Hard Core Partisans - Bitter Battles
Jerry
In spite of the work the HSCA and the ARRB did to resolve technical
issues and to investigate the way CIA and the FBI handled the Oswald
case, and to effect the release of the documents, there has been no
positive result for those who hold conspiracy in the JFK assassination
as a core belief.
*We see websites that promote Jim Garrison as if he and his case had
not been comprehensively and deeply discredited.
*We see others that focus on the medical issues and work from an
eyewitness focus that ignores the scientific work that established the
autopsy x-rays and photos as authentic and as been the keys to
determining the location and nature of JFK's wounds.
*We see Dr Guinn's work under assault. There are any number of
refutations of his conclusions produced by persons unburdoned by a
scientific education.
*We see others which continue to focus on CIA as if all the previous
investigations were to no purpose and the release of documents has not
substantiated what CIA has been saying all along.
All the issues are as bitter divisive and as hard fought as at any time
in the past.
Scientific studies and document releases have not brought people
together on any of the issues that divide the camps. In fact, they're
further apart than at any time in the past.
The buffs continue to refute Posner, damn Guinn and establish that
Eddie Lopez was right all along about CIA, but, that Blakey caved.
I think it very telling that the one conspiracy book of late that was
heartily recommended here was Stewart Galanors' one, which goes back to
the first generation and is very similar in focus and method to the
efforts of Lane and Weisberg and Meagher.
Jerry
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Stugrad98
works with statistics every single day of his life, and undercut Guinn's work
so effectively that his most intelligent, best trained, and respected defender
has yet to
explain away Art's work for over a year.
The professional investigators at PBS Frontline, including your friend Gus
Russo, almost to a man believe the Agency either had photos, had tapes and/or
knew about and told tall tales about when they knew about Oswald's visits.
Everyone here knows that these men are not, as you are, partisan. Russo told
a group of Agency retirees, in the past two years, that he disagreed with how
they
covered up and/or lied albeit in a non-criminal way. The retirees AGREED with
him; so it appears that you are even more partisan than the actual people who
experienced the events and worked for the Agency.
We saw the actual autopsists and autopsy personnel, despite being confronted
with the supposedly powerful medical evidence, disagree with the conclusions
drawn from the autopsy X-rays and photos, just as they have for the past 30
years.
You're apparently the only one partisan in this whole affair. And it's a
shame.
-Stu
Jerry
In article <20000206112149...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
stug...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
> Vince Guinn's works was refuted by Art Snyder, a physicist of many
years, who works with statistics every single day of his life, and
undercut Guinn's work so effectively that his most intelligent, best
trained, and respected defender has yet to explain away Art's work for
over a year.
I wish you'd visit his website and see his discussion of the various
criticisms of Guinn.
> The professional investigators at PBS Frontline, including your
friend Gus Russo, almost to a man believe the Agency either had
photos, had tapes and/or knew about and told tall tales about when they
knew about Oswald's visits.
Their beliefs are not evidence.
> Everyone here knows that these men are not, as you are, partisan.
Russo told a group of Agency retirees, in the past two years, that he
disagreed with how they covered up and/or lied albeit in a non-
criminal way. The retirees AGREED with him; so it appears that you are
even more partisan than the actual people who experienced the events
and worked for the Agency.
Yeah, Russo based the entire thing on the Win Scott chapter.
He hadn't yet heard of Ann Goodpasture or read the letter of Stansfield
Turner which totally refutes several assertions in The Foul Foe.
> We saw the actual autopsists and autopsy personnel, despite being
confronted with the supposedly powerful medical evidence, disagree with
the conclusions drawn from the autopsy X-rays and photos, just as they
have for the past 30 years.
And yet these same men say that they believe in no conspiracy and
believe that Oswald shot JFK from the 5th floor window.
> You're apparently the only one partisan in this whole affair. And
it's a shame.
Another cheap shot from Stu Wexler.
Stugrad98
>
>In article <20000206112149...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
> stug...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
>> Vince Guinn's works was refuted by Art Snyder, a physicist of many
>years, who works with statistics every single day of his life, and
>undercut Guinn's work so effectively that his most intelligent, best
>trained, and respected defender has yet to explain away Art's work for
>over a year.
>
>I wish you'd visit his website and see his discussion of the various
>criticisms of Guinn.
I have Jerry. You'll note Rahn, being an open-minded person unlike you and
many others, also debunks the OVERSTATEMENTS made by Posner and Belin and
Blakey. But I had to write him about Snyder. Last year Art had written a
detailed critique for Rahn, that Rahn, again being an open-minded person,
displayed on his site. Rahn wrote *last year* that a response to Art would
shortly be forthcoming. It's been a year. No response has been posted yet.
Rahn has said he will repost Art's work again.
>
>> The professional investigators at PBS Frontline, including your
>friend Gus Russo, almost to a man believe the Agency either had
>photos, had tapes and/or knew about and told tall tales about when they
>knew about Oswald's visits.
>
>Their beliefs are not evidence.
Nope, but neither are yours. The difference between you and them, and you and
myself, is that they recognize that when CIA documents-- like the Kalaris
memo-- and CIA officials-- like Helms-- undermine CIA claims, that it is
like finding two statements from a criminal, one being a confession the other
saying he didn't do it, and recognizing that had he truly been innocent, the
criminal would never have written a confession. Without coercion ofcourse.
They fully consider the possibility that the CIA will and has lied, actually
broke the law pre-Church, and, as has been verified by people like Mann, Clark
and Dulles even, will lie. You automatically take the position that the CIA
can and never will do anything wrong or untruthful. Everyone who isn't a CIA
apologist knows that is ludicrous.
>
>> Everyone here knows that these men are not, as you are, partisan.
>Russo told a group of Agency retirees, in the past two years, that he
>disagreed with how they covered up and/or lied albeit in a non-
>criminal way. The retirees AGREED with him; so it appears that you are
>even more partisan than the actual people who experienced the events
>and worked for the Agency.
>
>Yeah, Russo based the entire thing on the Win Scott chapter.
Nope. His chapter on the lie about when they knew of Oswald's visit is much
more rough on the CIA than even Newman's is, and is based on what Helms said,
what the documentary record shows, and on the universal agreement amongst
people he asked that Goodpasture lied to the HSCA.
>
>He hadn't yet heard of Ann Goodpasture
Not only did he hear of Ann Goodpasture, Jerry, he tried to get an interview
with her-- and she refused. He even noted she is the person with the most to
reveal. Left with an uncooperative Goodpasture, he went to the people who had
previously dealt with her. All said she withheld or concealed information from
the committee. One Congressman flat out said she lied. Do you want me to
quote the two pages for you?
or read the letter of Stansfield
>Turner which totally refutes several assertions in The Foul Foe.
Stansfield Turner, as anyone who knows the history of the CIA, would not have
been told or shown what happened in Mexico City. Saying to Stansfield Turner
"we lied to the Warren Commission on that one" would be like asking to get
fired, reported, or lose your pension. He had integrity, and was despised by
many of his CIA colleagues for it. He was the one who was misinformed.
>
>> We saw the actual autopsists and autopsy personnel, despite being
>confronted with the supposedly powerful medical evidence, disagree with
>the conclusions drawn from the autopsy X-rays and photos, just as they
>have for the past 30 years.
>
>And yet these same men say that they believe in no conspiracy and
>believe that Oswald shot JFK from the 5th floor window.
Actually it was the 6th floor window. But these people can't be saying both
things Jerry, as you know. They can't be saying "the bullet hole and the
nature of the wound were dramatically different in location from where you put
it" and still cling to the same sort of trajectory studies.
>
>> You're apparently the only one partisan in this whole affair. And
>it's a shame.
>
>Another cheap shot from Stu Wexler.
You're the only one making cheap shots. Any time you fictionalize something, or
lie for the sake of apologizing, you're making a cheap shot against your own
integrity. Put your nation first, not the CIA.
-Stu
Jerry
{You remind me of Hotspur in Henry IV.}
In article <20000207012359...@ng-ca1.aol.com>,
stug...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
> >Stu,
> >
> >In article <20000206112149...@ng-cj1.aol.com>,
> > stug...@aol.com (Stugrad98) wrote:
> >> Vince Guinn's works was refuted by Art Snyder, a physicist of many
> >years, who works with statistics every single day of his life, and
> >undercut Guinn's work so effectively that his most intelligent, best
> >trained, and respected defender has yet to explain away Art's work
for
> >over a year.
> >
> >I wish you'd visit his website and see his discussion of the various
> >criticisms of Guinn.
>
> I have Jerry. You'll note Rahn, being an open-minded person unlike
you and many others, also debunks the OVERSTATEMENTS made by Posner and
Belin and Blakey. But I had to write him about Snyder. Last year
Art had written a detailed critique for Rahn, that Rahn, again being an
open-minded person, displayed on his site. Rahn wrote *last year* that
a response to Art would shortly be forthcoming. It's been a year. No
response has been posted yet. Rahn has said he will repost Art's work
again.
We'll have to wait and see.
My point was that Snyder was repeating things that Rahn has already
refuted.
Not to mention the utter absurdity - not that you'd notice - of
claiming that CE399 that passed through JBC's wrist didn't leave the
frags there, but, some other bullet did that has vanished into thin air.
Ditto with C576 and the frags from JFK's brain.
> >> The professional investigators at PBS Frontline, including your
> >friend Gus Russo, almost to a man believe the Agency either had
> >photos, had tapes and/or knew about and told tall tales about when
they
> >knew about Oswald's visits.
> >
> >Their beliefs are not evidence.
>
> Nope, but neither are yours. The difference between you and them,
and you and myself, is that they recognize that when CIA documents--
like the Kalaris memo-- and CIA officials-- like Helms-- undermine
CIA claims, that it is like finding two statements from a criminal, one
being a confession the other saying he didn't do it, and recognizing
that had he truly been innocent, the criminal would never have written
a confession. Without coercion ofcourse.
Let me just ask you if you believe the Kalaris Memo? Do you believe
there were docs in Oswald's pre-ass. 201 file that survived until 1975,
but, were subsequently destroyed?
See, that brings CIA AS AN ORGANIZATION into the JFK assassination.
Whereas previously you claimed only that they somehow used Oswald in
some vague and indirect way and they ahd nothing to do with the
assassination.
So, you've gone way beyond both the Stu of old and beyond John Newman.
> They fully consider the possibility that the CIA will and has lied,
actually broke the law pre-Church, and, as has been verified by people
like Mann, Clark and Dulles even, will lie. You automatically take
the position that the CIA can and never will do anything wrong or
untruthful. Everyone who isn't a CIA apologist knows that is
ludicrous.
NO. You willfully misunderstand, you scamp!
I said that the record shows that Mexi never communicated to HQ prior
to the assassination that they knew that Oswald visited the Cubemb.
And Newman's so-called "proof" from The Foul Foe or the K-memo is
rejected by me. How convenient to cite only dead men!
It's just like Newman citing Hoover as "proof" that a tape was sent to
Dallas. It's exactly the same as that.
Cite an erroneous doc from a dead man. Ignore all the rest of the
evidence and what the living people have to say.
> >> Everyone here knows that these men are not, as you are, partisan.
> >Russo told a group of Agency retirees, in the past two years, that he
> >disagreed with how they covered up and/or lied albeit in a non-
> >criminal way. The retirees AGREED with him; so it appears that you
are
> >even more partisan than the actual people who experienced the events
> >and worked for the Agency.
> >
> >Yeah, Russo based the entire thing on the Win Scott chapter.
>
> Nope. His chapter on the lie about when they knew of Oswald's visit
is much more rough on the CIA than even Newman's is, and is based on
what Helms said, what the documentary record shows, and on the
universal agreement amongst people he asked that Goodpasture lied to
the HSCA.
Let me remind you that Russo is a member of AFIO and well-disposed to
CIA and he does not think they were involved with Oswald or the
assassination of JFK *IN ANY WAY*.
> >He hadn't yet heard of Ann Goodpasture
> Not only did he hear of Ann Goodpasture, Jerry, he tried to get an
interview with her-- and she refused. He even noted she is the person
with the most to reveal.
Which she did reveal to the ARRB.
> Left with an uncooperative Goodpasture, he went to the people who had
> previously dealt with her. All said she withheld or concealed
information from the committee. One Congressman flat out said she
lied. Do you want me to quote the two pages for you?
I shit on those pages.
> or read the letter of Stansfield
> >Turner which totally refutes several assertions in The Foul Foe.
>
> Stansfield Turner, as anyone who knows the history of the CIA, would
not have been told or shown what happened in Mexico City. Saying to
Stansfield Turner "we lied to the Warren Commission on that one" would
be like asking to get fired, reported, or lose your pension. He had
integrity, and was despised by many of his CIA colleagues for it. He
was the one who was misinformed.
He would not have penned the reply without overwhelming proof.
Turner was not well-disposed toward the Agency and you can read in his
HSCA testimony how he castigated the Agency over Nosenko and other
issues.
Turner is the very last person on earth who could be used/deceived in
any manner by anybody in the Agency trying to cover up something that a
Congressional Committee is interested in.
But, now we add one more villain to Stu's list, villain or fool: who do
we have so far? Scelso, Goodpasture, Scott (pre-FF), Phillips, and now
Adm. Turner.
YOu are freakin' incredible, Stu-boy!
> >> We saw the actual autopsists and autopsy personnel, despite being
> >confronted with the supposedly powerful medical evidence, disagree
with the conclusions drawn from the autopsy X-rays and photos, just as
they >have for the past 30 years.
> >
> >And yet these same men say that they believe in no conspiracy and
> >believe that Oswald shot JFK from the 5th floor window.
>
> Actually it was the 6th floor window. But these people can't be
saying both things Jerry, as you know. They can't be saying "the
bullet hole and the nature of the wound were dramatically different in
location from where you put
> it" and still cling to the same sort of trajectory studies.
Yeah, whatever, Stu.
> >> You're apparently the only one partisan in this whole affair. And
> >it's a shame.
> >
> >Another cheap shot from Stu Wexler.
>
> You're the only one making cheap shots. Any time you fictionalize
something, or lie for the sake of apologizing, you're making a cheap
shot against your own integrity. Put your nation first, not the CIA.
You put the truth first and dump that flawed Kalaris Memo and the self-
serving fictional The Foul Foe and Newman who's still claiming
newspaper space for his bogus claim that a tape was sent to Dallas.
CIA solved the entire episode of who Oswald talked to and when and why.
Passport completed the picture.
We know all about it, Stu. Thanks to the Agency.
The Agency came through here. It deserves plaudits, not brickbats.
And your red herring issues of a tape or a photo or pre-ass. knowledge
of a Cubemb visit are merely noise from the buff-camp - a tale told by
an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Jerry
Stugrad98
Rahn himself won't even say this Jerry. He didn't say that when he posted
Snyder's article and he doesn't say it now. I have read the entire compendium
Rahn has posted. He doesn't deal with the following:
1) That Guinn's statistical claims are non-falsiable. They are non-falsiable
because Guinn's statistical model includes
making claims of like origin for fragments we KNOW, a priori, do not come from
the same item as well as claims that, under the official version, should not
come from the same item. So Guinn can claim likelihood of same chemical origin
about about many fragments with no real evidentiary weight.
2) The proper measure of the evidentiary weight of Guinn's claims is the
chance of a FALSE POSITIVE. When you apply the correct statistical formula,
using Rahn's own numbers, you get a chance of over 30%, EVEN ASSUMING the
veracity of Guinn's testing procedure, which should have, in fact, been a blind
study.
3) The very probabilistic premise that allows evidentiary claims to be made is
flawed in the same exact manner that the acoustics claims were flawed, even
BEFORE the Academy of Sciences destroyed them. In both cases you need to know
the a priori chance an event can happen before you can make an overarching
claim that you can evaluate it statistically.
Rahn has NOT dealt with Art's article. He has admitted to me that he has not
dealt with Art's article. He said he WOULD deal with it, when I do not know.
Has he told you something different, or have you failed to actually read his
compendium???
>
>Not to mention the utter absurdity - not that you'd notice - of
>claiming that CE399 that passed through JBC's wrist didn't leave the
>frags there, but, some other bullet did that has vanished into thin air.
That's no absurd at all. The WC, in attempting to explain away the problems
with the Tippet cartridge cases, were more than willing to concede the
possibility that a bullet was lost and has never been found. In the much more
vast and unobstructed area of Dealey Plaza, this is even more likely.
Bullets, weapons, and many other items are often NEVER recovered or fully
acounted for at crime scenes.
>Ditto with C576 and the frags from JFK's brain.
Only two of the frags were from JFK's head. There are over 30 that have never
been evaluated by any procedure. You are making assumptions here as well.
There were two fragments recovered from the limo. Since, in the best case
scenario, we can be dealing with over a 30% chance of a false positive, on of
those fragments could have been responsible for the wrist shot instead of
CE399. That would still invalidate the Single Bullet Theory. There are a
number of possibilities in the same regard. You always assume your case first
then argued instead of letting the evidence tell you the story.
>
>> >> The professional investigators at PBS Frontline, including your
>> >friend Gus Russo, almost to a man believe the Agency either had
>> >photos, had tapes and/or knew about and told tall tales about when
>they
>> >knew about Oswald's visits.
>> >
>> >Their beliefs are not evidence.
>>
>> Nope, but neither are yours. The difference between you and them,
>and you and myself, is that they recognize that when CIA documents--
>like the Kalaris memo-- and CIA officials-- like Helms-- undermine
>CIA claims, that it is like finding two statements from a criminal, one
>being a confession the other saying he didn't do it, and recognizing
>that had he truly been innocent, the criminal would never have written
>a confession. Without coercion ofcourse.
>
>Let me just ask you if you believe the Kalaris Memo? Do you believe
>there were docs in Oswald's pre-ass. 201 file that survived until 1975,
>but, were subsequently destroyed?
Yes, in fact it's the only way to logically explain the Kalaris memo.
Moreover, the Kalaris memo itself probably triggered the response to the
documents.
>
>See, that brings CIA AS AN ORGANIZATION into the JFK assassination.
Nope. It brings the CIA as an organization into thinking that revealing their
interest in Oswald would automatically bring what you said in play. The CIA
was protecting itself from embarassment, over lieing to the commission to
protect's its sources, and lying to the commission about it's legitimate
interest in Oswald. The cover-up was not criminal.
>
>Whereas previously you claimed only that they somehow used Oswald in
>some vague and indirect way and they ahd nothing to do with the
>assassination.
I believe the CIA as an institution had nothing to do with the assassination.
I believe the CIA as an organization, cover their butts from embarassment,
covered their sources and methods, and expunged anything that could implicate
Castro as well.
>
>So, you've gone way beyond both the Stu of old and beyond John Newman.
Nope, I agree with Gus Russo. There was a cover-up; it was not criminal.
>
>> They fully consider the possibility that the CIA will and has lied,
>actually broke the law pre-Church, and, as has been verified by people
>like Mann, Clark and Dulles even, will lie. You automatically take
>the position that the CIA can and never will do anything wrong or
>untruthful. Everyone who isn't a CIA apologist knows that is
>ludicrous.
>
>NO. You willfully misunderstand, you scamp!
>
>I said that the record shows that Mexi never communicated to HQ prior
>to the assassination that they knew that Oswald visited the Cubemb.
The record also shows that the conditions that they themselves said precipated
their revealing it existed pre-assassination, and that there are means for the
Agency to communicate that would not be readily recordable.
>
>And Newman's so-called "proof" from The Foul Foe or the K-memo is
>rejected by me. How convenient to cite only dead men!
How convenient to disparage them when they can't defend themselves. There is
absolutely no logical or common-sense explanation for what Kalaris wrote other
than it being the truth.
>
>It's just like Newman citing Hoover as "proof" that a tape was sent to
>Dallas. It's exactly the same as that.
Again, this is one case where I agree with you that Newman is probably wrong.
I let the weight of his case dictate whether or not he's right or wrong. On
the tape AT DALLAS, he is probably wrong. On the cover-story, he is right in
saying EXACTLY WHAT HELMS said.
>
>Cite an erroneous doc from a dead man.
It's not erroneous. In fact, it includes information that everyone claimed was
erroneous but was proven right in the 90s.
Ignore all the rest of the
>evidence and what the living people have to say.
You're the one ignoring evidence by lambasting dead people. Living people
recalled a cable being sent. All the living people that Russo asked about
Goodpasture believe she lies.
>
>> >> Everyone here knows that these men are not, as you are, partisan.
>> >Russo told a group of Agency retirees, in the past two years, that he
>> >disagreed with how they covered up and/or lied albeit in a non-
>> >criminal way. The retirees AGREED with him; so it appears that you
>are
>> >even more partisan than the actual people who experienced the events
>> >and worked for the Agency.
>> >
>> >Yeah, Russo based the entire thing on the Win Scott chapter.
>>
>> Nope. His chapter on the lie about when they knew of Oswald's visit
>is much more rough on the CIA than even Newman's is, and is based on
>what Helms said, what the documentary record shows, and on the
>universal agreement amongst people he asked that Goodpasture lied to
>the HSCA.
>
>Let me remind you that Russo is a member of AFIO and well-disposed to
>CIA and he does not think they were involved with Oswald or the
>assassination of JFK *IN ANY WAY*.
That's right. He believes they covered UP the asassination, which is exactly
what I believe.
>
>> >He hadn't yet heard of Ann Goodpasture
>> Not only did he hear of Ann Goodpasture, Jerry, he tried to get an
>interview with her-- and she refused. He even noted she is the person
>with the most to reveal.
>
>Which she did reveal to the ARRB.
>
>> Left with an uncooperative Goodpasture, he went to the people who had
>> previously dealt with her. All said she withheld or concealed
>information from the committee. One Congressman flat out said she
>lied. Do you want me to quote the two pages for you?
>
>I shit on those pages.
Obviously so since you are an apologist for the CIA. Demand evidence, then
when you get it, shit on it. That's your method.
>
>> or read the letter of Stansfield
>> >Turner which totally refutes several assertions in The Foul Foe.
>>
>> Stansfield Turner, as anyone who knows the history of the CIA, would
>not have been told or shown what happened in Mexico City. Saying to
>Stansfield Turner "we lied to the Warren Commission on that one" would
>be like asking to get fired, reported, or lose your pension. He had
>integrity, and was despised by many of his CIA colleagues for it. He
>was the one who was misinformed.
>
>He would not have penned the reply without overwhelming proof.
>
>Turner was not well-disposed toward the Agency and you can read in his
>HSCA testimony how he castigated the Agency over Nosenko and other
>issues.
>
>Turner is the very last person on earth who could be used/deceived in
>any manner by anybody in the Agency trying to cover up something that a
>Congressional Committee is interested in.
He certainly can, because he had nothing else to go by other than the word of
the people, like Goodpasture, who everyone universally agreed to be a liar.
>
>But, now we add one more villain to Stu's list, villain or fool: who do
>we have so far? Scelso, Goodpasture, Scott (pre-FF), Phillips, and now
>Adm. Turner.
Adm. Turner is not a villain, he's a hero. It is for that reason that none of
the other people you mentioned would have DARED tell him they lied to the
Warren Commission.
>
>YOu are freakin' incredible, Stu-boy!
>
>> >> We saw the actual autopsists and autopsy personnel, despite being
>> >confronted with the supposedly powerful medical evidence, disagree
>with the conclusions drawn from the autopsy X-rays and photos, just as
>they >have for the past 30 years.
>> >
>> >And yet these same men say that they believe in no conspiracy and
>> >believe that Oswald shot JFK from the 5th floor window.
>>
>> Actually it was the 6th floor window. But these people can't be
>saying both things Jerry, as you know. They can't be saying "the
>bullet hole and the nature of the wound were dramatically different in
>location from where you put
>> it" and still cling to the same sort of trajectory studies.
>
>Yeah, whatever, Stu.
That must be why you vehemently defend the location of the wounds, Jer, because
they don't matter at all??
>
>> >> You're apparently the only one partisan in this whole affair. And
>> >it's a shame.
>> >
>> >Another cheap shot from Stu Wexler.
>>
>> You're the only one making cheap shots. Any time you fictionalize
>something, or lie for the sake of apologizing, you're making a cheap
>shot against your own integrity. Put your nation first, not the CIA.
>
>You put the truth first and dump that flawed Kalaris Memo
The Kalaris memo is in no conceivable way flawed. You're choice to dismiss it
is like saying that we should dismiss the fiber evidence in the OJ case because
we can't find a murder weapon thus anything that implicates OJ must be flawed.
and the self-
>serving fictional The Foul Foe and Newman who's still claiming
>newspaper space for his bogus claim that a tape was sent to Dallas.
>
>CIA solved the entire episode of who Oswald talked to and when and why.
>Passport completed the picture.
>
>We know all about it, Stu. Thanks to the Agency.
>
>The Agency came through here. It deserves plaudits, not brickbats.
Even the people Russo talked to at AFIO admitted their lies. You are the only
one Jer who seems to apologize for them.
>
>And your red herring issues of a tape or a photo or pre-ass. knowledge
>of a Cubemb visit are merely noise from the buff-camp - a tale told by
>an idiot full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Demand evidence. Shit on it when it's presented to you. The only evidence you
would except Jer is a full-blown confession or a murder weapon. OJ must be
innocent then.
-Stu
Jerry
You need to read the scathing letter that Stansfield Turner sent to
Chairman Stokes in which he said that people like Lopez had come into
the investigation believing that CIA had some relationship with Oswald
and believing that CIA had not turned over all the evidence it had and
Lopez and others like him IGNORE THE SOLID EVIDENCE.
*CIA has had no relationship of any kind with Oswald,
*CIA has turned over all the evidence it has,
*There is no photo of Oswald taken in MC,
*The Win Scott ms. is not a reliable/historical document.
Admiral Turner was laying his cards on the table and telling Chairman
Stokes to back off.
If Stokes had listened to Lopez and Hardway, they, all would have had
to buck it up to the President, Stu. That's how far this conflict had
become elevated.
The upshot was that the Lopez Report was buried and that NONE of its
conclusions were adopted in the Report of the HSCA.
I think you've heard so much bullshit fromt he anti-CIA crowd that all
kinds of nonsense have become part of your mental landscape.
Any fair study of the comprehensive documentary record shows that
Turner was absolutely right:
*CIA had no relationship of any kind with Oswald,
*CIA turned over all materials requested,
*Its officers have testified truthfully,
*The record of CIA in this case has been commendable; not blameworthy.
You have nothing, Stu.
A woman's 15-yr-old "recollection," a bogus ms., a bogus memo, and lots
of fairy tales about seeing this and hearing about that.
You have nothing.
Jerry
In article <20000207134214...@ng-ft1.aol.com>,