Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Yoohoo Mr. Reitzes!
48 views
Skip to first unread message
Robert Harris
Oct 1, 2012, 1:48:43 PM10/1/12
to
David, it might be a mistake to let others do your talking for you.
Mr. mcadams seems to think that you were not claiming, in your article
entitled "Impeaching Clinton", that the witnesses mistook Estus Morgan
for Oswald.
Is that true David?
So, if this was not an honest misidentification, are you claiming that
they were liars who knew all along that Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw were not
present that day?
Did members of the C.O.R.E. and KKK get together to make sure their
stories matched?
And how did Garrison get them to perjure themselves? Did he pay them
off? Hypnotize them? Threaten them?
And why didn't you discuss any of this in your article? Why didn't you
state even once, that they deliberately lied?
Unlike your friends David, you don't seem interested in talking about
any of this. Why is that?
Robert Harris
Mr. mcadams seems to think that you were not claiming, in your article
entitled "Impeaching Clinton", that the witnesses mistook Estus Morgan
for Oswald.
Is that true David?
So, if this was not an honest misidentification, are you claiming that
they were liars who knew all along that Oswald, Ferrie and Shaw were not
present that day?
Did members of the C.O.R.E. and KKK get together to make sure their
stories matched?
And how did Garrison get them to perjure themselves? Did he pay them
off? Hypnotize them? Threaten them?
And why didn't you discuss any of this in your article? Why didn't you
state even once, that they deliberately lied?
Unlike your friends David, you don't seem interested in talking about
any of this. Why is that?
Robert Harris
Dave Yandell
Oct 4, 2012, 11:39:27 PM10/4/12
to
Dave Reitzes (as I recall) pretty much gave up on this forum a long time
ago, given the absence of even minimal standards of rational discourse or
decorum. Since your points all rest on gross misreadings and omissions of
points clearly explained in his article (which doesn't claim a conspiracy
between the KKK and CORE, but rather considers two possible reasons why
two CORE workers (Corrie Collins) may have gone along with Garrison's
perjury-fest (and we know for a fact that the more important witness,
Collins, perjured himself at Shaw's trial unless he lied in all of his
early statements to Garrison investigators), in which Garrison adopted a
line of BS cooked up by some KKK and White Citizens' Council cronies about
Oswald being at a CORE voter drive trying to register. Garrison reshaped
the story and added Clay Shaw and David Ferrie, neither of whom appear in
any witness's early version of the story (except that a "tall man" wearing
a hat was driving the Caddy for the 10-15 minutes the car was at the
registrar. (White folks got to skip lines of black folks in rural
Louisiana when people like Exalted Cyclops Henry Palmer were running
things; it morphed into a 6-hour stay later to fit more manufactured Klan
witnesses in.)
The two theories for why Collins and Dunn went along are intimidation,
based on evidence from Hugh Aynesworth's reporting (Collins had moved to
another town and adopted an assumed name after the trial and his father
was too frightened to discuss the matter), or benefit of some kind. I find
the former theory far more plausible, but Reitzes takes very seriously
Collins's much later statement that he wasn't afraid of the Town Marshal
(another of the Klan/WCC group).
ago, given the absence of even minimal standards of rational discourse or
decorum. Since your points all rest on gross misreadings and omissions of
points clearly explained in his article (which doesn't claim a conspiracy
between the KKK and CORE, but rather considers two possible reasons why
two CORE workers (Corrie Collins) may have gone along with Garrison's
perjury-fest (and we know for a fact that the more important witness,
Collins, perjured himself at Shaw's trial unless he lied in all of his
early statements to Garrison investigators), in which Garrison adopted a
line of BS cooked up by some KKK and White Citizens' Council cronies about
Oswald being at a CORE voter drive trying to register. Garrison reshaped
the story and added Clay Shaw and David Ferrie, neither of whom appear in
any witness's early version of the story (except that a "tall man" wearing
a hat was driving the Caddy for the 10-15 minutes the car was at the
registrar. (White folks got to skip lines of black folks in rural
Louisiana when people like Exalted Cyclops Henry Palmer were running
things; it morphed into a 6-hour stay later to fit more manufactured Klan
witnesses in.)
The two theories for why Collins and Dunn went along are intimidation,
based on evidence from Hugh Aynesworth's reporting (Collins had moved to
another town and adopted an assumed name after the trial and his father
was too frightened to discuss the matter), or benefit of some kind. I find
the former theory far more plausible, but Reitzes takes very seriously
Collins's much later statement that he wasn't afraid of the Town Marshal
(another of the Klan/WCC group).
Robert Harris
Oct 5, 2012, 4:31:36 PM10/5/12
to
In article <033fa901-2d12-4e41...@googlegroups.com>,
> given the absence of even minimal standards of rational discourse or
> decorum.
Well, this is a nutter forum, which is why most of the posts consist of
trash talk and ad hominem attacks.
Those who are interested in civil, intelligent discussions in which that
kind of thing is strictly prohibited, should try:
http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php
I asked David some very reasonable and important questions. The fact
that he has to evade them, tells us that he doesn't have any more faith
in his claims than most of us do.
Robert Harris
Dave Yandell <dyan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dave Reitzes (as I recall) pretty much gave up on this forum a long time
> ago
LOL!! Nice try amigo, but he just posted here a few days ago.
> Dave Reitzes (as I recall) pretty much gave up on this forum a long time
> ago
> given the absence of even minimal standards of rational discourse or
> decorum.
trash talk and ad hominem attacks.
Those who are interested in civil, intelligent discussions in which that
kind of thing is strictly prohibited, should try:
http://jfkhistory.com/forum/index.php
I asked David some very reasonable and important questions. The fact
that he has to evade them, tells us that he doesn't have any more faith
in his claims than most of us do.
Robert Harris
John Reagor King
Oct 5, 2012, 9:03:26 PM10/5/12
to
> Dave Reitzes (as I recall) pretty much gave up on this forum a long time
> ago, given the absence of even minimal standards of rational discourse or
> decorum.
Actually he did return to post here recently, at least on one day,
> ago, given the absence of even minimal standards of rational discourse or
> decorum.
September 26. I am seeing at least two articles by him on that date.
was not that he was suggesting that the witnesses confused Estes Morgan
with Oswald. It was instead that Garrison and his staff used elements of
the appearance of a white man (or two) in a voting registration line
composed otherwise entirely of black people. IOW, the argument was that
Garrison used a white man in the line, period, to make it into Oswald in
the line; Dave was not saying that any other aspect such as age or
physical appearance entered into it, other than racial appearance.
Robert Harris
Oct 7, 2012, 5:53:48 PM10/7/12
to
"the argument was that Garrison used a white man in the line, period, to
make it into Oswald in the line"
it into" Oswald?
Robert Harris
In article <caeruleo-BE7D26...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>,
0 new messages