LNs flailing away in dark over Horne
Peter Fokes
They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
They never quote specific pages from his book because they haven't
read the book!
LOL!
Imagine trying to pass even a first-year university course by using
such antics!
You would never make it to second year!
Until they start using specific page numbers and quote specific
detailed arguments Horne actually makes in his book, you can keep
their posts in your miscellaneous items folder.
Happy Holidays!
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Sandy McCroskey
You haven't presented anything specific from the book that would encourage
me in the least to think that reading it wouldn't be a complete waste of
time. Just your agog assurances.
It would take a remarkable revelation indeed to make me reconsider for a
split second whether either, let alone both, Kennedy's body and the Z film
were altered... let alone to plow through Horne's magnum opus to see if he
could somehow prove it.
There just isn't any doubt in my mind to which Horne can appeal. His claim
that Kennedy's wounds or the Z film were both altered just sounds insane.
Now, if someone *gave* me a copy, I might peruse his book as a medical
curiosity, and for laughs. You haven't told me anything that would make me
take it any more seriously.
Sandy
bigdog
>
> They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
>
> They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
>
> They never quote specific pages from his book because they haven't
> read the book!
>
Why would we want to?
davidemerling
> So silly to watch.
>
> They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
>
> They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
In one breath you complain how we will not debate it and, at the same
time, complain about the points we make when we DO debate it.
Yes ... it is "silly."
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
John Blubaugh
You don't get it. If you haven't read it, why would you show your
ignorance by commenting at all? Peter doesn't provide anything
specific and you guys just do your usual ranting and raving with no
facts in your hands. Very typical LN behavior.
JB
WBurg...@aol.com
I just finished part one. Very meticulously footnoted and thorough in the
research. I actually think LN's with a scholarly bent would impressed by
Thoene's meticulous work.
Burgundy
Sandy McCroskey
"Peter doesn't provide anything specific." That's right!
/sandy
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sandy why don't you give a quick read to the testimony of Robert Knudsen
AARB ND 135 on Mary Ferrel? He is a key witness for Horne as he is White
House photographer who swears he took autopsy photos and he was the only
one who did so. This will give you or any other researchers a taste of
what Horne has done.
Burgundy
WBurg...@aol.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sandy much of what Horne writes about was summarized in an article by
Michael Griffith available on this site. I believe he updated it
11/11/02.
Burgundy
Thalia
The holocaust sounds inane. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Thalia
> On Dec 25, 11:53 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > So silly to watch.
>
> > They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
>
> > They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
>
> > They never quote specific pages from his book because they haven't
> > read the book!
>
> Why would we want to?
Why would you want to, indeed. Because it might challenge your belief
in a lone not scenario, and that would make you uncomfortable, and we
can't have that, can we?
Thalia
The Lone Nut brigade are running scared, Peter. I'm not sure if its
funny or sad to watch!!
John McAdams
>On Dec 25, 5:53�pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 11:53�am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You haven't presented anything specific from the book that would encourage
>> me in the least to think that reading it wouldn't be a complete waste of
>> time. Just your agog assurances.
>>
>> It would take a remarkable revelation indeed to make me reconsider for a
>> split second whether either, let alone both, Kennedy's body and the Z film
>> were altered... let alone to plow through Horne's magnum opus to see if he
>> could somehow prove it.
>>
>> There just isn't any doubt in my mind to which Horne can appeal. His claim
>> that Kennedy's wounds or the Z film were both altered just sounds insane.
>> Now, if someone *gave* me a copy, I might peruse his book as a medical
>> curiosity, and for laughs. You haven't told me anything that would make me
>> take it any more seriously.
>>
>> Sandy
>
>Sandy why don't you give a quick read to the testimony of Robert Knudsen
>AARB ND 135 on Mary Ferrel? He is a key witness for Horne as he is White
>House photographer who swears he took autopsy photos and he was the only
>one who did so. This will give you or any other researchers a taste of
>what Horne has done.
>
But he didn't photograph the autopsy. Stringer did.
Kundsen is a grossly unreliable witness.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/knudsen.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/knudsen6.txt
Look . . . anybody who is at all serious about this has to be
skeptical of witness testimony.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Robert Harris
wrote:
>So silly to watch.
>
>They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
>
>They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
>
>They never quote specific pages from his book because they haven't
>read the book!
Peter, I am a bit confused here. For years, you almost never posted
anything on the conspiracy question, and wouldn't even reply when I
asked you to discuss your own beliefs.
And I will never forget when you and Zimmerman tag teamed me, trying
to totally reverse Mrs. Kennedy's WC testimony, to make it consistent
with the LN theory.
Now suddenly, you are sounding like Lisa Pease's fraternal twin
brother.
Horne is obviously, a radical. And btw, I don't think your argument
that everyone has to read his book before discussing his position,
holds water, because his radio interview which you linked, provided
more than enough information to make his POV crystal clear.
Most of these arguments fall apart after you go a little deeper into
them. For example, consider Mantik, whom Horne repeatedly cited,
stating that because the optical density in certain parts of the xrays
was greater than it should have been, the xrays were forgeries.
Why didn't Robertson and Riley see that problem when they examined
them? Or anyone else, including other pro conspiracy people?
And why didn't Mantik write a paper on the subject and submit it for
peer review in a good journal, as people at his academic level are
supposed to do??
Peter, I am disappointed that when you finally decided to make your
stand for conspiracy, you chose to go with one of the most extreme
advocates in existence. How is it that you see no reactions to the
very real shot that puts the conspiracy question to bed, but can
suddenly see evidence of forgery in the films, photos and Xrays??
Those arguments have consistently failed, in they eyes of most
rational people, Peter. And they will be proven wrong again and again,
just as they always have.
Robert Harris
David Von Pein
>>> "They [LNers who say Horne's book is full of shit] never quote
specific pages from his book..." <<<
Wrong:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/155a3a578f5005f5
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a805d27a12bc8597
Steve Thomas
Lets hope the rest of Horne's book isn't so shabbily researched.
Those wacky CTs, "They use hearsay and rely on third parties" as Peter
would say!
Steve Thomas
say again?
Anthony Marsh
> On 26 Dec 2009 00:13:53 -0500, WBurg...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> On Dec 25, 5:53 pm, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>> On Dec 25, 11:53 am, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You haven't presented anything specific from the book that would encourage
>>> me in the least to think that reading it wouldn't be a complete waste of
>>> time. Just your agog assurances.
>>>
>>> It would take a remarkable revelation indeed to make me reconsider for a
>>> split second whether either, let alone both, Kennedy's body and the Z film
>>> were altered... let alone to plow through Horne's magnum opus to see if he
>>> could somehow prove it.
>>>
>>> There just isn't any doubt in my mind to which Horne can appeal. His claim
>>> that Kennedy's wounds or the Z film were both altered just sounds insane.
>>> Now, if someone *gave* me a copy, I might peruse his book as a medical
>>> curiosity, and for laughs. You haven't told me anything that would make me
>>> take it any more seriously.
>>>
>>> Sandy
>
>>
>> Sandy why don't you give a quick read to the testimony of Robert Knudsen
>> AARB ND 135 on Mary Ferrel? He is a key witness for Horne as he is White
>> House photographer who swears he took autopsy photos and he was the only
>> one who did so. This will give you or any other researchers a taste of
>> what Horne has done.
>>
>
> But he didn't photograph the autopsy. Stringer did.
>
Great, so he got there too late to take the autopsy photos and took
photos of the body after embalming for the family.
> Kundsen is a grossly unreliable witness.
>
You say that only because you don't like what he says. You didn't say
that about him in 1960 or 1961.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/knudsen.txt
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/knudsen6.txt
>
> Look . . . anybody who is at all serious about this has to be
> skeptical of witness testimony.
>
Unless it is YOUR favorite witness and then he's Jesus Christ.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Can you quote for me where Knudsen said he was the only photographer
there that night? How would he know if he got there late?
> Burgundy
>
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:53:02 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
>wrote:
>
>>So silly to watch.
>>
>>They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
>>
>>They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
>>
>>They never quote specific pages from his book because they haven't
>>read the book!
>
>Peter, I am a bit confused here.
Hard to believe, Robert. I find you to be one of the most consistent
posters: well-written posts, citations, and links to custom clips on
You Tube. Some posters might think you've been beating a dead horse
for decades, but I respect your efforts.
> For years, you almost never posted
>anything on the conspiracy question, and wouldn't even reply when I
>asked you to discuss your own beliefs.
Well, at least you've finally admitted I did indeed discuss the
conspiracy question. Any theory must withstand critical analysis,
Robert, so you should be pleased when anyone (Zimmerman. Fokes)
debate your theory with you.
>And I will never forget when you and Zimmerman tag teamed me, trying
>to totally reverse Mrs. Kennedy's WC testimony, to make it consistent
>with the LN theory.
Which LN theory? Chad and I certainly had our disagreements.
>Now suddenly, you are sounding like Lisa Pease's fraternal twin
>brother.
I'm afraid I know very little about Lisa Pease. I've never met her.
Is she the person who thought Professor McAdams was a Colonel in the
Navy? I assure you, Robert, I don't share her belief. I'm sure her mom
and dad were lovely people, but I am the an offspring of two "other"
wonderful people. You must be careful not to adopt the same tactics
as your opponents, Robert. Treat everyone with respect and do not
compare apples with oranges.
>Horne is obviously, a radical.
Uh oh. Robert, lets forego the namecalling. In any case, Darwin was a
radical; Dylan was a radical; Jesus was a radical. The term radical is
so over-used as to be almost meaningless. It has become a jingoistic
word to tag anyone who opposes traditional opinion. Often interpreted
with a negative bias. For example, some LNs would say, "Robert Harris
is a radical. He believes the Zapruder film shows that the back of
President's Kennedy's head was blown out." Now Robert, you know some
LNs simply scoff at that idea. You know your idea is not mainstream.
So be careful whom you designate a radical.
>
And btw, I don't think your argument
>that everyone has to read his book before discussing his position,
>holds water, because his radio interview which you linked, provided
>more than enough information to make his POV crystal clear.
Robert, the interview barely scratches the surface. Buy his book and
read it, Robert. You'll find evidence to back up your own argument to
some degree.
>Most of these arguments fall apart after you go a little deeper into
>them. For example, consider Mantik, whom Horne repeatedly cited,
>stating that because the optical density in certain parts of the xrays
>was greater than it should have been, the xrays were forgeries.
>
>Why didn't Robertson and Riley see that problem when they examined
>them? Or anyone else, including other pro conspiracy people?
How can you be so sure the answer to your question is not in the book
if you refuse to read it? For a person so involved in the JFK
assassination debate, I am shocked you would not be willing to give
the military analyst and specialist on medical evidence for the ARRB
a hearing by thoroughly reading his book. Save some sheckels. It's
worth a read, Robert.
>And why didn't Mantik write a paper on the subject and submit it for
>peer review in a good journal, as people at his academic level are
>supposed to do??
And you have submitted your paper to what academic journal, Robert?
>Peter, I am disappointed that when you finally decided to make your
>stand for conspiracy, you chose to go with one of the most extreme
>advocates in existence. How is it that you see no reactions to the
>very real shot that puts the conspiracy question to bed, but can
>suddenly see evidence of forgery in the films, photos and Xrays??
Robert, you are no doubt a fine fellow, but you jump to conclusions
too quickly. I have suggested that folks who are eager to debate
Horne's ideas take the time to read his book. If folks are interested
in this subject, they will certainly find his multi-volume work of
great interest -- even if they do disagree with some of his ideas.
Horne is certainly not afraid to disagree with some other conspiracy
advocates such as Lifton, Josiah T, while at the same time
acknowledging their contributions. Don't you believe that is a fair
and wise approach? Robert, reading your comments makes me feel you
have spent time tracing out a cardboard image of me and then carefully
propping it up in your living room (perhap held vertical by two
copies of Bugliosi's immense tome), so you can turn to it every so
often (when not chatting on You Tube for the masses -- one million +
clicks, Robert? Excellent!) and gove me a disapproving look, poke it
with a pointer, or swear I too am a Colonel in the Navy!
>Those arguments have consistently failed, in they eyes of most
>rational people, Peter. And they will be proven wrong again and again,
>just as they always have.
And in the eyes of most people, Robert, how are your arguments doing?
Happy Holidays,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
John Fiorentino
And Thorne will use "meticulously footnoted" testimony like that of
Knudsen!
The JFK Act and the release of documents through ARRB was a good thing. On
the other hand, the 30-year testimony of every Crackerjack box, was not.
All of the documents released through ARRB are available for researchers,
but some of these nutty ideas based on 30-year old testimony from
unreliable sources are a distraction.
Do yourself a favor and apply some logic and common sense to these things.
Forget about Horne, ask yourself the same questions you would of any
theory.
How did it happen? When did it happen? Is the proposal even possible? Is
the motive reasonable, i.e., simply put, why was it necessary?
The other day in a post, I explained why these "body-alteration" ideas
simply don't hold water. I said the whole theory falls apart at Parkland.
I used Parkland as a post-event starting point. But, if you really think
about it, the whole thing falls apart in Dealey Plaza.
Any conspiracy based on the scenario as proposed by (Lifton/Horne) must by
its nature be predicated on certain guarantees, of which there were none.
No guarantee JFK would be killed, or even hit. No guarantee others would
not be killed or wounded. And I'm not even referring to Connally. Let's
just suppose for example Greer was wounded or even killed. Lets suppose in
this case due to his injury or death, the essentially driverless limousine
swerved up the damn grassy knoll and parked itself there. What happens
then?
Unless you envision the entire DPD and Secret Service was involved, you
could certainly assume there would be no body-alteration at that point.
Would Zapruder have stopped filming? Would Zapruder need to be eliminated?
Would every person with a camera in Dealey Plaza need to be killed?
Suppose someone was filming from inside the TSBD (as was the case). What
would happen then?
Ask yourself HOW could it be done? If you do that, you'll become convinced
that it couldn't and if it couldn't be done, then it wasn't done.
John F.
<WBurg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b5558101-a0f1-4d84...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes Stringer shot the autopsy (as well as Floyd Riebe). Have you
considered Knudsen shot "the other brain exam?"
Burgundy
John Blubaugh
>
> - Show quoted text -
Especially when it paints everying in a light that YOU cannot
tolerate. It seems to me that an LNs strongest trait is the ability to
bury their head in the sand and hear or see nothing.
JB
Peter Fokes
notice Robert's post in the inbox today, and replied.
Hopefully this thread has convinced some LNs to buy and read Horne's
book so they will not be flailing away in the dark when discussing
what they think about what he thinks before really knwoing what he
thinks!
Today it's turkey sandwiches and screenings of several movies!
Happy Holidays!
Peter Fokes
John McAdams
In the first place, there was no "other brain exam."
But in the second place, that's not what he said.
He said he shot "the autopsy."
Does it ever occur to you to compare the testimony from a singlt
witness at various points in time? One can find out some interesting
things, but it can pour a lot of cold water on one's pet theory.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
Hurts, doesn't it?
You guys were touting the testimony of somebody who was obviously
talling tall tales.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
But he never claimed to have done any such thing.
Where did you get that? Spencer?
Do you regularly make up stuff to avoid the obvious conclusion: one
of your pet witnesses was telling tall tales.
>
>> Kundsen is a grossly unreliable witness.
>>
>
>You say that only because you don't like what he says. You didn't say
>that about him in 1960 or 1961.
>
???!!!
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/knudsen.txt
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/knudsen6.txt
>>
>> Look . . . anybody who is at all serious about this has to be
>> skeptical of witness testimony.
>>
>
>Unless it is YOUR favorite witness and then he's Jesus Christ.
>
Bummer, isn't it, Tony?
You puff the testimony of somebody who turns out to be grossly
unreliable.
And it didn't occur to you to check out his HSCA testimony.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Mitch Todd
>AARB ND 135 on Mary Ferrel? He is a key witness for Horne as he is White
>House photographer who swears he took autopsy photos and he was the only
>one who did so. This will give you or any other researchers a taste of
>what Horne has done.
In the source you reference, Knudsen only claims to have developed the
photos, not taken them. BTW, in the Sibert and O'Neill report Knudsen is
not listed as being present. That's an odd omission for the guy taking the
autopsy photos, don't you think? S&O had Stringer listed as being the
"Medical Photographer" in cause you are wondering.
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm not wondering anything Mitch. Of course Stringer was listed as the
official autopsy photographer even though he said Riebe took no photos
and Riebe said he did. Stringer also changed his tune about the nature
of the wounds in 1993 and when played a tape he made with Lifton
citing a wound in the back he says he hears it and understands it but
it's not true. He never quite has the balls to say someone was
imitating him on the tape, even though Horne says it's quite obvious
it is Stringer. Vol. 1 analyzes why Stringer may have changed his
story.
Say Knudsen took photos either "pre-autopsy" or "post-autopsy" working
exclusively with the Secret Service and he was by himself. Wouldn't he
say he was the autopsy photographer? He's not there when Stringer is
and vice-versa. So they don't see each other. In case you're
wondering.
Burgundy
John Fiorentino
Why don't you go back and research the original testimony, or HSCA
testimony as the case may be? Why don't you apply some logic and common
sense to these ideas?
If anything, proper investigative technique is what .John is guilty of.
And, BTW, I hardly think I've buried my head in the sand re: Oswald's
activities Sept-Nov. 63. I'm working that rather aggressively.
The difference is, I'm reviewing original documents, making phone calls,
etc., trying to piece things together. I'm not relying on 30-year witness
testimony, by people, who in most cases gave original testimony which
conflicts with their newest "epiphany."
And ALL of the testimony aside, please lay this whole idea out for me
won't you?
Just HOW was it all supposed to go down?
Different when you're asked questions rather than having to try and answer
them, isn't it?
John F.
"John Blubaugh" <jblu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:96ca5912-73a7-49c8...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
bigdog
About 20 years ago, I made the ridiculous mistake of buying David Lifton's
Best Evidence. Now somebody is recycling the same crap. Am I supposed to
be dumb enough to repeat the same mistake. Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
Robert Harris
wrote:
The theory that Oswald acted alone.
You denied that Mrs. Kennedy stated that her original recollection was
that she heard two shots after Connally began to shout - even after I
posted her verbatim statement, saying exactly that.
>Chad and I certainly had our disagreements.
>
>>Now suddenly, you are sounding like Lisa Pease's fraternal twin
>>brother.
>
>I'm afraid I know very little about Lisa Pease. I've never met her.
>Is she the person who thought Professor McAdams was a Colonel in the
>Navy? I assure you, Robert, I don't share her belief. I'm sure her mom
>and dad were lovely people, but I am the an offspring of two "other"
>wonderful people. You must be careful not to adopt the same tactics
>as your opponents, Robert. Treat everyone with respect and do not
>compare apples with oranges.
>
>>Horne is obviously, a radical.
>
>Uh oh. Robert, lets forego the namecalling. In any case, Darwin was a
>radical; Dylan was a radical; Jesus was a radical. The term radical is
>so over-used as to be almost meaningless. It has become a jingoistic
>word to tag anyone who opposes traditional opinion. Often interpreted
>with a negative bias. For example, some LNs would say, "Robert Harris
>is a radical.
The nutters are not the problem Peter. It is the conspiracy buffs who are
the problem. It is the media being sold on the belief that the case for
conspiracy was presented by "spokesman" like Gary Mack, pitching badgeman
or David Lifton's body alterations or Grodens ridiculous analysis of the
shooting, supported by evidence that is laughably easy to refute.
That's why so many academics and media people laugh at the notion of
conspiracy.
Oh, and yes I did submit a paper in 1995 to the American Journal of
History. They replied that they no longer accepted papers on the subject
of the JFK assassination.
Robert Harris
claviger
> So silly to watch.
> They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
What are the real arguments in Horne's book? The allegation of body
alteration and photographic tampering is nothing new. The idea a
conspiracy would invest time and money in such a scheme, and by so doing
multiply the risk level of detection times the number of support
specialists involved, is incomprehensible. Keep in mind the HSCA who
embraced the "acoustic evidence" determined the GK shot missed everyone in
the Limousine. Think about that for a minute. The "pro" positioned for the
insurance shot missed the closest shot, while the amateur "patsy" in the
6th window did all the damage. So does Horne reveal the location of the
frontal shot and type of weapon used, and does he explain how the sniper
got away unseen by the numerous witnesses in the vicinity? If not then the
book is a waste of money.
I suspect the motivation in writing this book is based on Horne's desire
to parlay his position on the ARRB into a cash cow CT suckers will buy
into. Why not? He no doubt has seen a number of silly conspiracy books
through the years make money and decided it was time he get in on the scam
too. Can anyone blame him? Like taking candy from a whole bunch of babies.
Skeptics won't buy the book but lucky for Horne that CTs outnumber LNs by
a large margin, so why not tap into that vast gaping market of
gullibility.
WBurg...@aol.com
Ahhh... yes... what price .... to move toward the truth?
Anthony Marsh
As we've said before S&O did not list everyone there and did not get all
the names correct. We don't think Knudsen actually took the autopsy
photos. We think he took photos of the body AFTER the autopsy for the
family. So far all you have cited is his HSCA testimony, right? Does
that mean that's all you've read? You never read the article from
Popular Photography?
John G. Morris, "Shooting the Presidents," Popular Photography, August
1977, Volume 81, Number 2, 81.
You could have at least checked the Web. It's on the McAdams web site if
you are afraid to visit any conspiracy web sites.
But in 1977, Knudsen apparently told his "I was at the autopsy" story
to POPULAR PHOTOGRAPHY. That journal ran a story titled (in rather
dubious taste) "'Shooting' the Presidents" in the August 1977 number.
Quoting from page 81:
<Quote on>
The one Presidential trip which Bob Knudsen did *not* make was the one
to Texas in November, 1963. Scheduled to go, he was hospitalized at
the last moment with steel slivers in his eye. Cecil Stoughton went
instead, and wound up making the most famous of all Presidential
succession pictures: Lyndon Johnson being sworn in aboard Air Force
One following the Kennedy assassination.
When the news of the assassination came from Dallas, Kundsen left the
hospital to meet Air Force One at Andrews Field. He was the only
photographer to record the autopsy -- "the hardest assignment in my
life."
Anthony Marsh
No, they are paid big bucks by the CIA to laugh at anything which
reflects badly on the CIA.
bigdog
>
> I suspect the motivation in writing this book is based on Horne's desire
> to parlay his position on the ARRB into a cash cow CT suckers will buy
> into. Why not? He no doubt has seen a number of silly conspiracy books
> through the years make money and decided it was time he get in on the scam
> too. Can anyone blame him? Like taking candy from a whole bunch of babies.
> Skeptics won't buy the book but lucky for Horne that CTs outnumber LNs by
> a large margin, so why not tap into that vast gaping market of
> gullibility.
A fool and his money...
Anthony Marsh
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:53:02 -0500, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com>
> wrote:
>
>> So silly to watch.
>>
>> They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
>>
>> They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
>>
>> They never quote specific pages from his book because they haven't
>> read the book!
>
> Peter, I am a bit confused here. For years, you almost never posted
> anything on the conspiracy question, and wouldn't even reply when I
> asked you to discuss your own beliefs.
>
> And I will never forget when you and Zimmerman tag teamed me, trying
> to totally reverse Mrs. Kennedy's WC testimony, to make it consistent
> with the LN theory.
>
> Now suddenly, you are sounding like Lisa Pease's fraternal twin
> brother.
>
> Horne is obviously, a radical. And btw, I don't think your argument
Wow, you figured that out all by yourself? Did you get a look at his
beard? BTW, you may not know it, but extreme right-wingers also think it
was a conspiracy. See the John Birch literature. Or Alex Jones.
> that everyone has to read his book before discussing his position,
> holds water, because his radio interview which you linked, provided
> more than enough information to make his POV crystal clear.
>
> Most of these arguments fall apart after you go a little deeper into
> them. For example, consider Mantik, whom Horne repeatedly cited,
> stating that because the optical density in certain parts of the xrays
> was greater than it should have been, the xrays were forgeries.
>
> Why didn't Robertson and Riley see that problem when they examined
> them? Or anyone else, including other pro conspiracy people?
>
Robertson and Riley did not have access to the same technology which
Mantik used.
> And why didn't Mantik write a paper on the subject and submit it for
> peer review in a good journal, as people at his academic level are
> supposed to do??
>
Such as? You mean like JAMA's whitewash with The Three Stooges?
Or Lattimer's rambling in his buddy's magazine?
David Von Pein
>>> "I suspect the motivation in writing this book is based on Horne's
desire to parlay his position on the ARRB into a cash cow CT suckers will
buy into. Why not? He no doubt has seen a number of silly conspiracy books
through the years make money and decided it was time he get in on the scam
too." <<<
And at more than $80 a pop, too (if you were to buy all 5 of Horne's
volumes of utter fantasy). Egads!
I only paid $29.99 for Bugliosi's massive masterpiece.
Steve Thomas
> On 26 Dec 2009 10:01:36 -0500, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:53:02 -0500, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>So silly to watch.
>
> >>They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
>
> >>They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
>
> >>They never quote specific pages from his book because they haven't
> >>read the book!
>
> >Peter, I am a bit confused here.
>
> posters: well-written posts, citations, and links to custom clips on
> You Tube. Some posters might think you've been beating a dead horse
> for decades, but I respect your efforts.
>
> >anything on the conspiracy question, and wouldn't even reply when I
> >asked you to discuss your own beliefs.
>
> conspiracy question. Any theory must withstand critical analysis,
> Robert, so you should be pleased when anyone (Zimmerman. Fokes)
> debate your theory with you.
>
> >to totally reverse Mrs. Kennedy's WC testimony, to make it consistent
> >with the LN theory.
>
>
> >Now suddenly, you are sounding like Lisa Pease's fraternal twin
> >brother.
>
> Is she the person who thought Professor McAdams was a Colonel in the
> Navy? I assure you, Robert, I don't share her belief. I'm sure her mom
> and dad were lovely people, but I am the an offspring of two "other"
> wonderful people. You must be careful not to adopt the same tactics
> as your opponents, Robert. Treat everyone with respect and do not
> compare apples with oranges.
>
>
> radical; Dylan was a radical; Jesus was a radical. The term radical is
> so over-used as to be almost meaningless. It has become a jingoistic
> word to tag anyone who opposes traditional opinion. Often interpreted
> with a negative bias. For example, some LNs would say, "Robert Harris
> President's Kennedy's head was blown out." Now Robert, you know some
> LNs simply scoff at that idea. You know your idea is not mainstream.
>
> And btw, I don't think your argument
>
> >holds water, because his radio interview which you linked, provided
> >more than enough information to make his POV crystal clear.
>
> read it, Robert. You'll find evidence to back up your own argument to
> some degree.
>
> >them. For example, consider Mantik, whom Horne repeatedly cited,
> >stating that because the optical density in certain parts of the xrays
> >was greater than it should have been, the xrays were forgeries.
>
> >Why didn't Robertson and Riley see that problem when they examined
> >them? Or anyone else, including other pro conspiracy people?
>
> if you refuse to read it? For a person so involved in the JFK
> assassination debate, I am shocked you would not be willing to give
> the military analyst and specialist on medical evidence for the ARRB
> a hearing by thoroughly reading his book. Save some sheckels. It's
> worth a read, Robert.
>
> >peer review in a good journal, as people at his academic level are
> >supposed to do??
>
>
> >stand for conspiracy, you chose to go with one of the most extreme
> >advocates in existence. How is it that you see no reactions to the
> >very real shot that puts the conspiracy question to bed, but can
> >suddenly see evidence of forgery in the films, photos and Xrays??
>
> too quickly. I have suggested that folks who are eager to debate
> Horne's ideas take the time to read his book. If folks are interested
> in this subject, they will certainly find his multi-volume work of
> great interest -- even if they do disagree with some of his ideas.
> Horne is certainly not afraid to disagree with some other conspiracy
> advocates such as Lifton, Josiah T, while at the same time
> acknowledging their contributions. Don't you believe that is a fair
> and wise approach? Robert, reading your comments makes me feel you
> have spent time tracing out a cardboard image of me and then carefully
> propping it up in your living room (perhap held vertical by two
> copies of Bugliosi's immense tome), so you can turn to it every so
> often (when not chatting on You Tube for the masses -- one million +
> clicks, Robert? Excellent!) and gove me a disapproving look, poke it
> with a pointer, or swear I too am a Colonel in the Navy!
>
> >rational people, Peter. And they will be proven wrong again and again,
> >just as they always have.
>
>
> Happy Holidays,
> Peter Fokes,
> Toronto
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>LOL!
>
> >>Imagine trying to pass even a first-year university course by using
> >>such antics!
>
> >>You would never make it to second year!
>
> >>Until they start using specific page numbers and quote specific
> >>detailed arguments Horne actually makes in his book, you can keep
> >>their posts in your miscellaneous items folder.
>
> >>Happy Holidays!
>
> >>Peter Fokes,
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bravo!
Mitch Todd
>On Dec 26, 9:56 am, "Mitch Todd" <recipien...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <WBurgha...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 25, 5:53 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> >> On Dec 25, 11:53 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > So silly to watch.
>>
>> >> > They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
>>
>> >> > They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
>>
>> >> > They never quote specific pages from his book because they haven't
>> >> > read the book!
>>
>> >> > LOL!
>>
>> >> > Imagine trying to pass even a first-year university course by using
>> >> > such antics!
>>
>> >> > You would never make it to second year!
>>
>> >> > Until they start using specific page numbers and quote specific
>> >> > detailed arguments Horne actually makes in his book, you can keep
>> >> > their posts in your miscellaneous items folder.
>>
Had it happened as you conjecture, Knudsen would have mentioned it during
his deposition the the HSCA investigation. He told them that his first
contact with the autopsy photos was the morning after the assassination.
Thalia
> On 26 Dec 2009 10:01:36 -0500, Robert Harris <reharr...@yahoo.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well done Peter, a brilliant rebuttal. I totally agree with you about
the "radical" tag, sometimes the truth is a bit "radical" - but it is
still the truth.
WBurg...@aol.com
bigdog
Which epxlains why so many of you think it is a radical idea that LHO
killed JFK by himself.
John Fiorentino
is BS.
John F.
"Thalia" <thali...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ed04fbc2-fc86-4e76...@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
That assumes that he must have known about the official photographer.
Maybe be didn't.
Maybe he didn't consider the military photographs as the OFFICIAL WH
record of the event. As a parallel, Cecil Stoughton was chosen to take
the OFFICIAL WH photographs of the reinterment. And for many years
that's all people knew about. Many years later I found a second set of
photographs taken by an ARMY photographer which had been hidden from the
record. There was also a tape recording of the event which has never
been made public and never will.
Robert Harris
Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 12/26/2009 10:01 AM, Robert Harris wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:53:02 -0500, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> So silly to watch.
> >>
> >> They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
> >>
> >> They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
> >>
> >> They never quote specific pages from his book because they haven't
> >> read the book!
> >
> > Peter, I am a bit confused here. For years, you almost never posted
> > anything on the conspiracy question, and wouldn't even reply when I
> > asked you to discuss your own beliefs.
> >
> > And I will never forget when you and Zimmerman tag teamed me, trying
> > to totally reverse Mrs. Kennedy's WC testimony, to make it consistent
> > with the LN theory.
> >
> > Now suddenly, you are sounding like Lisa Pease's fraternal twin
> > brother.
> >
> > Horne is obviously, a radical. And btw, I don't think your argument
>
> Wow, you figured that out all by yourself?
Tony, I am still waiting for you to repost one of those 100 verbatim
citations you claim to have posted, which prove I misrepresented
witnesses.
And I also want to see you cite me, confessing to my dishonesty as you
claim I did.
Until we establish your credibility on those matters, why should I or
anyone else be concerned about your opinions on other issues?
Robert Harris
John McAdams
>On Dec 25, 10:09�pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
>wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 8:19�pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > You don't get it. If you haven't read it, why would you show your
>> > ignorance by commenting at all? Peter doesn't provide anything
>> > specific and you guys just do your usual ranting and raving with no
>> > facts in your hands. Very typical LN behavior.
>>
>> > JB
>>
>> "Peter doesn't provide anything specific." That's right!
>> /sandy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>
>Sandy much of what Horne writes about was summarized in an article by
>Michael Griffith available on this site. I believe he updated it
>11/11/02.
>
>
Correct, and that's why a lot of people here are not keen on going out
and buying Horne's book. The ARRB stuff isn't really new.
Griffith, in his usual bizarre way, will quote one witness saying the
autopsy photos and x-rays are not the way he remembered them, and then
quote another witness saying the autopsy photos and x-rays are not wa
he remembered, and tout two witnesses to "photo fakery."
All the while failing to note that the two witnesses contradict each
other!
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/memory.htm#arrb
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
garyb
I got it for $6.99. Now I just have to read it.
Anthony Marsh
As I said you can't quote Knudsen saying that.
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
No Tony I can't ... except as John stated it was in the photography
magazine article....and as far as quoting Gunn earlier my only source
is Horne. And the note Horne cited earlier on this cite. You know, I
don't hang out and drink martinis with these guys. I got the same
information most of us have and a lot of it is unlocked. But please
don't call me a "newbie."
Burgundy
Anthony Marsh
So you confirm that you had not read the Popular Photography article.
You confirm that you don't know for sure that Knudsen said it himself.
WBurg...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
I confirm I did not read the Popular Photography article. My source for
Knudsen is what he told his son, Bob. I confirm this in not a primary
source. Bless me father for I have sinned. My last confession was 50 years
ago. I confess to relying on secondary sources. I confess that I am
reading a new book and just reacting to what I read. O my Marsh, I am
sorry fot having offended thee. And now I will make a good Act of
Contrition....
jas
> On Dec 25, 7:20 pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 25, 10:53 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > > So silly to watch.
>
> > > They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
>
> > > They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
>
> > time, complain about the points we make when we DO debate it.
>
> > Yes ... it is "silly."
>
> > David Emerling
> > Memphis, TN
>
> You don't get it. If you haven't read it, why would you show your
> ignorance by commenting at all? Peter doesn't provide anything
> specific and you guys just do your usual ranting and raving with no
> facts in your hands. Very typical LN behavior.
>
> JB
Very good, Gomer... surprise, surprise --- just like CTs do with
Bugliosi's book.
Keep arguing. With each post you paint another fresh coat into your
corner.
jas
Egards! Don't buy CT stuff, just go to your local library.
Ours has enough CT crap to last until rapture.
bigdog
>
> > About 20 years ago, I made the ridiculous mistake of buying David Lifton's
> > Best Evidence. Now somebody is recycling the same crap. Am I supposed to
> > be dumb enough to repeat the same mistake. Fool me once, shame on you.
> > Fool me twice, shame on me.
>
> Egards! Don't buy CT stuff, just go to your local library.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
What does it smell like in that corner?
jas
I don't know, but I certainly don't want to find out.
:>)
jbarge
wrote:
> On Dec 25, 8:19 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 25, 7:20 pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 25, 10:53 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > > > So silly to watch.
>
> > > > They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
>
> > > > They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
>
> > > In one breath you complain how we will not debate it and, at the same
> > > time, complain about the points we make when we DO debate it.
>
> > > Yes ... it is "silly."
>
> > > David Emerling
> > > Memphis, TN
>
> > You don't get it. If you haven't read it, why would you show your
> > ignorance by commenting at all? Peter doesn't provide anything
> > specific and you guys just do your usual ranting and raving with no
> > facts in your hands. Very typical LN behavior.
>
> > JB
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
What - suggesting that you actually read the book isn't specific
enough?
I mean, go ahead and reject it without reading it but that's a pretty
specific suggestion.
What - you want him to name the book store to buy it at?
No doubt you would want someone to Posner or Bugliosi's book for
themselves rather than just study snippets of posts on a website.
If not you're being just plain silly.
Just like I have to dig up the HSCA report (page 94 to 96 Vol. 50)
detailing the censorship of the Jan. Warren Commission meeting that
you refuse to take at my word, basically everyone should go to source
documents if possible.
From posts to books to source documents is a fine beginning to
ascertain accuracy.
jbarge
> On Dec 25, 11:19 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 26 Dec 2009 00:13:53 -0500, WBurgha...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > >On Dec 25, 5:53 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >> On Dec 25, 11:53 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > >> You haven't presented anything specific from the book that would encourage
> > >> me in the least to think that reading it wouldn't be a complete waste of
> > >> time. Just your agog assurances.
>
> > >> It would take a remarkable revelation indeed to make me reconsider for a
> > >> split second whether either, let alone both, Kennedy's body and the Z film
> > >> were altered... let alone to plow through Horne's magnum opus to see if he
> > >> could somehow prove it.
>
> > >> There just isn't any doubt in my mind to which Horne can appeal. His claim
> > >> that Kennedy's wounds or the Z film were both altered just sounds insane.
> > >> Now, if someone *gave* me a copy, I might peruse his book as a medical
> > >> curiosity, and for laughs. You haven't told me anything that would make me
> > >> take it any more seriously.
>
> > >> Sandy
>
> > >AARB ND 135 on Mary Ferrel? He is a key witness for Horne as he is White
> > >House photographer who swears he took autopsy photos and he was the only
> > >one who did so. This will give you or any other researchers a taste of
> > >what Horne has done.
>
>
> > Kundsen is a grossly unreliable witness.
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/knudsen.txt
>
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/knudsen6.txt
>
> > Look . . . anybody who is at all serious about this has to be
> > skeptical of witness testimony.
>
> > .John
> > --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
> Lets hope the rest of Horne's book isn't so shabbily researched.
> Those wacky CTs, "They use hearsay and rely on third parties" as Peter
> would say!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Isn't Frazier's testimony about Oswald saying the package was curtain
rods hearsay?
The Dutchman
> Isn't Frazier's testimony about Oswald saying the package was curtain
> rods hearsay?
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/04/0462-002.gif
The Dutchman
> Isn't Frazier's testimony about Oswald saying the package was curtain
> rods hearsay?
My last post was in error. I gave the URL for Frazier's affidavit
saying he saw LHO walk into the tsbd.
Sandy McCroskey
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 25, 8:19 pm, John Blubaugh <jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 25, 7:20 pm, davidemerling <davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 25, 10:53 am, Peter Fokes <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > So silly to watch.
>
> > > > > They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
>
> > > > > They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
>
> > > > In one breath you complain how we will not debate it and, at the same
> > > > time, complain about the points we make when we DO debate it.
>
> > > > Yes ... it is "silly."
>
> > > > David Emerling
> > > > Memphis, TN
>
> > > You don't get it. If you haven't read it, why would you show your
> > > ignorance by commenting at all? Peter doesn't provide anything
> > > specific and you guys just do your usual ranting and raving with no
> > > facts in your hands. Very typical LN behavior.
>
> > > JB
>
> > "Peter doesn't provide anything specific." That's right!
> > /sandy- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> What - suggesting that you actually read the book isn't specific
> enough?
That's right. Peter Fokes's recommendation in itself is not persuasive.
I'm not part of a Peter Fokes Book Club.
Do you think it would make any difference if *you* told me I should read
it? I don't even know your name.
But it could very well be that there's nothing in the world that could
ever persuade me to waste my time reading this book. This is true.
> I mean, go ahead and reject it without reading it but that's a pretty
> specific suggestion.
> What - you want him to name the book store to buy it at?
> No doubt you would want someone to Posner or Bugliosi's book for
> themselves rather than just study snippets of posts on a website.
> If not you're being just plain silly.
> Just like I have to dig up the HSCA report (page 94 to 96 Vol. 50)
> detailing the censorship of the Jan. Warren Commission meeting that
> you refuse to take at my word, basically everyone should go to source
> documents if possible.
To my knowledge, this is the first time you've given a page or volume
number for that, in an exchange with me.
I posted the link to that session as part of our previous
conversation: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0122/html/WcEx0122_0001a.htm
We went over this.
Nothing is said on those pages about censorship.
Seems the executive sessions were declassified after the original
report, and this was no exception.
/sandy mccroskey
Anthony Marsh
Nice of you to link to it and then not read the damn thing. Are you really
that clueless? What do you think that note at the end about the transcript
being prepared from reporter'r notes in 1974 means?
22 Jan 1964 - This session was called specifically to address the
allegation that Oswald was a paid "FBI Undercover Agent," number 179,
paid $200 per month from September 1962 until the assassination.
Waggoner Carr, the Texas Attorney General, had called Rankin that
morning with allegations which had come from a member of the press
(Lonnie Hudkins, though not named in the transcript). Rankin noted that
"I am confident that the FBI would never admit it, and I presume their
records will never show it...," and noted that Oswald's use of postal
boxes "would be an ideal way to get money to anyone that you wanted as
an undercover agent." Rankin also noted that if the allegation were true
"then you would have people think that there was a conspiracy to
accomplish this assassination that nothing the Commission did or anybody
could dissipate." Rankin expressed puzzlement that the normally
conservative FBI was so insistent the Oswald was the sole assassin,
saying "They would like to have us fold up and quit." After more such
discussion, Dulles said the transcript of the meeting itself "ought to
be destroyed." This was indeed done, but an original court reporter's
tape was later recovered and the transcript re-made from it after a long
legal battle brought by Harold Weisberg.
It means they talked about destroying this transcript and then destroyed
all copies and it was only the conspiracy believers suing which got it
finally released in 1974.
And you think destroying government documents is not censorship. And that
this being the ONLY transcript destroyed does not make that an exception.
Sandy McCroskey
> On 1/4/2010 7:54 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 3, 9:06 pm, jbarge<anjba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Dec 25 2009, 11:09 pm, Sandy McCroskey<gwmccros...@earthlink.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Dec 25, 8:19 pm, John Blubaugh<jbluba...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On Dec 25, 7:20 pm, davidemerling<davidemerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Dec 25, 10:53 am, Peter Fokes<pfo...@rogers.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> So silly to watch.
>
> >>>>>> They simply refuse to debate the real arguments in Horne's book.
>
> >>>>>> They use hearsay and rely on third parties.
>
> >>>>> In one breath you complain how we will not debate it and, at the same
> >>>>> time, complain about the points we make when we DO debate it.
>
> >>>>> Yes ... it is "silly."
>
> >>>>> David Emerling
> >>>>> Memphis, TN
>
> >>>> You don't get it. If you haven't read it, why would you show your
> >>>> specific and you guys just do your usual ranting and raving with no
> >>>> facts in your hands. Very typical LN behavior.
>
> >>>> JB
>
> >>> /sandy- Hide quoted text -
>
> >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> What - suggesting that you actually read the book isn't specific
> >> enough?
>
> > I'm not part of a Book Club.
>
> > Do you think it would make any difference if *you* told me I should read
> > it? I don't even know your name.
>
> > But it could very well be that there's nothing in the world that could
> > ever persuade me to waste my time reading this book. This is true.
>
> >> I mean, go ahead and reject it without reading it but that's a pretty
> >> specific suggestion.
> >> What - you want him to name the book store to buy it at?
> >> No doubt you would want someone to Posner or Bugliosi's book for
> >> themselves rather than just study snippets of posts on a website.
> >> If not you're being just plain silly.
> >> Just like I have to dig up the HSCA report (page 94 to 96 Vol. 50)
> >> detailing the censorship of the Jan. Warren Commission meeting that
> >> you refuse to take at my word, basically everyone should go to source
> >> documents if possible.
>
> > To my knowledge, this is the first time you've given a page or volume
> > number for that, in an exchange with me.
> > I posted the link to that session as part of our previous
I haven't seen a note about the reporter's notes, or a tape either
(which was it?) on historymatters. Maybe you can tell me where it is.
What I do see is the commissioners debating over whether to make the
notes of this meeting public or to keep it "off the record," because
so much of what was said was "pure speculation" and could be subject
to erroneous interpretation.
CTs make it souind like this discussion represents lingering doubts
about the report's conclusions. But this was January, and the
commission did not come out with its final results the next
September. It is not a given that such preliminary discussions belong
in the public record.
It is not clear what relevance they might have been considered to have
at the end of the investigation. The ultimate importance of this
particular discussion would seem to depend upon whether Oswald was
working for the FBI.
Do you think Oswald was working for the FBI, Tony?
/sandy
HistorianDetective
> > We went over this.
> > Nothing is said on those pages about censorship.
> > Seems the executive sessions were declassified after the original
> > report, and this was no exception.
>
> > /sandy mccroskey
>
> Nice of you to link to it and then not read the damn thing. Are you really
> that clueless? What do you think that note at the end about the transcript
> being prepared from reporter'r notes in 1974 means?
>
> 22 Jan 1964 - This session was called specifically to address the
> allegation that Oswald was a paid "FBI Undercover Agent," number 179,
> paid $200 per month from September 1962 until the assassination.
> Waggoner Carr, the Texas Attorney General, had called Rankin that
> morning with allegations which had come from a member of the press
> (Lonnie Hudkins, though not named in the transcript). Rankin noted that
> "I am confident that the FBI would never admit it, and I presume their
> records will never show it...," and noted that Oswald's use of postal
> boxes "would be an ideal way to get money to anyone that you wanted as
> an undercover agent." Rankin also noted that if the allegation were true
> "then you would have people think that there was a conspiracy to
> accomplish this assassination that nothing the Commission did or anybody
> could dissipate." Rankin expressed puzzlement that the normally
> conservative FBI was so insistent the Oswald was the sole assassin,
> saying "They would like to have us fold up and quit."
TM,
>After more such
> discussion, Dulles said the transcript of the meeting itself "ought to
> be destroyed." This was indeed done,
No it wasn't, Tony.
>but an original court reporter's tape was later recovered
It was the reporter's stenotape, called "NOTES" that was discovered
in the Archives.
>and the transcript re-made from it
A transcript was never made in 1964. You can't remake
something that was never made in the first place
>after a long legal battle brought by Harold Weisberg.
Along with James Lesar.
> It means they talked about destroying this transcript and then destroyed
> all copies and it was only the conspiracy believers suing which got it
> finally released in 1974.
Again, a transcript of that session was not prepared in 1964 or in 1974.
What you are reading is a "ROUGH DRAFT" prepared by a stenotypist at the
Pentagon. Why Weisberg and Lesar accepted this is the big question.
> And you think destroying government documents is not censorship. And that
> this being the ONLY transcript destroyed does not make that an exception.
Nothing was destroyed, Tony.
JM
Anthony Marsh
It's right on the damn page you uploaded. Can't you read?
> (which was it?) on historymatters. Maybe you can tell me where it is.
Do you have trouble clicking on the links I provide?
Why do you intentionally want to remain ignorant?
> What I do see is the commissioners debating over whether to make the
> notes of this meeting public or to keep it "off the record," because
> so much of what was said was "pure speculation" and could be subject
> to erroneous interpretation.
> CTs make it souind like this discussion represents lingering doubts
> about the report's conclusions. But this was January, and the
No, they don't. What they point out is the destruction of the record.
> commission did not come out with its final results the next
> September. It is not a given that such preliminary discussions belong
> in the public record.
It wasn't in the damn public record, you moron. Those were executive
sessions and classified Top Secret. They were not intended to be made
public. But that wasn't good enough for that meeting. They wanted ALL
evidence of its very existence destroyed.
Just like the CIA though it had destroyed all the Inspector General's
reports about the Castro plots.
HistorianDetective
Tony,
>
> It wasn't in the damn public record, you moron. Those were executive
> sessions and classified Top Secret. They were not intended to be made
> public. But that wasn't good enough for that meeting. They wanted ALL
> evidence of its very existence destroyed.
Not sure how you got away with the "M" word there but,
Speakin" of "M"s........
If they truly wanted the evidence destroyed of its very existence, why did
they discuss this meeting at the very next meeting?
Why did they not inform Ward & Paul to delete the reference from the Ward
& Paul records?
They confiscated the notes from the Ward & Paul reporter so that a
transcript would not be prepared. The very nature of that meeting called
for action such as that, to ensure that Top Secrecy. The WC was not
obligated to have transcripts prepared for every
session/meeting/whathaveyou.
If you think otherwise please cite the Mandate.
Weisberg knew this and he also knew that they did not destroy anything.
But he printed something to that effect anyhow.
hmmmmmm.......
Propaganda?
Looks like you bought into it, Tony.
JM
Sandy McCroskey
You really should get a grip on your temper. You referred to a note **at
the end** and I had the impression that this note must contain more more
detail than the (faint) typed note at the **beginning**, on the cover
page, actually, of the transcript, which says,
"Prepared by a Department of Defense stenotypist with the proper security
clearance from reporter's notes AMONG THE RECORDS [emphasis added] of the
Commission in the National Archives at the request of the General Services
Administration in August 1974." And so what?
> > What I do see is the commissioners debating over whether to make the
> > notes of this meeting public or to keep it "off the record," because
> > so much of what was said was "pure speculation" and could be subject
> > to erroneous interpretation.
> > CTs make it souind like this discussion represents lingering doubts
> > about the report's conclusions. But this was January, and the
>
> No, they don't. What they point out is the destruction of the record.
>
Which "destruction" clearly didn't occur.
> > commission did not come out with its final results the next
> > September. It is not a given that such preliminary discussions belong
> > in the public record.
>
> It wasn't in the damn public record, you moron. Those were executive
> sessions and classified Top Secret. They were not intended to be made
> public.
Exactly. I don't see any reason for them to have been made public at the
time of the WCR's release.
The questions about the FBI's approach to the case were raised because of
the question (later settled) of whether Oswald ever worked for the bureau.
Are you not happy with the WC's conclusion that Oswald had never worked
for the FBI?
>But that wasn't good enough for that meeting. They wanted ALL
> evidence of its very existence destroyed.
>
But all such evidence clearly wasn't destroyed.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Yes, it was. That's the point.
>> but an original court reporter's tape was later recovered
>
> It was the reporter's stenotape, called "NOTES" that was discovered
> in the Archives.
>
Found by whom? By you? By the WC defenders? Don't make me laugh. It
takes a conspiracy believer to sue the government before they find the
evidence.
>> and the transcript re-made from it
>
> A transcript was never made in 1964. You can't remake
> something that was never made in the first place
>
>> after a long legal battle brought by Harold Weisberg.
>
> Along with James Lesar.
>
Jim is the go-to lawyer for conspiracy researchers to obtain documents.
>> It means they talked about destroying this transcript and then destroyed
>> all copies and it was only the conspiracy believers suing which got it
>> finally released in 1974.
>
> Again, a transcript of that session was not prepared in 1964 or in 1974.
> What you are reading is a "ROUGH DRAFT" prepared by a stenotypist at the
> Pentagon. Why Weisberg and Lesar accepted this is the big question.
>
Because it was the only thing they could get.
>> And you think destroying government documents is not censorship. And that
>> this being the ONLY transcript destroyed does not make that an exception.
>
> Nothing was destroyed, Tony.
>
History.
> JM
Anthony Marsh
That note is at the end of the paragraph. You can't see when I mentioned
"reporter's notes" and 1974 that I am referring to that sentence you quote
below?
> "Prepared by a Department of Defense stenotypist with the proper security
> clearance from reporter's notes AMONG THE RECORDS [emphasis added] of the
> Commission in the National Archives at the request of the General Services
> Administration in August 1974." And so what?
>
And so why couldn't you figure out from that sentence that the Jan. 22,
1964 executive session was handled differently from all the rest? That
they thought that they had destroyed all of evidence of it? And so you
think it is ok if government officials discuss destroying evidence and do
so as long as some of it is accidentally found 10 years later? Especially
after the government continually denied that it existed?
>
>>> What I do see is the commissioners debating over whether to make the
>>> notes of this meeting public or to keep it "off the record," because
>>> so much of what was said was "pure speculation" and could be subject
>>> to erroneous interpretation.
>>> CTs make it souind like this discussion represents lingering doubts
>>> about the report's conclusions. But this was January, and the
>>
>> No, they don't. What they point out is the destruction of the record.
>>
>
> Which "destruction" clearly didn't occur.
>
How can they be talking about destroying something if it doesn't exist,
Einstein?
>>> commission did not come out with its final results the next
>>> September. It is not a given that such preliminary discussions belong
>>> in the public record.
>>
>> It wasn't in the damn public record, you moron. Those were executive
>> sessions and classified Top Secret. They were not intended to be made
>> public.
>
> Exactly. I don't see any reason for them to have been made public at the
> time of the WCR's release.
>
That's the damn point. They had no intention of making the executive
sessions public. That's why they're called executive sessions. But that
wasn't good enough for them. They didn't even want ANY record of it kept,
even locked up in the vaults marked Top Secret Eyes Only Noforn.
> The questions about the FBI's approach to the case were raised because of
> the question (later settled) of whether Oswald ever worked for the bureau.
>
You really think the controversy was about how well the FBI performed as
an agency? You can't see any possible conspiracy implication?
> Are you not happy with the WC's conclusion that Oswald had never worked
> for the FBI?
>
I don't need the damn WC to tell me that.
I am more interested in who started the rumor in the first place and why.
It appears to me that William Alexander started the rumor only to get back
at Hoover for Hoover threatening him into taking out the words
"International Communist Conspiracy" from the charge sheet.
It's called reverse blackmail. Like when the FBI tried to accuse me of
being a homosexual, I turned it back on them by saying that some of our
most beloved Americans are homosexuals, such as FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover. When asked how I knew that I explained that I had seen the
pictures the CIA took of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock in a New York Hotel
and put 2 and 2 together.
>> But that wasn't good enough for that meeting. They wanted ALL
>> evidence of its very existence destroyed.
>>
>
> But all such evidence clearly wasn't destroyed.
>
I never said ALL. One copy of the Inspector General's Report survived.
By accident.
> /sandy
Anthony Marsh
What meeting? You mean the one you didn't know existed?
If exactly the same information was in the Jan. 27, 1964 meeting then why
wouldn't they destroy the transcript of that meeting just as the did the
Jan. 22, 1964? Do you see exactly the same discussions, word for word,
between both meetings?
> Why did they not inform Ward& Paul to delete the reference from the Ward
> & Paul records?
>
Yeah, why didn't they kill everyone involved if this was a massive
conspiracy? Etc.
> They confiscated the notes from the Ward& Paul reporter so that a
> transcript would not be prepared. The very nature of that meeting called
> for action such as that, to ensure that Top Secrecy. The WC was not
> obligated to have transcripts prepared for every
> session/meeting/whathaveyou.
>
Obligated? By law? If not, then why did they?
Don't try to figure that out. I don't want to have to clean up the mess
when your head explodes.
> If you think otherwise please cite the Mandate.
>
Mandate? From whom?
HistorianDetective
Tony,
> >> After more such
> >> discussion, Dulles said the transcript of the meeting itself "ought to
> >> be destroyed." This was indeed done,
>
> > No it wasn't, Tony.
>
> Yes, it was. That's the point.
Again, nothing was destroyed. Yet, you persist with arguing intentional
destruction by the WC.
Why is that? There simply is no data to support your claim. There
certainly is none at your website collection.
Or could it be for propaganda purposes so that you can cry out that the WC
destroyed records.
JM
Sandy McCroskey
I reproduced in its entirety the note at the beginning of the report.
It's not "at the end" of any paragraph.
I must assume, however, that this is what you were/are referring to.
> > "Prepared by a Department of Defense stenotypist with the proper security
> > clearance from reporter's notes AMONG THE RECORDS [emphasis added] of the
> > Commission in the National Archives at the request of the General Services
> > Administration in August 1974." And so what?
>
> And so why couldn't you figure out from that sentence that the Jan. 22,
> 1964 executive session was handled differently from all the rest?
> That they thought that they had destroyed all of evidence of it?
Near as I can tell, that session *wasn't* handled differently from all the
rest. As you yourself say, none of the executive sessions were for the
public record. Notes of this one were found in the Commisssion's archives.
It's not clear whether this was accidental or a result of a decision that
they finally took. The notes we have could very well be, and probably are,
incomplete. And as has been pointed out, mention of this "top secret"
meeting can be found in the transcript of the next meeting. Some "secret"!
> And so you
> think it is ok if government officials discuss destroying evidence and do
> so as long as some of it is accidentally found 10 years later? Especially
> after the government continually denied that it existed?
>
Evidence only of temporary confusion, which apparently still has the
potential of confusing some people.
I don't think it would have made any difference if all evidence of
this session had been destroyed. Although it obviously wasn't.
>
>
> >>> What I do see is the commissioners debating over whether to make the
> >>> notes of this meeting public or to keep it "off the record," because
> >>> so much of what was said was "pure speculation" and could be subject
> >>> to erroneous interpretation.
> >>> CTs make it souind like this discussion represents lingering doubts
> >>> about the report's conclusions. But this was January, and the
>
> >> No, they don't. What they point out is the destruction of the record.
>
> > Which "destruction" clearly didn't occur.
>
> How can they be talking about destroying something if it doesn't exist,
> Einstein?
>
Excuse me? They weren't, and I wasn't, talking about destroying
anything that didn't exist.
That would simply be... insane.
> >>> commission did not come out with its final results the next
> >>> September. It is not a given that such preliminary discussions belong
> >>> in the public record.
>
> >> It wasn't in the damn public record, you moron. Those were executive
> >> sessions and classified Top Secret. They were not intended to be made
> >> public.
>
> > Exactly. I don't see any reason for them to have been made public at the
> > time of the WCR's release.
>
> That's the damn point. They had no intention of making the executive
> sessions public. That's why they're called executive sessions. But that
> wasn't good enough for them. They didn't even want ANY record of it kept,
> even locked up in the vaults marked Top Secret Eyes Only Noforn.
>
> > The questions about the FBI's approach to the case were raised because of
> > the question (later settled) of whether Oswald ever worked for the bureau.
>
> You really think the controversy was about how well the FBI performed as
> an agency? You can't see any possible conspiracy implication?
>
Such as there might have seemed to be evaporated in the cold light of
day. It was soon clear that Oswald had never worked for the FBI.
> > Are you not happy with the WC's conclusion that Oswald had never worked
> > for the FBI?
>
> I don't need the damn WC to tell me that.
>
Good for you!
> I am more interested in who started the rumor in the first place and why.
> It appears to me that William Alexander started the rumor only to get back
> at Hoover for Hoover threatening him into taking out the words
> "International Communist Conspiracy" from the charge sheet.
It seems you're straying from the issue under discussion here.
>
> It's called reverse blackmail. Like when the FBI tried to accuse me of
> being a homosexual, I turned it back on them by saying that some of our
> most beloved Americans are homosexuals, such as FBI Director J. Edgar
> Hoover. When asked how I knew that I explained that I had seen the
> pictures the CIA took of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock in a New York Hotel
> and put 2 and 2 together.
>
"Accuse" you of being a homosexual? You regard that as an "accusation"?
I don't give a damn if anybody is homosexual, but there doesn't seem to be
any, uh, hard evidence that Hoover was. And I'm sure not gonna take Tony
Marsh's word for it.
> >> But that wasn't good enough for that meeting. They wanted ALL
> >> evidence of its very existence destroyed.
>
> > But all such evidence clearly wasn't destroyed.
>
> I never said ALL. One copy of the Inspector General's Report survived.
> By accident.
>
The reporter's notes were in the Inspector General's Report?
/sandy
HistorianDetective
Tony,
> I never said ALL. One copy of the Inspector General's Report survived.
> By accident.
Then Produce this Copy or at the very least a credible and verifiable
citation.
An official transcript of that meeting was never and has never been
produced 'till this day.
More Propaganda, Mr Marsh?
JM
Anthony Marsh
Pretend that you have no access to the Internet and can't find it
yourself. Then expect me to cut and paste the whole thing just for you.
There are limits to how big a Usenet message can be. Have you ever figured
out how to click on a link here and go to the Web page?
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=9983
> An official transcript of that meeting was never and has never been
> produced 'till this day.
>
What are you talking about? It was produced in 1974. Where you been?
Anthony Marsh
Transcripts of all the other executive sessions were created in 1964. All
except the Jan. 22, 1964 meeting. And you claim that you can't figure out
that this is a difference. Guess you'd have problems solving the Sesame
Street "One of these things is different."
> It's not clear whether this was accidental or a result of a decision that
> they finally took. The notes we have could very well be, and probably are,
> incomplete. And as has been pointed out, mention of this "top secret"
> meeting can be found in the transcript of the next meeting. Some "secret"!
>
It's quite clear that they discussed and agreed to destroy the record of
that meeting. What do you gain by your constant denial tactics?
>
>> And so you
>> think it is ok if government officials discuss destroying evidence and do
>> so as long as some of it is accidentally found 10 years later? Especially
>> after the government continually denied that it existed?
>>
>
> Evidence only of temporary confusion, which apparently still has the
> potential of confusing some people.
> I don't think it would have made any difference if all evidence of
> this session had been destroyed. Although it obviously wasn't.
>
You see nothing wrong with them wanting to destroy government documents?
>
>>
>
>
>>
>>>>> What I do see is the commissioners debating over whether to make the
>>>>> notes of this meeting public or to keep it "off the record," because
>>>>> so much of what was said was "pure speculation" and could be subject
>>>>> to erroneous interpretation.
>>>>> CTs make it souind like this discussion represents lingering doubts
>>>>> about the report's conclusions. But this was January, and the
>>
>>>> No, they don't. What they point out is the destruction of the record.
>>
>>> Which "destruction" clearly didn't occur.
>>
>> How can they be talking about destroying something if it doesn't exist,
>> Einstein?
>>
>
>
> Excuse me? They weren't, and I wasn't, talking about destroying
> anything that didn't exist.
> That would simply be... insane.
>
But you have no problem with the government destroying evidence. That
seems insane to me.
>
>>>>> commission did not come out with its final results the next
>>>>> September. It is not a given that such preliminary discussions belong
>>>>> in the public record.
>>
>>>> It wasn't in the damn public record, you moron. Those were executive
>>>> sessions and classified Top Secret. They were not intended to be made
>>>> public.
>>
>>> Exactly. I don't see any reason for them to have been made public at the
>>> time of the WCR's release.
>>
>> That's the damn point. They had no intention of making the executive
>> sessions public. That's why they're called executive sessions. But that
>> wasn't good enough for them. They didn't even want ANY record of it kept,
>> even locked up in the vaults marked Top Secret Eyes Only Noforn.
>>
>>> The questions about the FBI's approach to the case were raised because of
>>> the question (later settled) of whether Oswald ever worked for the bureau.
>>
>> You really think the controversy was about how well the FBI performed as
>> an agency? You can't see any possible conspiracy implication?
>>
>
> Such as there might have seemed to be evaporated in the cold light of
> day. It was soon clear that Oswald had never worked for the FBI.
>
That's not what I'm complaining about. I am complaining about the way you
constantly gloss over things and don't know simple facts that we've
discussed here hundreds of times. Now you demand that I document that the
CIA tried to assassinate Castro because you never heard of that before.
>
>>> Are you not happy with the WC's conclusion that Oswald had never worked
>>> for the FBI?
>>
>> I don't need the damn WC to tell me that.
>>
>
> Good for you!
>
>> I am more interested in who started the rumor in the first place and why.
>> It appears to me that William Alexander started the rumor only to get back
>> at Hoover for Hoover threatening him into taking out the words
>> "International Communist Conspiracy" from the charge sheet.
>
>
> It seems you're straying from the issue under discussion here.
>
Seems that was my point.
>
>>
>> It's called reverse blackmail. Like when the FBI tried to accuse me of
>> being a homosexual, I turned it back on them by saying that some of our
>> most beloved Americans are homosexuals, such as FBI Director J. Edgar
>> Hoover. When asked how I knew that I explained that I had seen the
>> pictures the CIA took of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock in a New York Hotel
>> and put 2 and 2 together.
>>
>
> "Accuse" you of being a homosexual? You regard that as an "accusation"?
>
It was used that way at the time.
> I don't give a damn if anybody is homosexual, but there doesn't seem to be
> any, uh, hard evidence that Hoover was. And I'm sure not gonna take Tony
> Marsh's word for it.
>
Ah, except for the photos of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock, but you could
claim that was an accident when he was trying to tie his shoelaces.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't give a damn if anybody is homosexual, but there doesn't seem to be
>> any, uh, hard evidence that Hoover was. And I'm sure not gonna take Tony
>> Marsh's word for it.
>>
>
>Ah, except for the photos of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock, but you could
>claim that was an accident when he was trying to tie his shoelaces.
>
Where is that photo, Tony?
You know it's irresponsible to cite evidence that does not exist,
right?
You wouldn't do that, would you?
So produce it.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Sandy McCroskey
I didn't know when the other transcripts were created. But I also don't
*know* now, because at this point all I have is your word for it. If you
are right, yes, that would be a "difference." But I don't think it's so
important, because the issue in that meeting was the baseless rumor that
Oswald had worked for the FBI, and how, if it were true, this would have
be affecting the way the FBI handled their part of the investigation. As
Oswald never did work for the FBI, much of what was said in the meeting
was pure speculation and baseless conjecture.
> > It's not clear whether this was accidental or a result of a decision that
> > they finally took. The notes we have could very well be, and probably are,
> > incomplete. And as has been pointed out, mention of this "top secret"
> > meeting can be found in the transcript of the next meeting. Some "secret"!
>
> It's quite clear that they discussed and agreed to destroy the record of
> that meeting. What do you gain by your constant denial tactics?
>
It's clear to me that the record wasn't destroyed, as notes of the meeting
(though possibly incomplete) were in the archives of the Commission.
>
>
> >> And so you
> >> think it is ok if government officials discuss destroying evidence and do
> >> so as long as some of it is accidentally found 10 years later? Especially
> >> after the government continually denied that it existed?
>
> > Evidence only of temporary confusion, which apparently still has the
> > potential of confusing some people.
> > I don't think it would have made any difference if all evidence of
> > this session had been destroyed. Although it obviously wasn't.
>
> You see nothing wrong with them wanting to destroy government documents?
>
No, I think "government documents" can contain erroneous or misleading
information and warrant destruction under certain circumstances as much as
any other kind of document might.
>
>
> >>>>> What I do see is the commissioners debating over whether to make the
> >>>>> notes of this meeting public or to keep it "off the record," because
> >>>>> so much of what was said was "pure speculation" and could be subject
> >>>>> to erroneous interpretation.
> >>>>> CTs make it souind like this discussion represents lingering doubts
> >>>>> about the report's conclusions. But this was January, and the
>
> >>>> No, they don't. What they point out is the destruction of the record.
>
> >>> Which "destruction" clearly didn't occur.
>
> >> How can they be talking about destroying something if it doesn't exist,
> >> Einstein?
>
> > Excuse me? They weren't, and I wasn't, talking about destroying
> > anything that didn't exist.
> > That would simply be... insane.
>
> But you have no problem with the government destroying evidence. That
> seems insane to me.
>
>
I don't think this document is "evidence" of anything except that the
Commission got sidetracked by a baseless rumor. And it wasn't destroyed,
in any case.
>
> >>>>> commission did not come out with its final results the next
> >>>>> September. It is not a given that such preliminary discussions belong
> >>>>> in the public record.
>
> >>>> It wasn't in the damn public record, you moron. Those were executive
> >>>> sessions and classified Top Secret. They were not intended to be made
> >>>> public.
>
> >>> Exactly. I don't see any reason for them to have been made public at the
> >>> time of the WCR's release.
>
> >> That's the damn point. They had no intention of making the executive
> >> sessions public. That's why they're called executive sessions. But that
> >> wasn't good enough for them. They didn't even want ANY record of it kept,
> >> even locked up in the vaults marked Top Secret Eyes Only Noforn.
>
> >>> The questions about the FBI's approach to the case were raised because of
> >>> the question (later settled) of whether Oswald ever worked for the bureau.
>
> >> You really think the controversy was about how well the FBI performed as
> >> an agency? You can't see any possible conspiracy implication?
>
> > Such as there might have seemed to be evaporated in the cold light of
> > day. It was soon clear that Oswald had never worked for the FBI.
>
> That's not what I'm complaining about. I am complaining about the way you
> constantly gloss over things and don't know simple facts that we've
> discussed here hundreds of times. Now you demand that I document that the
> CIA tried to assassinate Castro because you never heard of that before.
>
Excuse me? I don't see anyplace in this discussion where the CIA plots
against Castro (of which I've been aware for many years!) has even
been mentioned.
>
>
> >>> Are you not happy with the WC's conclusion that Oswald had never worked
> >>> for the FBI?
>
> >> I don't need the damn WC to tell me that.
>
> > Good for you!
>
> >> I am more interested in who started the rumor in the first place and why.
> >> It appears to me that William Alexander started the rumor only to get back
> >> at Hoover for Hoover threatening him into taking out the words
> >> "International Communist Conspiracy" from the charge sheet.
>
> > It seems you're straying from the issue under discussion here.
>
> Seems that was my point.
>
I honestly don't think you have a point. You're just trying to confuse
people. Just like you don't have a remotely believable theory about the
assassination.
>
>
> >> It's called reverse blackmail. Like when the FBI tried to accuse me of
> >> being a homosexual, I turned it back on them by saying that some of our
> >> most beloved Americans are homosexuals, such as FBI Director J. Edgar
> >> Hoover. When asked how I knew that I explained that I had seen the
> >> pictures the CIA took of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock in a New York Hotel
> >> and put 2 and 2 together.
>
> > "Accuse" you of being a homosexual? You regard that as an "accusation"?
>
> It was used that way at the time.
>
But you used it that way in January 2010.
By the way, not everyone felt that way even way back in the 1960s.
> > I don't give a damn if anybody is homosexual, but there doesn't seem to be
> > any, uh, hard evidence that Hoover was. And I'm sure not gonna take Tony
> > Marsh's word for it.
>
> Ah, except for the photos of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock, but you could
> claim that was an accident when he was trying to tie his shoelaces.
>
So you fell for that one. Where is this picture, anyway?
If it's incontrovertible proof, how come the whole world wasn't
convinced?
Some people think Hoover may have been completely asexual.
/sm
Anthony Marsh
> On 6 Jan 2010 22:23:52 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>> I don't give a damn if anybody is homosexual, but there doesn't seem to be
>>> any, uh, hard evidence that Hoover was. And I'm sure not gonna take Tony
>>> Marsh's word for it.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, except for the photos of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock, but you could
>> claim that was an accident when he was trying to tie his shoelaces.
>>
>
> Where is that photo, Tony?
>
CIA. File an FOIA.
> You know it's irresponsible to cite evidence that does not exist,
> right?
>
You cite evidence which has been destroyed. Pot-kettle.
> You wouldn't do that, would you?
>
> So produce it.
>
I don't have it. The CIA does. Ask your buddies to show it to you.
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 1/6/2010 10:25 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 6 Jan 2010 22:23:52 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> I don't give a damn if anybody is homosexual, but there doesn't seem to be
>>>> any, uh, hard evidence that Hoover was. And I'm sure not gonna take Tony
>>>> Marsh's word for it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ah, except for the photos of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock, but you could
>>> claim that was an accident when he was trying to tie his shoelaces.
>>>
>>
>> Where is that photo, Tony?
>>
>
>CIA. File an FOIA.
You don't even know such a photo exists, Tony.
Indeed, it's vastly unlikely it does.
>
>> You know it's irresponsible to cite evidence that does not exist,
>> right?
>>
>
>You cite evidence which has been destroyed. Pot-kettle.
>
>> You wouldn't do that, would you?
>>
>> So produce it.
>>
>
>I don't have it. The CIA does. Ask your buddies to show it to you.
>
You've never seen it.
It doesn't even exist.
But you are willing to use it as "evidence."
What does that say about you, Tony?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
HistorianDetective
Tony,
> > An official transcript of that meeting was never and has never been
> > produced 'till this day.
>
> What are you talking about? It was produced in 1974. Where you been?
Where have I been?
RESEARCHING the SOURCE,
YOU MORON! (as you have described another poster)
RESEARCHING the NOTES THEMSELVES!
You've been propagandacized by Weisberg, Lesar and Verb to name a few. You
bought into it big time. So much so, you can't figure this one out. You
stopped at "This Record Ought to be DESTROYED." That's not 'THOROUGH
RESEARCH" as you once posted.
Then again, you are nothing but a COLLECTOR, Tony.
JM
Anthony Marsh
> On 7 Jan 2010 12:41:38 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/6/2010 10:25 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 6 Jan 2010 22:23:52 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I don't give a damn if anybody is homosexual, but there doesn't seem to be
>>>>> any, uh, hard evidence that Hoover was. And I'm sure not gonna take Tony
>>>>> Marsh's word for it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah, except for the photos of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock, but you could
>>>> claim that was an accident when he was trying to tie his shoelaces.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Where is that photo, Tony?
>>>
>>
>> CIA. File an FOIA.
>
> You don't even know such a photo exists, Tony.
>
> Indeed, it's vastly unlikely it does.
>
Did Mary Cord's diary exist? Where is it now? Show it to me.
Did a note from Oswald to the FBI exist? Where is it now? Show it to me.
Tell me what was on the 18-1/2 minutes of the Watergate tape that was
erased. Does that mean there was never anything there at all? Mechanical
malfunction?
>>
>>> You know it's irresponsible to cite evidence that does not exist,
>>> right?
>>>
>>
>> You cite evidence which has been destroyed. Pot-kettle.
>>
>>> You wouldn't do that, would you?
>>>
>>> So produce it.
>>>
>>
>> I don't have it. The CIA does. Ask your buddies to show it to you.
>>
>
> You've never seen it.
>
I didn't say that.
> It doesn't even exist.
>
Maybe it does exist any more.
> But you are willing to use it as "evidence."
>
> What does that say about you, Tony?
>
It says that I can admit that evidence is destroyed.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 1/7/2010 12:43 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 7 Jan 2010 12:41:38 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/6/2010 10:25 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 6 Jan 2010 22:23:52 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't give a damn if anybody is homosexual, but there doesn't seem to be
>>>>>> any, uh, hard evidence that Hoover was. And I'm sure not gonna take Tony
>>>>>> Marsh's word for it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, except for the photos of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock, but you could
>>>>> claim that was an accident when he was trying to tie his shoelaces.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where is that photo, Tony?
>>>>
>>>
>>> CIA. File an FOIA.
>>
>> You don't even know such a photo exists, Tony.
>>
>> Indeed, it's vastly unlikely it does.
>>
>
>Did Mary Cord's diary exist? Where is it now? Show it to me.
>Did a note from Oswald to the FBI exist? Where is it now? Show it to me.
>Tell me what was on the 18-1/2 minutes of the Watergate tape that was
>erased. Does that mean there was never anything there at all? Mechanical
>malfunction?
>
Sashay(tm)!!
Tony claims a photo "of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock" but doesn't know
it exists.
He can't produce it, and he can't even produce any evidence that it
existed.
Tony, do you feel free to just invent stuff?
Don't you know how it poisons discussion when you toss out "evidence"
that you know is bogus, and then don't have the decency to admit that
it doesn't exist?
>>>
>>>> You know it's irresponsible to cite evidence that does not exist,
>>>> right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You cite evidence which has been destroyed. Pot-kettle.
>>>
>>>> You wouldn't do that, would you?
>>>>
>>>> So produce it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't have it. The CIA does. Ask your buddies to show it to you.
>>>
>>
>> You've never seen it.
>>
>
>I didn't say that.
>
OK, you have seen it.
Produce it.
>> It doesn't even exist.
>>
>
>Maybe it does exist any more.
>
You have no evidence it ever existed.
>> But you are willing to use it as "evidence."
>>
>> What does that say about you, Tony?
>>
>
>It says that I can admit that evidence is destroyed.
>
How can it be "destroyed" if it never existed?
Do you think you can just invent any "evidence" you want?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
HistorianDetective
Here it is again....
Tony,
> > An official transcript of that meeting was never and has never been
> > produced 'till this day.
> What are you talking about? It was produced in 1974. Where you been?
Where have I been?
RESEARCHING the SOURCE,
YOU MORON! (as you have described another poster)
RESEARCHING the NOTES THEMSELVES!
You've been propagandacized by Weisberg, Lesar and Verb to name a few. You
bought into it big time. So much so, you can't figure this one out. You
stopped at "This Record Ought to be DESTROYED." That's not 'THOROUGH
RESEARCH" as you once posted.
Then again, you are nothing but a COLLECTOR, Tony.
JM
On Jan 7, 1:12 pm, HistorianDetective <historiandetect...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
See the Frontline special Who Killed JFK.
> Tony, do you feel free to just invent stuff?
>
I didn't invent it. The CIA made the photos, not me.
> Don't you know how it poisons discussion when you toss out "evidence"
> that you know is bogus, and then don't have the decency to admit that
> it doesn't exist?
>
Are you calling the CIA liars?
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 1/7/2010 10:22 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 7 Jan 2010 22:18:23 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Ah, except for the photos of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock, but you could
>>>>>>> claim that was an accident when he was trying to tie his shoelaces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where is that photo, Tony?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> CIA. File an FOIA.
>>>>
>>>> You don't even know such a photo exists, Tony.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, it's vastly unlikely it does.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Did Mary Cord's diary exist? Where is it now? Show it to me.
>>> Did a note from Oswald to the FBI exist? Where is it now? Show it to me.
>>> Tell me what was on the 18-1/2 minutes of the Watergate tape that was
>>> erased. Does that mean there was never anything there at all? Mechanical
>>> malfunction?
>>>
>>
>> Sashay(tm)!!
>>
>> Tony claims a photo "of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock" but doesn't know
>> it exists.
>>
>> He can't produce it, and he can't even produce any evidence that it
>> existed.
>>
>
>See the Frontline special Who Killed JFK.
>
I just searched the Fronline site, and there is no such video there.
Tony, have the decency to admit that you don't know that any such
photo exists.
You are accepting the silly claims of a Tony Summers witness.
>
>> Tony, do you feel free to just invent stuff?
>>
>
>I didn't invent it. The CIA made the photos, not me.
>
Then produce them.
Or produce some evidence they ever existed.
>> Don't you know how it poisons discussion when you toss out "evidence"
>> that you know is bogus, and then don't have the decency to admit that
>> it doesn't exist?
>>
>
>Are you calling the CIA liars?
>
It's not the CIA who is lying here, Tony.
Produce some evidence, or have the decency to admit that you've posted
something utterly bogus.
Anthony Marsh
> On 8 Jan 2010 20:51:29 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/7/2010 10:22 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 7 Jan 2010 22:18:23 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Ah, except for the photos of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock, but you could
>>>>>>>> claim that was an accident when he was trying to tie his shoelaces.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where is that photo, Tony?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CIA. File an FOIA.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't even know such a photo exists, Tony.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, it's vastly unlikely it does.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Did Mary Cord's diary exist? Where is it now? Show it to me.
>>>> Did a note from Oswald to the FBI exist? Where is it now? Show it to me.
>>>> Tell me what was on the 18-1/2 minutes of the Watergate tape that was
>>>> erased. Does that mean there was never anything there at all? Mechanical
>>>> malfunction?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sashay(tm)!!
>>>
>>> Tony claims a photo "of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock" but doesn't know
>>> it exists.
>>>
>>> He can't produce it, and he can't even produce any evidence that it
>>> existed.
>>>
>>
>> See the Frontline special Who Killed JFK.
>>
>
> I just searched the Fronline site, and there is no such video there.
>
I didn't say video. I know you didn't tape the show. You can read the
transcript.
> Tony, have the decency to admit that you don't know that any such
> photo exists.
>
> You are accepting the silly claims of a Tony Summers witness.
>
>
Angleton, Hoover and Blackmail
In Tony Summers? book about J. Edgar Hoover, Official and Confidential,
Summers showed that Meyer Lansky, a top Mob figure, had blackmail power
over Hoover through possession of photos that showed Hoover and his
lifelong friend and close associate Clyde Tolson together sexually. In the
paperback edition of the same book, Summers introduced another figure who
evidently had possession of such photos: James Angleton. If Angleton had
such photos, imagine how he could have used them to force the FBI?s hand
during the investigation of the Kennedy assassination.
Summers names two sources for this allegation: former OSS officer John
Weitz, and the curious Gordon Novel. Weitz claimed he had been showed the
picture by the host of a dinner party in the fifties. "It was not a good
picture and was clearly taken from some distance away, but it showed two
men apparently engaged in homosexual activity. The host said the men were
Hoover and Tolson?." Summers added in the 1994 version, "Since first
publication of this book, Weitz has revealed that his host was James
Angleton."11
Novel?s account is even more interesting. Novel said that Angleton had
shown him some photos of Hoover and Tolson in 1967, when Novel was
involved in New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison?s case against Clay
Shaw. "I asked him if they were fakes, " Novel recounted, "but he said
they were real, that they?d been taken with a special lens. They looked
authentic to me?." Novel?s explanation of why Angleton showed him the
pictures is even more interesting:
I was pursuing a lawsuit against Garrison, which Hoover wanted me to drop
but which my contacts in the Johnson administration and at CIA wanted me
to pursue. I?d been told I would incur Hoover?s wrath if I went ahead, but
Angleton was demonstrating that Hoover was not invulnerable, that the
Agency had enough power to make him come to heel. I had the impression
that this was not the first time the sex pictures had been used. Angleton
told me to go see Hoover and tell him I?d seen the sex photographs. Later,
I went to the Mayflower Hotel and spoke to Hoover. He was with Tolson,
sitting in the Rib Room. When I mentioned that I had seen the sex
photographs, and that Angleton had sent me, Tolson nearly choked on his
food."12
Now, Novel has been known to fell a few tall tales in his day. But he has
on other occasions been forthcoming with interesting and sometimes
self-incriminating material (such as his own participation in the Houma
raid and the association between David Phillips and Guy Banister).13 Given
Weitz?s corroboration, and given Angleton?s enormous power over many in
high places, Novel?s account rings true. Novel added that Angleton claimed
the photos had been taken around 1946.14 During the 1945-1947 timeframe,
Hoover was battling hard to prevent the creation of any other intelligence
organization separate from the FBI. And during this period, Angleton was
involved with the Mafia in the Italian campaign. It?s certainly possible
under such circumstances that Lansky or one of his associates may have
shared the photos with Angleton. And the reverse case can also be
considered.
>
>>
>>> Tony, do you feel free to just invent stuff?
>>>
>>
>> I didn't invent it. The CIA made the photos, not me.
>>
>
> Then produce them.
>
> Or produce some evidence they ever existed.
>
Produce the Oswald note that Hosty destroyed.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 1/8/2010 9:02 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 8 Jan 2010 20:51:29 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sashay(tm)!!
>>>>
>>>> Tony claims a photo "of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock" but doesn't know
>>>> it exists.
>>>>
>>>> He can't produce it, and he can't even produce any evidence that it
>>>> existed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> See the Frontline special Who Killed JFK.
>>>
>>
>> I just searched the Fronline site, and there is no such video there.
>>
>
>I didn't say video. I know you didn't tape the show. You can read the
>transcript.
>
>
There was no transcript of any such show.
You posted a bogus citation.
>> Tony, have the decency to admit that you don't know that any such
>> photo exists.
>>
>> You are accepting the silly claims of a Tony Summers witness.
>>
>>
>
>Angleton, Hoover and Blackmail
>
>In Tony Summers? book about J. Edgar Hoover, Official and Confidential,
Oh!!!
You are quoting Tony Summers.
Mr. "I'll Believe Any Crackpot Witness."
>Summers showed that Meyer Lansky, a top Mob figure, had blackmail power
>over Hoover through possession of photos that showed Hoover and his
>lifelong friend and close associate Clyde Tolson together sexually. In the
>paperback edition of the same book, Summers introduced another figure who
>evidently had possession of such photos: James Angleton. If Angleton had
>such photos, imagine how he could have used them to force the FBI?s hand
>during the investigation of the Kennedy assassination.
>
But Angleton had no such photos.
And you are quoting Lisa Pease!
http://www.ctka.net/pr700-ang.html
>Summers names two sources for this allegation: former OSS officer John
>Weitz, and the curious Gordon Novel. Weitz claimed he had been showed the
^^^^^^^
!!!!!
Novel is a crackpot. He's the fellow who claimed during the Garrison
investigation to be a CIA operative. But that was a lie.
>picture by the host of a dinner party in the fifties. "It was not a good
>picture and was clearly taken from some distance away, but it showed two
>men apparently engaged in homosexual activity. The host said the men were
>Hoover and Tolson?."
Oh. Weitz didn't *say* the men were Hoover and Tolson, he was just
told that.
Please don't try taking any college history courses and using
"evidence" like this.
>Summers added in the 1994 version, "Since first
>publication of this book, Weitz has revealed that his host was James
>Angleton."11
>
>Novel?s account is even more interesting. Novel said that Angleton had
>shown him some photos of Hoover and Tolson in 1967, when Novel was
>involved in New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison?s case against Clay
>Shaw. "I asked him if they were fakes, " Novel recounted, "but he said
>they were real, that they?d been taken with a special lens. They looked
>authentic to me?." Novel?s explanation of why Angleton showed him the
>pictures is even more interesting:
>
>I was pursuing a lawsuit against Garrison, which Hoover wanted me to drop
>but which my contacts in the Johnson administration and at CIA wanted me
>to pursue. I?d been told I would incur Hoover?s wrath if I went ahead, but
>Angleton was demonstrating that Hoover was not invulnerable, that the
>Agency had enough power to make him come to heel. I had the impression
>that this was not the first time the sex pictures had been used. Angleton
>told me to go see Hoover and tell him I?d seen the sex photographs. Later,
>I went to the Mayflower Hotel and spoke to Hoover. He was with Tolson,
>sitting in the Rib Room. When I mentioned that I had seen the sex
>photographs, and that Angleton had sent me, Tolson nearly choked on his
>food."12
>
>Now, Novel has been known to fell a few tall tales in his day. But he has
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>on other occasions been forthcoming with interesting and sometimes
>self-incriminating material (such as his own participation in the Houma
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why "self-incriminating" material should be assumed to be true is hard
to understand.
>raid and the association between David Phillips and Guy Banister).13 Given
>Weitz?s corroboration, and given Angleton?s enormous power over many in
>high places, Novel?s account rings true. Novel added that Angleton claimed
>the photos had been taken around 1946.14 During the 1945-1947 timeframe,
>Hoover was battling hard to prevent the creation of any other intelligence
>organization separate from the FBI. And during this period, Angleton was
>involved with the Mafia in the Italian campaign. It?s certainly possible
>under such circumstances that Lansky or one of his associates may have
>shared the photos with Angleton. And the reverse case can also be
>considered.
>
You are quoting Pease!
Thank you for making it clear that you posted a claim with essentially
no evidence to support it.
Anthony Marsh
> On 9 Jan 2010 00:49:00 -0500, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 1/8/2010 9:02 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 8 Jan 2010 20:51:29 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sashay(tm)!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Tony claims a photo "of Hoover sucking Tolson's cock" but doesn't know
>>>>> it exists.
>>>>>
>>>>> He can't produce it, and he can't even produce any evidence that it
>>>>> existed.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See the Frontline special Who Killed JFK.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I just searched the Fronline site, and there is no such video there.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't say video. I know you didn't tape the show. You can read the
>> transcript.
>>
>>
>
> There was no transcript of any such show.
>
> You posted a bogus citation.
>
I got the name wrong. The correct name is:
The Secret File on J. Edgar Hoover
>
>
>>> Tony, have the decency to admit that you don't know that any such
>>> photo exists.
>>>
>>> You are accepting the silly claims of a Tony Summers witness.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Angleton, Hoover and Blackmail
>>
>> In Tony Summers? book about J. Edgar Hoover, Official and Confidential,
>
> Oh!!!
>
> You are quoting Tony Summers.
>
> Mr. "I'll Believe Any Crackpot Witness."
>
>
It doesn't matter whom I quote. You will call anyone I quote a crackpot
or kook, even if it is Hoover or LBJ or Warren. That is how you operate.
Always shoot the messenger. Always deny. Never admit a simple fact.
>> Summers showed that Meyer Lansky, a top Mob figure, had blackmail power
>> over Hoover through possession of photos that showed Hoover and his
>> lifelong friend and close associate Clyde Tolson together sexually. In the
>> paperback edition of the same book, Summers introduced another figure who
>> evidently had possession of such photos: James Angleton. If Angleton had
>> such photos, imagine how he could have used them to force the FBI?s hand
>> during the investigation of the Kennedy assassination.
>>
>
>
> But Angleton had no such photos.
>
New information indicates that Lansky was not the only person in
possession of compromising photographs of Edgar. John Weitz, a former
officer in the OSS, the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency,
recalled a curious episode at a dinner party in the fifties. "After a
conversation about Hoover," he said, "our host went to another room and
came back with a photograph. It was not a good picture and was clearly
taken from some distance away, but it showed two men apparently engaged
in homosexual activity. The host said the men were Hoover and Tolson. .
. ."
Weitz would not say who his host was on the evening he saw the picture.
He implied, however, that the host also had intelligence connections.
A source who has been linked to the CIA, electronics expert Gordon
Novel, claimed he was shown similar pictures by another OSS veteran, CIA
Counter-Intelligence chief James Angleton. [Note: In 1994, after
publication of Anthony Summers' book, Official and Confidential, Weitz
confirmed to Summers that his host was James Angleton.]
James Angleton
"What I saw was a picture of him giving Clyde Tolson a blowjob," said
Novel. "There was more than one shot, but the startling one was a close
shot of Hoover's head. He was totally recognizable. You could not see
the face of the man he was with, but Angleton said it was Tolson. I
asked him if they were fakes, but he said they were real, that they'd
been taken with a fish-eye lens. They looked authentic to me. . . ."
According to Novel, the CIA Counter-Intelligence chief showed him the
pictures in 1967, when Novel was involved in the furor swirling around
the probe into the investigation of the assassination of President
Kennedy by New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison. "I was pursuing
a lawsuit against Garrison, which Hoover wanted me to drop but which my
contacts in the Johnson administration and at CIA wanted me to pursue.
I'd been told I would incur Hoover's wrath if I went ahead, but Angleton
was demonstrating that Hoover was not invulnerable, that the Agency had
enough power to make him come to heel. I had the impression that this
was not the first time the sex pictures had been used. Angleton told me
to go see Hoover and tell him I'd seen the sex photographs. Later, I
went to the Mayflower Hotel and spoke to Hoover. He was with Tolson,
sitting in the Rib Room. When I mentioned that I had seen the sex
photographs, and that Angleton had sent me, Tolson nearly choked on his
food. Hoover told me something like, 'Get the hell out of here!' And I
did. . . ."
With Angleton dead, there is no way to follow up this bizarre
allegation. While Novel is a controversial figure, his account of
seeing compromising pictures must be considered in light of other such
references--not least that of former OSS officer John Weitz. For Novel
added one other significant detail, that "Angleton told me the
photographs had been taken around 1946, at the time they were fighting
over foreign intelligence, which Hoover wanted but never got."
During his feud with OSS chief William Donovan, dating back to 1941,
Edgar had searched for compromising information, sexual lapses included,
that could be used against his rival. His effort was in vain, but
Donovan--who thought Edgar a "moralistic bastard"--reportedly retaliated
in kind by ordering a secret investigation of Edgar's relationship with
Clyde. The sex photograph in OSS hands may have been one of the results.
> And you are quoting Lisa Pease!
>
> http://www.ctka.net/pr700-ang.html
>
>> Summers names two sources for this allegation: former OSS officer John
>> Weitz, and the curious Gordon Novel. Weitz claimed he had been showed the
> ^^^^^^^
>
>
> !!!!!
>
> Novel is a crackpot. He's the fellow who claimed during the Garrison
> investigation to be a CIA operative. But that was a lie.
>
>
>> picture by the host of a dinner party in the fifties. "It was not a good
>> picture and was clearly taken from some distance away, but it showed two
>> men apparently engaged in homosexual activity. The host said the men were
>> Hoover and Tolson?."
>
> Oh. Weitz didn't *say* the men were Hoover and Tolson, he was just
> told that.
>
He said he could clearly recognize Hoover, but could see the face of the
man being blown.
> Please don't try taking any college history courses and using
> "evidence" like this.
>
I'm not interested in your fake history. I am interested in the real
history, what isn't taught in your propaganda classes.
Who? I don't remember reading anything she wrote about this.
I watched the TV show.
You can buy it from PBS Home Video or maybe download it from somewhere
via Torrent.
Sandy McCroskey
> On 1/11/2010 1:39 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 9 Jan 2010 00:49:00 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> On 1/8/2010 9:02 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> >>> On 8 Jan 2010 20:51:29 -0500, Anthony Marsh
The point is that what you're presenting does not meet any *objective*
criteria for hard evidence.
Whether you want to prove something that is consistent with the historical
record as currently taught in educational institutions or something that
goes against prevalent beliefs, the standard for evidence is the same.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
The point is that I never said it was hard evidence. Hard evidence is
whatever you like. Anything you don't like is weak evidence.
> Whether you want to prove something that is consistent with the historical
> record as currently taught in educational institutions or something that
> goes against prevalent beliefs, the standard for evidence is the same.
>
I have no interest in trying to be consistent with official lies.
> /sandy
Sandy McCroskey
If that's what you believe, then there's no reason to argue anything with
you.
It means there could be no hard, physical evidence about anything in the
world that would ever convince you of anything you didn't want to believe.
/sm
John Blubaugh
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hmmm, doesn't that last statement sum up the LN creed? I don't see how
it applies to Tony Marsh.
JB
Sandy McCroskey
Ha ha.
It merely paraphrases Marsh's own words, above.
I would not expect you to appreciate this, however.
Keep making me laugh!
/sandy
John Blubaugh
>
No problem, LNs are easy to entertain. All you have to do is keep pointing
out how phony the WCR was and they go nuts. I wonder why you all do not
understand that the rest of the world is laughing at you because you
inisist on supporting that garbage.
JB
Sandy McCroskey
"The rest of the world"?
Not quite! I expect intelligent opinions to be in the minority anyway.
You're leaving out a lot of very smart people.
But not even all **CTs** now believe that the Z film shows a shot from the
front, as you still do, against all scientific evidence (I guess because
your daddy said so). That's why they're desperately trying to prove that
the film was altered.
/sandy
Anthony Marsh
Always with the personal attacks. The fact that many people think the
head shot came from the front is just one of the many reasons why the
vast majority of the public thinks it was a conspiracy.
John Blubaugh
> > out how phony the WCR was and they go nuts. I wonder why you all do not
> > understand that the rest of the world is laughing at you because you
> > inisist on supporting that garbage.
>
> > JB
>
> "The rest of the world"?
>
> Not quite! I expect intelligent opinions to be in the minority anyway.
> You're leaving out a lot of very smart people.
>
> But not even all **CTs** now believe that the Z film shows a shot from the
> front, as you still do, against all scientific evidence (I guess because
> your daddy said so). That's why they're desperately trying to prove that
> the film was altered.
>
> /sandy
Actually, the rest of the world is quite accurate. Only a very small loud
minority here believe anything different. I know this will come as a shock
to you but there are a lot of very smart people in the rest of the world
too. I am not one of those who thinks the Z-film was altered. It shows
more than you can explain away as it is.
JB
Sandy McCroskey
Oh, sure, I'm really one for "personal" attacks. Quite unlike you, the
paragon of diplomacy.
What are you referring to, the reference to JB's "daddy"? That was the
first "expert" he cited, to my recollection.
/sandy
John Blubaugh
> > head shot came from the front is just one of the many reasons why the
> > vast majority of the public thinks it was a conspiracy.
>
> > > the film was altered.
>
> > > /sandy
>
> Oh, sure, I'm really one for "personal" attacks. Quite unlike you, the
> paragon of diplomacy.
>
> What are you referring to, the reference to JB's "daddy"? That was the
> first "expert" he cited, to my recollection
A note about my "daddy" who passed away in 2008 while suffering from
Alzheimer's. He had a bronze star and a silver star for valor. He had a
medal with five stars on it to show his five combat jumps. You can read
about him on the 82nd Airborne's site featuring the 505th. He is pictures
many times some are with my mother who was a member of the British Army.
He has one spot where he is pictured and featured alone.
He was a man to be proud of for all Americans.
JB