife/Prochoice, Blue/Red…and on and on
Divided and conquered and willing to lynch “the other side” at the drop of a hysterical hat. A play on the emotions rather than reason, as ALL indoctrination and propaganda does.
The frailty of human nature worked in the hands of the elite like putty.
You sit in Plato’s Cave watching the shadows on the walls.
\\][//
Fine, Willy. Instead of Right/Left, let’s use:
• Tolerance vs. Intolerance
• Diversity vs. Uniformity
• Hate vs. Love
“..let’s use:
• Tolerance vs. Intolerance
• Diversity vs. Uniformity
• Hate vs. Love”
Okay Ramon, let’s do that.
\\][//
Pardon me, but are you the same Ramon that is thought of so highly by a one C. Drago on another JFK-oriented website? Just wondering.
Hi Mark:
There is only one Ramon who is active in JFK forums, and therefore the answer is affirmative.
Mark A. O’Blazney,
Drago uses Herrera’s full name in his commentary, there is no doubt it is our boy Ramon, that Drago thinks “so highly of”. grin
\\][//
Willy, would you like me to arrange an exchange of “our boy Ramon’s” email address, and yours?
I think I’ve approved too many comments between the two of you and it is past time to take your opinions of each other, “outside”.
So, what about Bernie Sanders? Should he endorse Clinton, the lesser of two evils?
Bernie is no “rightwing nutcase”. Is Bernie a “leftwing nutcase”?
Or is ANY politician simply a “nutcase”?
Again, it is my opinion that elections are a fraud, a meaningless ritual of smoke and mirrors. The next president has already been determined by the Power Elite. My guess is the hilarity of Clinton…you know “The First Woman President of the United States!”
gawblesmurkah…
\\][//
From the Communist Manifesto:
So I suppose you think Lenin, Marx, Mao and so on were egalitarians.
Dr. McAdams, I doubt you regard Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell, or Paul Ryan as fascists. Why then do you associate (handcuff) left oriented with extreme left? Are you saying there is a comparison to be made between what Hitler said and actually did to realize a “master” race order and dominance to what Marx actually said and did?
You lump together what you are opposed to. I watched Blitzer’s interview of Romney yesterday. Romney made a point of presenting himself as the reasonable, rational face of the republican party. Then he said, “democrat party.”
Is this not extreme, Dr. McAdams, to train yourself to slur the opposing party by altering its name of longstanding?
When, and how long did it take you to discipline your speech in an extremist fashion, as Romney has, to make every reference to the democratic opposition, an epithet?
Google search results:
“democrat party” About 423,000 results
“democratic party” About 30,700,000 results
I’m saying both were nasty authoritarians willing to kill people to realize their notion of a good society.
Of course there were differences. Marx never had political power, but when his followers did, the carnage was legendary.
Hitler’s hatred was race based, and Marx’s class based. But if you are being slaughtered, I doubt you care much whether you are being slaughtered as an untermensch are as a bourgeois.
“But if you are being slaughtered, I doubt you care much whether you are being slaughtered as an untermensch are as a bourgeois” — John McAdams
Please consult the New Testament martyrs i.e St. Peter and St. Paul et al. Church doctrine argues that it mattered to the Church as well as the victims very much who murdered them.
Did it matter to Rome in 1989 who precisely was slaughtering priests and nuns, whether ‘untermensch’ or ‘bourgeois’? I think they identified the assassins and their own as did the institution that has funded you for decades. If you think blogging is the equivalent, maybe you should take that up with Pope Francis.
http://www.marquette.edu/faith/anniversary-of-the-martyrs-in-el-salvador.php
” . . . Remembering the 25th Anniversary of the Martyrs in El Salvador . . . On November 16, 2014, Jesuits and their colleagues throughout the world will pause to remember the six Jesuits along with their housekeeper and her 16 year old daughter who were murdered twenty-five years ago. It was in the middle of the night on November 16, 1989 when a battalion of the Salvadoran military entered the University of Central America and broke into the Jesuit Community. There they methodically beat and shot the six Jesuits and dragged some of them into the back yard. And then they brutally murdered the housekeeper and her daughter who had sought safety in the Jesuit residence that night.
These Jesuits were murdered because they reached out to offer their support in writing, teaching and sermons for the poor and the oppressed of the country. Military oppression of the population was long standing because the handful of wealthy landowners of the country strove to preserve their holdings at any cost and the military were in their pockets.”
What?
You are actually claiming that the Catholic Church condones killing by Marxists, but condemns killing by right wingers?
http://phw02.newsbank.com/cache/arhb/fullsize/pl_006122016_1731_07130_43.pdf
Dr. McAdams, was there a special place in hell reserved for the Pentagon Spy, the bishop, and the priest, the “church,” the D.O.D., CIA, the U.S executive branch, or were “capitalism” and the “American way of life” and the “church” put under such desperate circumstances by Castro that it was necessary to risk the perception of neutrality of the priests and the Boy Scouts? Were the medical doctors, the journalists, and the Rainbow Girls also repurposed, of necessity, as military assets by the Pentagon Spy?
Are you a fan of Castro?
Do you admit that the missiles the Soviets put in Cuba were a threat to the U.S.?
Would you mind that sort of operation mounted against the apartheid regime in South Africa?
Was 1989 a real bummer for you?
I ask you questions, in reaction to statements you made, your reply is a list of questions.
No discussion will result from that response. It appears, though, that you’re attempting to twist
what I’ve cited from a 1961 CIA report backed by a newspaper article, descriptions of the militarization
of an RC priest, his bishop, and likely his superior, and Boy Scouts, in events that took place no later than in early 1961, and directly associate this militarization with the missle crisis 18 months later.
I’ll be more responsive than you were. I think the former Batista regime supporters and the US Joint Chiefs were worse for the overwhelming majority of the Cuban population of early 1961 than Castro was. I think you’re in no position to determine whether the missile crisis 18 months later was in reaction to U.S. policy or Castro’s malevolence.
I think your bias and indoctrination render you incapable of participating in a discussion, hence your response with a list of “loaded” questions. I’ll compare your questions with this appraisal, and
ask again, was the US “way of life,” threatened by the Castro regime to an extent justifying the militarization of priests and Boy Scouts, dire measures a reasonable person would expect to only be implemented in a “last stand” scenario. Once you’ve militarized such “neutrals” you’ve put their successors to much greater risk far into the future.
cont.
So Kennedy’s “missile gap” in the 1960 election was bogus.
And what you have posted makes it clear that intermediate range missiles in Cuba were indeed a threat, since they were not merely redundant with the Soviet ICBM capability.
Again, Dr. McAdams, it is obvious you are doing the twist deliberately. I presented evidence from a CIA report of the militarization of the RC Church, a local member of which created a Boy Scout chapter for the purpose of gathering military intelligence no later than in early 1961, and even after I called you on your twist, you insist on describing missles discovered 18 months later and nowhere near the site described as under surveillance by “hiking” Boy Scouts created and recruited for that purpose.
You set an example of indoctrinated insincerity. IOW, you’re disingenuous, but it probably isn’t entirely your own fault. As GW Bush described, propaganda was catapulted and you sustained a direct hit!
John:
Your words:
“Hitler’s hatred was race based, and Marx’s class based. But if you are being slaughtered, I doubt you care much whether you are being slaughtered as an untermensch are as a bourgeois.”
Do you mean “slaughtered,” as done in Iran by the Shah, who was placed there by two (and a whole lot more) fine Americans, Dwight Eisenhower and Allen Dulles? Does the “slaughter” of two million or more Iranians fall under the same category as Marx and Hitler?
Or, as a typical American citizen, do you believe that Eisenhower and Dulles were acting “under the banner of democracy,” which justified replacing a democratically elected leader to put in a lapdog that would much friendlier to US businesses?
I suppose that an Iranian life doesn’t mean a whole lot when certain US folks can make scads and scads of money, eh John?
The difference between Hitler and Marx and Dulles and Eisenhower is what exactly?
Do you mind the “militarization” of certain Catholic orders (the Maryknolls, for example) in the service of a Marxist dictatorship in Nicaragua in the 1980s?
No, I didn’t think so.
And you didn’t answer my earlier question: would you mind the Boy Scouts involved in an operation against the apartheid regime in South Africa?
You are an example of a scruffy leftist still fighting the Cold War.
And doing so on the losing side!
John, you were the one who made the absurd statement: “But if you are being slaughtered, I doubt you care much whether you are being slaughtered as an untermensch are as a bourgeois”. I pointed out that Martyrs of the Church care very much under what banner they are being slaughtered, the very definition of martyrdom don’t you think? Class status runs the gamut, for instance Jean Donovan (one of the victims of ‘slaughter’ under the banner of the Maryknoll Sisters) was an upper middle class woman who advocated for Liberation Theology that emphasizes liberation from social, political, and economic oppression; her enemies equated that with Marxism as apparently you and extreme elements within the RC Church still do. Thankfully for the Church, it is a new dawn and a new day, and I venture to speculate that John Kennedy’s personal convictions were informing him to the extent he too would have embraced the movement in Latin America had he lived. Perhaps that is among the reasons he didn’t.
”Pope’s Focus on Poor Revives Scorned Theology (Jim Yardley, Simon Romero — MAY 23, 2015)
VATICAN CITY — Six months after becoming the first Latin American pontiff, Pope Francis invited an octogenarian priest from Peru for a private chat at his Vatican residence. Not listed on the pope’s schedule, the September 2013 meeting with the priest, Gustavo Gutiérrez, soon became public — and was just as quickly interpreted as a defining shift in the Roman Catholic Church.
Father Gutiérrez is a founder of liberation theology, the Latin American movement embracing the poor and calling for social change, which conservatives once scorned as overtly Marxist and the Vatican treated with hostility. Now, Father Gutiérrez is a respected Vatican visitor, and his writings have been praised in the official Vatican newspaper. Francis has brought other Latin American priests back into favor and often uses language about the poor that has echoes of liberation theology.
And then came Saturday, when throngs packed San Salvador for the beatification ceremony of the murdered Salvadoran archbishop Óscar Romero, leaving him one step from sainthood. . . . “
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/24/world/europe/popes-focus-on-poor-revives-scorned-theology.html?_r=0
In fact, the Catholic Church has long condemned the killing of Catholics by leftists and Marxists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martyrs_of_the_Spanish_Civil_War
Are you actually saying it’s OK for Marxists for kill Catholics, and that the Church does not mind?
Actually, the “liberation theology” crowd doesn’t much mind. But they are really secular leftists, and not Christians.
“a Marxist dictatorship in Nicaragua in the 1980s?”~McAdams
What Marxist dictatorship was that? Do you mean the nationalist Sandanista who had overthrown the REAL dictatorship of Somoza in Nicaragua?
The brutal Somoza who was supported by the United States… Yea, we know the history McAdams. Frame it as you will, the majority of the people of Nicaragua were Sandanista supporters, and against the oppressive puppet state installed my US industrial/military might.
\\][//
John, JFK came out of the Irish church, and if you study the history you will understand how his Catholicism was distinct from what you espouse.
“. . . it’s OK for Marxists for [sic] kill Catholics”. Where have I suggested anything of the kind?
As TomS has identified recently, your attempts to twist the discussion rather than engaging in a serious debate is an obvious “tell”.
“. . . the church doesn’t mind”:
“ . . . Yet, when the Pope [John Paul II] visited El Salvador in 1983, he purposely refused to address the murder of his bishop, or those of Jean Donovan and the nuns. He pointedly said the purpose of the Church was to teach that Jesus is the Son of God and provide spiritual counsel to the flock. Privately, he met with the priests and nuns in El Salvador and told them to discontinue their involvement with community self-help groups. He replaced the murdered Archbishop Romero with a conservative, giving him identical instructions in an effort to restore the Church to its former alliance with those in power — no matter how corrupt or complicit in organized violence — for which the Church was notorious a century before. . . . It has been said by insiders that when the Pope asked what the people were shouting during the Mass (“Queremos paz! [We want peace!]”), he was told by one of his aides that it was of no importance, and that those calling out were Communists. With his own experience of Communism in Eastern Europe, this statement was like flashing a red cape before a bull. Not long after, the liberal bishops were replaced by conservatives as the Pope, encouraged by Ratzinger (who wrote a thesis on the subject), was shown alleged links between elements of liberation theology and Marxism. “The Pope began listening to those who were portraying liberation theology in caricatures — priests with guns, Marxists — and they just weren’t accurate,”4
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2005/hogan211105.html
Am I arguing that John Paul II didn’t mind that these devoted Catholics were killed? I am questioning his lack of outrage let alone his insistence on an investigation. And who said Marxists killed these Religious?
At least we get a clear statement from you here:
“Actually, the “liberation theology” crowd doesn’t much mind. But they are really secular leftists, and not Christians.”
Please provide sources for this claim. In a classroom setting, I’m certain those not caught in your spell would require a definition along with supporting material that the Maryknolls – in this instance – were secular leftists, not Christians. I’ll bet their families would be surprised. Your statements are obviously political and driven by partisanship in spite of this being a theological question. Marquette University should be held accountable ultimately for indulging your anti-catholic politics. For the record, on the record, I challenge you to openly state that the current Pope falls under your definition of “secular leftist, non-Christian”.
So you are admitting that the Catholic Church objects to Marxists killing Catholics, and indeed objects to Marxist regimes.
But you don’t like John Paul II.
Oh! A university should not allow any faculty to engage in “anti-Catholic” politics.
Should Marquette fire Dan Maguire, a big supporter of abortion and gay marriage?
http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/search?q=Dan+Maguire
I’m sure you don’t think he should be censored.
But you think I should.
Dr. McAdams, I’ve never met one. How are you able to discern that he is? Can you share a quote of him
saying he is “a big supporter of abortion?” Aren’t you interpreting what he actually is a big supporter of, so as to present it in the worst possible light?
I adamantly support a woman’s right to choose whether to host a fetus, and for all women to have equal access to medically approved procedures (there are several of them) by a licensed practitioner if the decision is made by a host to terminate a pregnancy. One reason for my support is that the medically approved procedures administered to terminate a pregnancy are less risky to the host than a live birth.
Why Abortion Is Less Risky than Childbirth | TIME.com
http://healthland.time.com/2012/01/25/why-abortion-is-less-risky-than-childbirth/
Dr. McAdams, are you indifferent to the health and welfare of women? Why are you so critical of those
who support a woman’s right to choose? Is your intent to make abortion as risky as live birth, or do
you attempt to impose your will on women?
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=299
Are you aware that Monthly Review is a Marxist journal?
Actually, no. When there was a free election, they lost:
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/27/world/turnover-nicaragua-nicaraguan-opposition-routs-sandinistas-us-pledges-aid-tied.html
“So you are admitting that the Catholic Church objects to Marxists killing Catholics, and indeed objects to Marxist regimes. . . .But you don’t like John Paul II.”
You are making no sense, John. Marxists did not murder Jean Donovan or the sisters or Archbishop Romero; if you argue they did, please provide evidence.
If other professors from Marquette want to weigh in on this site related to the murder of President Kennedy then I would consider their portfolio as possibly significant and open to equal scrutiny. For now, you are the political science professor presenting yourself as an authority on the WC and its conclusions. In the process you have exposed your political bias which leaves that bias fair game in the overall debate.
I notice you did not provide supporting evidence that those advocating Liberation Theology are actually leftist, non Christians. Do you not feel obliged to support your arguments on this forum?
OK, you believe abortion should be legal.
So does Dan Maguire, and that’s flatly at odds with Catholic teaching.
But Leslie thinks that my views should not be allowed at Marquette.
I’m sure she thinks Dan Maguire’s views are fine at Marquette.
“OK, you believe abortion should be legal.
So does Dan Maguire, and that’s flatly at odds with Catholic teaching.”~McAdams
So you are a religious zealot first and therefore dismiss the Unalienable Right to Liberty of all human beings.
Got it!
\\][//
But Marxists have murdered a lot of Catholics and other Christians (not to speak of about every other group you could think of).
Let’s review:
I said:
And you disagreed with this:
So you think the Catholic Church has a double standard.
It’s terrible if right wingers murder Catholics, but not so bad if Marxists do.
But there is no double standard for the Church.
Except for “Catholics” who are in fact secular leftists.
Irony alert!
You are Tom can never make more than two posts without simply showing that you are leftists, and view the assassination through that lens.
Tom just posts random stuff that leftists are mad about (saying “Democrat Party”) that has nothing to do with the assassination.
The more you guys want to argue politics, the more obvious it is that your views of the assassination are merely the result of whom you dislike politically.
I posted the link above.
Do you think the priests and nuns who supported the Sandinistas were not Marxists at heart?
If not, why would they support a Marxist regime?
So you are a secular zealot first and therefore dismiss the Unalienable Right to Life of all human beings.
But of course, the issue was not my views on abortion, but rather whether Leslie, who thinks I should be banned from teaching because she thinks my views on Marxist murders are heretical, would think the same thing about somebody whose views are really heretical.
I think we all know the answer to that.
“But of course, the issue was not my views on abortion..”~McAdams
The issue is PRECISELY your view on abortion.
\\][//
John, Did John Paul II criticize and attempt to (to use your words) “shut up, silence” liberation theology or did he not? Was Bishop Romero an advocate of the movement or was he not? Are you intimating that the report published in the Monthly Review is false because MR is a Marxist publication? That would be tantamount to my asserting that your version of the Cheryl Abbate story is false because your blog reflects the politics of an autocrat whose stance on political issues including women’s rights is persistently on the extreme right . That would be absurd, wouldn’t it. (for the record, I dispute your version of the Abbate debacle, not because your blog is the antithesis of my politics, but because your information was second hand and contradicted Ms. Abbate’s recollection of events that happened to her personally. Unless of course the conversation with the student was recorded and you’ve heard that recording? I haven’t checked to see if that revelation has been made to date. — The fact you incited threats of violence against her is not a political issue, it is a moral and possibly legal one.)
I didn’t ask for an explanation of the origin of Liberation Theology, I asked you to provide proof that advocates of the movement, specifically the Maryknoll sisters, Jean Donovan, Archbishop Romero, along with other Religious were not Christians but mere secular leftists. You provided the conspiracy theory that it was a Marxist plot and linked to of all sites, David Horowitz’s discoverthenetworks.org – a witch hunt targeting progressive, left leaning individuals and organizations. This particular site comes across as the mothership of contemporary conspiracy theories if you ask me. Why didn’t you introduce General Ion Mihai Pacepa’s conspiracy theory about Liberation Theology where it is much more clearly reported at Bill Buckley’s National Review? For those interested in reading about the controversy over General Pacepa, an alleged defector from communist Romania in the late 1970’s, please see the following: (note: this particular article and subsequent discussion relates specifically to the history of Pope Pius XII, but tangentially addresses the “truthiness”of Pacepa which would encompass his claims that the KGB was involved in Kennedy’s murder and that Liberation Theology was a communist plot.) In rebuttal to challenges to his research, the author states: “Father Gumpel says that former-Communist offical [sic] Ion Pacepa’s claims should be weighed. I conducted that research; there’s no evidence for his particular story.” – Victor Gaeten (who also reports for the publication “Foreign Affairs”
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/disinformation-and-a-dubious-source/#ixzz4BZsRY4dM
And anyone interested in Horowitz’s online version of McCarthy Hearings, here is a list of 1,277 organizations to indicate the depth of this man’s hatred and paranoia. Just so we’re clear on the company you keep and who you like and hate, John.
http://discoverthenetworks.org/summary.asp?object=Organization&category=
Yes, there is a recording, and the conversation happened exactly as I reported it.
….and you “reported” a transcript of the entire conversation? You elected to protect the identity of the student you had been the assigned advisor to, but no longer were at the time, the student who surreptitiously made the recording, and then denied that he was recording, and you elected to post the name and some background of the other student, the one who was recorded without her knowledge through nearly the entirety of the recording, because she was a student engaged in a teaching role you made a personal judgment of her conduct of. You then gave her the daylight hours of a Sunday to respond to what you intended to make public, and she missed the opportunity….tough luck on her! So much for established procedure on how to respond to complaints of students you are not the advisor of.
No, your politics are on the extreme left.
If you think, for example, that opposing abortion is an “extreme” position, you need to look at the polls.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
As for the leftist clerical types: the Sandinista regime was a Marxist regime, and people who supported it are reasonably called secular leftists, even if they claim to be Catholics.
Anybody can claim to be a Catholic.
You started out by claiming that the Catholic Church objects to right wingers killing Catholics, but doesn’t object to Marxists doing so.
That’s not true.
It may be true of you, but it’s not the position of the Church nor or most Catholics.
Aside from “scruffy leftists,” what actually stands in the way of you and your fundamentalist ilk sending our post industrial society back to the good old days of uterine police? You’ve come a long way, baby!
Pull over, lady, or we’ll shoot to kill! No tasers, in the good ole days. No privacy, or access to sterile, competent medical care safer than live birth delivery, either. Take the risk of back room abortion and law enforcement, or the risk of live birth, because we Christian men say so……
http://phw02.newsbank.com/cache/ean/fullsize/pl_006142016_2005_05991_594.pdf
Date: Saturday, September 30, 1961 Paper: Dallas Morning News (Dallas, Texas) Section: 4 Page: 1
One week later, the woman who had fainted in court died suddenly.:
http://phw01.newsbank.com/cache/ean/fullsize/pl_006142016_2023_07997_112.pdf
(The Dallas newspaper did not hesitate to report undisclosed, unofficial details of the suddenly deceased woman’s medical complication.)
Who is to say whether her sudden death was related to recently absorbing five bullets from her boyfriend’s gun, or the stress and humiliation of her arrest, conviction, and sentencing in Judge Brown’s court. “Nut country” included all of the Christian Republic of America, and the constitution on which it stood.
Interesting you should quote this, since it says:
This author doesn’t sound like a Liberation Theology guy.
Irony alert!
Leslie, who is always very clear on the large cast of people whom she hates, accused somebody else of hatred.
Anybody can claim to be a Catholic. — McAdams
Indeed, you are evidence of that.
You started out by claiming that the Catholic Church objects to right wingers killing Catholics, — McAdams
That is inaccurate. I started out by challenging your assertion that people slaughtered don’t care who slaughters them. Martyrs of Christianity indeed care under what banner they die.
but doesn’t object to Marxists doing so. — McAdams
I didn’t address Marxism; you equated those who advocated and died for Liberation Theology were in fact extreme leftist, non Christians. I challenged you. I produced a challenge to the conspiracy theory that Liberation Theology was a communist plot according to a controversial Romanian communist defector, General Precepa. You skipped over that. Some political scientist you are, Mr. McAdams; might you be better in a role of political propagandist like the general?
Get your facts straight, John.
“This author doesn’t sound like a Liberation Theology guy.” — McAdams
Precisely, John. He is not writing from a biased position and yet he still states that his research indicated that Gen. Pacepa’s version of the Pius XII story is unsubstantiated; and if Pacepa was wrong about that, might he have been wrong and perhaps even lying about the Kirill/Liberation Theology conspiracy theory.
I’m bemused you have bought into a conspiracy theory authored by a former communist who is apparently considered by credible and discerning Catholics as suspect.
I’m also curious that you didn’t respond to the attendant issues including your trust in information presented by David Horowitz. Should the equivalent of McCarthy Hearings transpire under a Trump presidency (I noticed that the rolling ad on the website ofNational Review was ” Donald Trump, Make America Great Again”. Can we anticipate that you and David Horowitz will be present at that metaphorical microphone, interrogating women who have had abortions, Muslim Americans who practice their faith on North American soil, persons whose sexual orientation offends you personally? Surely you are aware of the potential repeat of one of the darkest periods in US history? Political scientists as well as respected psychologists acknowledge that Joseph McCarthy had personal issues beyond his capacity to navigate without serious intervention. Is there a message there.
Actually, the McCarthyism we have today comes from the left. Attacks on free speech on college campuses. Attempts to punish people who express doubt about catastrophic global warming.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/282336-the-unprecedented-campaign-against-free-speech
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/05/10/the_lefts_crusade_against_free_speech_126535.html
These are your friends. These are the people who think the way you do.
These were yours…..
You are such a tease John.
“The unprecedented campaign against free speech”
By Mark Holden
‘Holden is senior vice president and general counsel of Koch Industries, Inc. and a director of Americans for Prosperity. (The chairman of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, David Koch, is also executive vice president and director of Koch Industries.)’
Leslie, there’s a lot goin’ on in that opinion piece Dr. McAdams was generous enough to share with us. It is telling, what impresses Dr. McAdams, and who and what he identifies with.
Ironic that Mark Holden’s employers, David and Charles, were accused of the very same crime by David’s
twin brother, William, that Holden claims is, “a law originally meant to target mobsters and drug kingpins.”
Koch V.P. Mark Holden and Dr.McAdams probably have a much better sense of the integrity of David and Charles than David’s twin brother William does.
Dr.McAdams has done an insistent job of informing us it is the “leftists” and the salaried scientists “talking their book,” and not Exxon-Mobil, Koch V.P. Mark Holden, and his employers David and Charles Koch who are the ones doing it. Oh, no, not them, they’re the free speech advocates, dontcha know?
Dr.McAdams, do you take us for fools, are have these propagandists overwhelmed your defenses?
Tom, I don’t care how much you dislike people who don’t share you political views, those people have a right to free speech.
You have made it clear you believe in shutting up and silencing people whose opinions you dislike.
Your opinions are increasing typical of the left, and an increasing threat to democracy.
Demonize the powerless, the ACORN treatment, support the selve serving agenda of the powerful, thank you, Dr. McAdams. It take a big man to suck up to right wing extremist billionaires who seemingly fund every message you support. Which came first, your support, or the money that projected the messaging shaping what you came to support?
Scapegoat and leverage what is already resented. Low hanging fruit transformed into punching bags.
So of course you hate him, and dismiss what he says.
But do you believe people skeptical of man made global warming have a right to free speech, or do you want to use government to shut them up?
I want an answer to that.
So you defend your contemporary leftist friends, who want to shut up speech on college campuses, by going back to the 60s.
Are you are free speech on campuses, or not?
You object to the FBI trying to stifle speech.
Do you object to contemporary leftists trying to stifle speech?
Unless you give a robust condemnation of the current campus fascists, it will be obvious that you have a double standard.
Free speech for leftists, but not for people the leftists dislike.
You did not go all in for Reagan? Were you against free speech before you were for it?
You even managed this while you were prohibited from being on campus? How are they managing without you?
You are the “outcry”. You are the free speech decider. Anonymous Matt, by all means (stealth recording, weasel denial) Cheryl Abbate, not so much. Do I detect a pattern here?
Sashay(tm)!!
You won’t come out for free speech on today’s campuses, since it’s the left trying to shut people up.
You think it’s terrible if conservatives in the 60s tried to shut campus leftists up, but now that the left is stifling speech, you have no problem with it.
Thus your complaints about the FBI in the 60s are hypocritical.
Another Sashay(tm)!!
You won’t respond about liberal attempts to shut up speech liberals don’t like.
You just post more ad hominem and more leftist grudges.
Give me an answer: do you think people skeptical of man-made global warming should be free to express their opinions?
Or do you think they should be punished for doing so?
So what do you think of Shakur, Tom?
Do you think she deserves to be endorsed by Marquette University?
Teaching, presenting, empasizing, or even discussion on a campus is endorsement? You were banned from campus, yet you attempted to attract all the attention
to your indignation you could….lord knows you had the time on your hands to devote to it, at that point? You’re attempt to do the same thing Reagan and FBI did to Kerr, i.e. lifting a ban on communism related speech amounted to endorsement or support of communism by Kerr, to me in this discussion is pathetic but predictable. Free speech only when you approve of the presentation.
Your obsession and indignation related to Shakur, considering the entirety of the details on this page, makes a strong case for your deficient discernment.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur#Criminal_charges_and_dispositions
It is reasonable to say Shakur is a convicted murderer and an escaped prisoner. It is no reasonable to label her as a terrorist on the FBIs most wanted list,
suddenly and without further justification more than 30 years after her escape. It is not reasonable to be worked up about her recently, as you surely have been, considering the circumstances detailed here.:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur#Criminal_charges_and_dispositions
You will not bear hug me similarly to the hug you put on Ms. Abbate. Your hypocrisy and feigned indignation seem eclipsed only by your manipulative compulsions.
A mural on the wall of a university office (this was not a poster in a dorm room or a faculty office) is an endorsement.
Marquette was unwilling to defend the mural. They ordered it quickly painted over.
You are losing it, Tom. You could just say that you object to campus leftists who today try to shut up speech, just as you object to authorities in the 60s who wanted to ban communist speakers.
But you won’t do that.
And I think we know why. You really don’t mind censorship if it comes from the left.
You quote Reagan:
You failed to quote this:
That was not free speech, that was fascism.
And that was what Reagan was reacting against.
So Tom, do you endorse fascist tactics?
Do you think leftist students have a right to disrupt meetings and shout down speakers they don’t like?
Do you think they have a right to occupy buildings and disrupt the legitimate activities of people who work and study there?
It’s becoming more and more obvious you are happy to see opinions you dislike shut down.
Suppose it had been the Confederate Battle Flag?
John:
Your words:
“The more you guys want to argue politics, the more obvious it is that your views of the assassination are merely the result of whom you dislike politically.”
John, personally I don’t care if you get banned or not banned from teaching. That is between you and Marquette. I don’t know anyone on this site that takes pleasure in the fact that someone may or may not lose their job.
What I do find odd is your use of the words dislike and hatred. You accuse everyone on this site of “hating” someone if they disagree with you or the WR. However, you are the one who is having problems at your place of employment. Could one assume that the person with the “hatred” issues be you?
Secondly, no one wants to talk politics on a JFK assassination website. However, you assume that the assassination took place in a vacuum. A president was shot dead in the middle of the day, a “lone-nut” was arrested, and the good people of our government gave us a report that “settled all of the dust.” As you are well aware, life is never that simple. LHO may have been a lot of things, but he was certainly NOT a lone nut. He was a troubled young man to be sure, but for a troubled young man and a lone nut, he sure did pack a lot of living and traveling into a very short life.
Even the most basic of questions were not answered by your beloved WC. His motive? He was “mad at the world.” If everyone who was mad in the US were to shoot at a president, no one would ever want the Oval Office.
There is also your hypocrisy that arises on a daily basis. It is shameful at times, and you refuse to discuss it because that might cause you to think differently about the assassination. You rail against Roger Craig and and Bolden and Jean Hill because of their changing stories. Most would call it lying. However, the CIA can lie, LBJ can lie, Allen Dulles can lie, you have a link from this website about Ford lying to a committee that he created. However, you refuse to discuss their lying, preferring to go after Hill and Bolden, etc.
Lying is lying. There is NO distinction. In your eyes, because the men on the WC were “honorable” men, their lying can be dismissed because of “national security” issues or other bogus nonsense. That is crap. They committed perjury, and they should have been in a courtroom. However, Washington is corrupt to the core, so you can safely hide behind the knowledge that the complete truth will never see the light of day.
JFK’s assassination and the “investigation” is very much like what happened in the Salem witch trials. “Honorable white men,” with their own personal agenda and NO oversight as to their decisions, decided the fate of 20 innocent individuals and then tied 19 of these people to a tree, and one refused to sell his soul, so he was crushed to death by these “honorable men.” It took until 2003 until Governor Swift completely pardoned and apologized for the actions of these “honorable men.” By my estimation, we still have another 250 years before the real truth about JFK’s murder will be known. You can therefore rest easy.
Got any facts there, Steve? All lot of politically colored opinion, but when it comes to facts about the assassination I don’t see any. Bolden, Hill and Craig told inconsistent stories about the assassination. That is a fact, whether you like it or not. Unless you can prove that LBJ, the CIA ,Allen Dulles and yes even the hated Gerald Ford ( winner of the Kennedy-directed Profiles in Courage award, awarded personally by Caroline Kennedy.) lied about specific facts concerning the assassination your diatribe is meaningless.
How could you possibly be certain he could not be a lone nut, when his entire life was a case study in sociopathy?
No, it’s the politically correct left on campuses what has the hatred issues.
You know: safe spaces, microaggressions, bias incident reporting systems, speech codes, diversity training, and the like.
The best source on all this:
https://www.thefire.org/
The problem comes when you accuse people whom you dislike of conspiring to assassinate Kennedy. You can hate Ford and the CIA and Dulles all you want, but they didn’t kill Kennedy.
If you want to claim they did, post your evidence. We can argue about that.
The fact that you hate them isn’t any evidence at all that they killed Kennedy.
Kindly explain what they “lied” about.
Photon:
That is really rich! You, the man with the fake name and no e-mail address on file, asking someone else for facts. Well, Photon, unlike you and your gas about JFK’s steel neck, I shall give you links again. Kindly read them this time. What do you say to that?
Fact number 1:
“On 11th September, 1997, Sibert provided a deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). He was also interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (2005). Sibert rejected the account given by Arlen Specter about the single-bullet theory: “What a liar. I feel he got his orders from above – how far above I don’t know.”
Do you see it, Photon? The word LIAR?
Care to give me a link about JFK’s carbon fiber neck?
Care to give me evidence that the first shot missed, and how it was missed?
Photon:
Fact number 2:
“2003 Addendum: I now no longer feel comfortable with the conclusions I expressed here in 1993 in reference to the Central Intelligence Agency. I set out below the reasons for this judgment.”
I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.
Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.
We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.
Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.
I am now in that camp.”
Did you read that, Photon? The words “not the truth?” Doesn’t that mean LYING?
Photon:
Fact number 3:
Gerald Ford got an award from Ted Kennedy? The same Ted Kennedy who killed Mary Jo Kopechne? That Ted Kennedy? One corrupt (and drunken) politician gives a “courage” award to another lap dog politician? And I supposed to think what exactly? That the Kennedy money can but “his freedom” from justice? Yeah, good one, Photon.
Photon:
Fact number 4:
Washington, DC, February 29, 2016 – The Gerald Ford White House significantly altered the final report of the supposedly independent 1975 Rockefeller Commission investigating CIA domestic activities, over the objections of senior Commission staff, according to internal White House and Commission documents posted today by the National Security Archive at The George Washington University (www.nsarchive.org). The changes included removal of an entire 86-page section on CIA assassination plots and numerous edits to the report by then-deputy White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney.
Today’s posting includes the entire suppressed section on assassination attempts, Cheney’s handwritten marginal notes, staff memos warning of the fallout of deleting the controversial section, and White House strategies for presenting the edited report to the public. The documents show that the leadership of the presidentially-appointed commission deliberately curtailed the investigation and ceded its independence to White House political operatives.”
Did you read that, Photon? The words “significantly altered?” Isn’t that perjury?
Photon:
Yes, I have facts. You give a lot of gas on this website. You give absolutely NO links to support your gas, unless it can be found in the WR.
Care to discuss the LYING that involved the major players in the “investigation” of JFK’s murder?
Or, do you want to tell me that LHO missed the first shot because the Hertz sign on top of the TSBD had too many pigeons, which caused the building to tilt ever so slightly?
I could CARE LESS what you think about the BS in the WR. It is an incomplete report, and you are well aware of that fact.
ONE MORE fact for you:
Gunn says that wasn’t enough. It’s not that he thinks all the loose ends needed to be tied up. “It wouldn’t be unusual if Oswald had done the crime — or not done the crime — to have evidence that’s inconsistent,” he says.
It’s the big mysteries that cause him the most trouble.
“If the president had been killed as part of a conspiracy, that needed to be known,” he says.
“The institution that had the opportunity to best get to the bottom of this, as much as it was possible, was the Warren Commission, and they didn’t do it,” he says. “Now it’s too late to do what should have been done originally.”
John,
First of all, I had hoped you would have responded to the question about your use of the word “hatred” and the problems that you are having at Marquette. Nice to see you won’t dodge a subject, as you accuse the CT side of doing all the time.
I know Dulles and Ford and Specter did not kill Kennedy. As I have told you on so many occasions, I don’t care who killed kennedy. Doesn’t make one whit to me.
It is the destruction of our democracy that bothers me so much. Well, it used to. Then I realized that it really does not make any difference, because Washington is corrupt and rotten to the core. And, it is nothing to change.
“Kindly tell me what they lied about.” Uh, John, can you get me in to Langley? Can you get me the transcripts on George Joannides? Can you get me the travel log for Mr. Phillips? Mr. Angleton? You are asking me to give you a specific lie when I have NO access to any internal documents? We could not get a picture of LHO at the embassy in MC, but you want me to produce what exactly?
Can you answer Mr. Blakey’s assessment with ANY answer besides it is his opinion? It his opinion—based on the SAME evidence that you trumpet over and over and over.
This is where your hypocrisy shines the brightest. You tell us that all of the pathologists from the HSCA agree with the medical findings, blah, blah, blah. However, Mr. Blakey CLEARLY states the CIA did not tell the truth, should have been put on the stand, and their dishonesty did not allow for a real investigation.
Read for yourself:
What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.
I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.
And you want to me to prove which lie? When Mr. Blakey could not get the truth as the head of the HSCA?
Care to answer my question?
I note that you are changing the subject.
You wanted to claim that Ford, Dulles, Warren, etc. lied, and instead of explaining that, you have come back with a post about how you think the CIA lied.
But you won’t even assert that.
You just say that, if they would release all the information, we might find them to have lied.
John,
Uh, I never have asserted that Earl Warren lied. I DID assert that Earl Warren was a limp noodle, as evidenced by giving in to ol’ Jerry to place Rankin on the committee. To which you gave me some bs about the “times” and how Rankin was a “better fit.”
Ford WAS a liar. Ford changed his own committee findings to reflect his “views.”
Read for yourself:
Washington, DC, February 29, 2016 – The Gerald Ford White House significantly altered the final report of the supposedly independent 1975 Rockefeller Commission investigating CIA domestic activities, over the objections of senior Commission staff, according to internal White House and Commission documents posted today by the National Security Archive at The George Washington University (www.nsarchive.org). The changes included removal of an entire 86-page section on CIA assassination plots and numerous edits to the report by then-deputy White House Chief of Staff Richard Cheney.
Today’s posting includes the entire suppressed section on assassination attempts, Cheney’s handwritten marginal notes, staff memos warning of the fallout of deleting the controversial section, and White House strategies for presenting the edited report to the public. The documents show that the leadership of the presidentially-appointed commission deliberately curtailed the investigation and ceded its independence to White House political operatives.
Did you read that really odd part, John? Ford DELETED 86 pages from the report.
Would that qualify as illegal in your world? Or, are you going to give me the “national security” bs?
Also, can you tell me where in the US constitution I can find the section about US presidents conducting assassination raids?
BEFORE you tell me this happened when Ford was in the White House, please read this from Mr. Blakey:
“The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.”
You can dance all you want around the fact that LIARS were responsible for the “investigation,” but as an educated man you know better.
However, as I said in an earlier post to you, you can rest easy because you KNOW that the federal government will always cover its own ass.
So if Sibert calls somebody a liar, he must be.
Odd notion.
Isn’t this the Sibert who claimed the SBT would not work because the wound in the back was too low?
If so, we know he was wrong, since we have a photo of the back.
I thought we were talking about the Warren Commission. And you listed LBJ among the “liars.”
Now you change it to the Rockefeller Commission.
Wanting material redacted is not lying. It may be a bad idea. It probably was, and all this stuff came out anyway soon thereafter.
You really need to be a bit more restrained with the “liar, liar” rhetoric.
If this was a “lie,” did Bobby lie?
From Shenon, about Bobby and the WC:
A Cruel and Shocking Act, p. 434.
As it turned out, Bobby withheld all this information.
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142&relPageId=609
Of course, perhaps you hold RFK to the same standard as Ford.
“So I suppose you think Lenin, Marx, Mao and so on were egalitarians.”~McAdams
I do wonder who you are supposing this about, and what spurred this comment.
\\][//
It is interesting to see how JFKFacts has become somehow affiliated with a Far Right -some would claim racist- website, as we can see here:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/hispanics-go/
If you click on the link, they refer you to Breitbart. Short of StormFront, it doesn’t get any more Far Right, anti-immigrant than that.
We can surmise that most JFKFact folks belong to Group No. 1 while Lew Rockwell is part of Group No. 4:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-georgetown-set-112125
[Scroll down and Click on “Show Comments”]
Both groups have the rejection to the WCR in common.
Did you scan the list of contributors? They range from PD Scott to Thomas Sowell.:
https://www.lewrockwell.com/columnists
You seem more comfortable where everyone is in agreement. The country is not like that.:
A senator with no legislative accomplishment who represents the state with the largest population with a poverty rate above 18 percent and one of the highest per capita of residents
without medical insurance. But, he knows what he wants his God to do to our president. Ramon, maybe your concern over where Jeff chose to get the word out about his new book, in the scheme of things, are a bit overblown.
Ramon,
LewRockwell.com is essentially from the Libertarian perspective. To consider this a “Far Right” perspective is ludicrous.
Ron Paul, one of the most sober voices in politics represents the true Libertarian perspective. He is the one person who persistently maintained respect for the Constitution, especially arguing that the War Powers belonged to Congress, and not the Executive branch.
Anyone reading the words of the Constitution knows this is correct.
Those who cannot read the words in the Constitution themselves, who need “help” from a constitutional scholar, will find no one more qualified than Louis Fisher:
http://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Basic-Principles-of-the-War-Power.pdf
\\][//
It seems Ron Paul has too much in common with the republicans he caucused with during his years in the House of Representatives. He cannot keep his religious views separate from his political dogma.:
http://www.issues2000.org/tx/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm
We can agree that Ron Paul had his faults Tom.
I think his views on abortion, are in fact wrong and against the concept of equal rights to all.
A fetus is not a human being, it is a potential human being. Even the Bible states that a human being is considered such when born.
Aside from the so called “creation of man and woman in the garden” – all human beings become so when born of a woman.
\\][//
John F. Kennedy might have had real problems with libertarian thinking, as he was a fan of John Maynard Keynes, and of Alexander Hamilton, who advocated for a strong federal government (something which had been evolving in this country since the Lincoln Presidency but had its roots in the Hamilton-Jefferson split much earlier). I think it was Kennedy who had read Richard Neustadt’s influencial book, “Presidential Power,” which advocated that in the nuclear age (post WW2), the executive branch needed to have swift war powers that in emergencies couldn’t wait for Congress to debate and vote on. In other words, in the nuclear age the president would need an option to act on his own, or with his cabinet, to retaliate or whatever. I’m not saying that this is morally right, so don’t attack the messenger (me). I’m just saying that just as Kennedy grew annoyed with his State Department for being slow and old fashioned, he also had trouble with his Congress at times. I might add that the Cuban Missile Crisis was an event that Kennedy had to act from his executive team, but if memory serves (correct me if I’m wrong here) he went to Congress after the crisis had cooled down to submit his proposals for dealing with Cuba and the USSR.
When people wrap themselves in the flag or in the Constitution, I get a bit annoyed. The flag is a symbol. The Constitution is a living document, subject to amending and changing as time change. It is not nor was it ever intended to be a “Ten Commandments” and I feel this is where the libertarians like Ron Paul get things wrong. I do agree that healthy debate about ANY foreign operations or entanglements are necessary, and if I were president I would want to bring in as many opposing viewpoints as I could so that I wouldn’t get locked into another of Kennedy’s favorite author viewpoints, Irving Janis’ “Groupthink.” JFK studiously avoided groupthink and that is why I am fairly certain that he never would have let a false flag operation (as it appears to have been) in August of 1964 lead us into a boots on the ground war in Vietnam. Kennedy would have balked at that, and I think most good historians would back me up on that.
“I think it was Kennedy who had read Richard Neustadt’s influencial book, “Presidential Power,” which advocated that in the nuclear age (post WW2), the executive branch needed to have swift war powers that in emergencies couldn’t wait for Congress to debate and vote on. In other words, in the nuclear age the president would need an option to act on his own, or with his cabinet, to retaliate or whatever.”~JSA
Read the Constitution and Fisher’s essay on it.
The President ALWAYS had the authority to repel an invasion — not merely since the nuclear age.
\\][//
“The Framers understood that the President may “repel sudden attacks,” especially when Congress is out of session and unable to assemble quickly, but the power to take defensive actions does not permit the President to initiate wars and exercise the constitutional authority of Congress.
President Washington took great care in instructing his military commanders that operations against Indians were to be limited to defensive actions. Any offensive action required congressional authority. He wrote in 1793: “The Constitution vests the power of declaring war with Congress; therefore no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.”
–Louis Fisher
http://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Basic-Principles-of-the-War-Power.pdf
\\][//
If you are claiming the Gulf of Tonkin was a “false flag” operation, you are wrong.
The Maddox really was attacked. Giap admitted that to McNamara in 1995.
The Turner Joy believed it was under attack, and reported it was under attack, but it apparently was not.
“If you are claiming the Gulf of Tonkin was a “false flag” operation, you are wrong.” ~McAdams
Bunk McAdams, those ships were deliberately positioned as a provocation. They provoked the attack on the Maddox, and then pretended that the Turner Joy was attacked as well.
The very definition of a false flag op: A deliberately staged event used as a pretext for countermeasures.
\\][//
So you are finally admitting that the attack happened.
That’s progress, but the “provocation” excuse is the fallback.
“So you are finally admitting that the attack happened.”~McAdams
What do you mean “finally admitting”?
This is why it is futile to attempt a rational discussion with you ‘professor’ , I never claimed the attack on the Maddox didn’t happen.
But I will say that this “attack” by a tiny PT boat upon a US Destroyer class vessel is a pretty dumb thing to start a full scale war over.
. . .
The Truth About Tonkin
~Lieutenant Commander Pat Paterson, U.S. Navy
“Questions about the Gulf of Tonkin incidents have persisted for more than 40 years. But once-classified documents and tapes released in the past several years, combined with previously uncovered facts, make clear that high government officials distorted facts and deceived the American public about events that led to full U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.
On 2 August 1964, North Vietnamese patrol torpedo boats attacked the USS Maddox (DD-731) while the destroyer was in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin. There is no doubting that fact. But what happened in the Gulf during the late hours of 4 August—and the consequential actions taken by U.S. officials in Washington—has been seemingly cloaked in confusion and mystery ever since that night.”
http://www.usni.org/magazines/navalhistory/2008-02/truth-about-tonkin
“The [USS] Maddox really was attacked.”
That’s not what McNamara said in this interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AaGVAipGp0
I should amend my previous posting in line with John McAdams’ statement. The “Fog of War” clip in which McNamara is interviewed muddies the waters by ignoring what appears to have been an attack on Aug. 2nd with what he says about Aug. 4th (no attack). So it appears that I was incorrect as McAdams states, i.e. there WAS an attack on the 2nd but not on the 4th.
I have to say that escalating a torpedo attack on a patrol operation to a full scale war (asking Congress for the Resolution named after this incident) doesn’t fit the pattern that a JFK presidency would have followed. It looks like an excuse to beat the hell out of them, but to do so in a prolonged way without drawing in the Chinese, a recipe for failure. When the USS Liberty was fired upon in Mediterranean waters, in 1967, the USA did not use that event to go to war. Nor did we go into Cuba with air strikes or troops when one of our U2 planes was shot down during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I question the stupidity that allowed our nation to go full bore into Southeast Asia with boots on the ground and conventional bombing missions. I think JFK would have questioned going into Vietnam had he lived into 1964. It doesn’t fit the pattern of his international involvements, as Douglas points out in “JFK and the Unspeakable” nor in Dallek’s assessments, nor in what McNamara has said about Kennedy in later years.
“Ron Paul, one of the most sober voices in politics represents the true Libertarian perspective. ”
=======================
Willy:
Let’s take a look at one of his articles, shall we?
http://www.dealey-plaza.org/~ramon/politics/Liberty-for-Some.png
Speaking of Constitution (and the Declaration of Independence): Is Ron Paul aware of the part that reads:
“ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL”
Is he?
I will close with a “copy+paste” comment that I use as a reply to those who -like Paul- propose keeping an underclass, a system of castes:
=============================
It is remarkable how you are not interested in the participation of:
• US Businesses
• The Latino Community
• The Democratic Party
• The Rational Half of the Republican Party
• Faith-Based Institutions
• Universities
in the solution of this crisis.
Note: I could add the Unions, but then again you folks hate them.
Note 2: I could add the military as well
=============================