The Truth Will Never Be Accepted
The Excellent Dude
it conspiratorial or lone gunman, even if the REAL COMPLETE TRUTH were
published, people would scoff at it and dismiss it as just another
angle. They would methodically shred the truth to pieces. Too many
people have become wealthy from concocting and selling their own slant
and version of the assassination. Too many people have been prejudiced
and confused by the shear volume and variety of misinformation and
theories. The real truth would be loathed because too many people would
have to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong. It would put and
end to the debate and controversy. And the JFK fanatics don't want the
mystery to come to an end. Too much effort has been expended to keep
the mystery alive. Perhaps we have already been exposed to the truth and
buried it.
The Excellent Dude
dro...@my-deja.com
Excelle...@webtv.net (The Excellent Dude) wrote:
> With the untold number of theories surrounding JFK's assassination, be
> it conspiratorial or lone gunman, even if the REAL COMPLETE TRUTH were
> published, people would scoff at it and dismiss it as just another
> angle.
The point is that the 'real complete truth' can be known. It can be
ascertained by looking at WHO exactly profited in the wake of the hit.
It doesn't take rocket science to see it was money-lenders, financiers,
and privatizers-Wall Streeters. The same types JFK sought to
assiduously control, suppress and regulate during the latter half of
his 1000 days. (See: 'Battling Wall Street- The JFK Presidency', by
Donald Gibson, 1994, Sheridan Square Press).
What has occurred - which is what you're referring to - is that
specialized disinfo technicians, called 'black ops' in the trade, have
sullied all the real evidence by their specious counterclaims-
rendering it no more viable or compelling than any other. Blame these
treacherous lots, not anyone or anything else. Their role, as has been
noted before - has been to assure that a condition exists in
which 'anything can be believed but nothing can be known'.
>They would methodically shred the truth to pieces.
That was always the mandate of the black ops to do. To shred any and
every variant of the truth to 'pieces' - so that the entire area of
JFK's assassination would be left untouched and unexplored by most
thinking people. If your claims are verified, or verifiable, than they
have succeeded in their ends.
> Too many
> people have become wealthy from concocting and selling their own slant
> and version of the assassination.
Becoming 'wealthy' - hardly. Most of us received not a dime for our
considerable research efforts. Those few who maybe earned some money,
most likely just covered their promotion or print costs. You're
swallowing too much of the black op hype.
> Too many people have been prejudiced
> and confused by the shear volume and variety of misinformation and
> theories.
This is because they have not clearly followed the leads available to
their inevitable conclusion. They were misdirected by either
personalities or politics. A tragedy on the whole. But a resounding
success for the black op teams that sought this objective. (And
fashioned most of the misinformation, disinformation in the first place)
>The real truth would be loathed because too many people would
> have to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong.
Unfrotunately, the taint of the black ops' hands is now so pervasive,
that the truth *can* never be known. They've redacted, destroyed,
twisted and distorted everything available. They've left only the hulls
and the husks- which detractors such as yourselves now paw over, and
use to tar with wide brush those of us who've done the real work.
Who've tried to open the eyes of those willing. But in most cases, it's
been like casting pearls before swine.
> It would put and
> end to the debate and controversy.
But that is not what the black ops wanted. They've ensured- by their
ongoing mischief and treachery, that the debate and controversy are
open-ended and never-ending. WIth researchers going against researchers
and nutters trying to shush CTs who may have a clue.
> And the JFK fanatics don't want the
> mystery to come to an end.
No, you got it wrong. It's the black ops that don't want it to come to
an end. Because that would mean it's been finally solved, and the
conspiracy exposed. This they can't allow. So they foment discord and
sow misinfo and disinfo so that folks like you throw up your hands and
despair (or pillory) and try to get others to do so as well.
There are no 'JFK fanatics' in other words. There are, however, sincere
truthseekers - and those dilettantes who wish only to sidetrack them.
Oh yes, and the 'lone nutters', who dearly wish their particular 'magic
bullet' fairy tale to be devoutly believed. And the case closed so that
their political bedfellows - the right wing and financial establishment
behind it, can slumber in peace.
> Too much effort has been expended to keep
> the mystery alive.
Yes- effort on behalf of the black op brigade, which is always ready to
try to create another 'factoid' to prevent the truth or genuine facts
from outing.
>Perhaps we have already been exposed to the truth and
> buried it.
No, not "we" that 'buried it'. Rather, the black ops. By their blizzard
of minsinfo and disinfo.
But then, that was their intention all along.
> The Excellent Dude
But evidently not in assassination matters.
--
"The soft, the complacent, the self-satisfied societies will be swept
away with the debris of History."- John F. Kennedy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Vern Pascal
From regular people over the years( not the diehards)..the debate if
there is any, isn't all the stuff on here, rather it's Oswald
alone..or..Mob -CIA -LBJ_ take your pick...nobody believes Castro-or a
few Anti-Castro Cubans or the Rt. Wing-orJews or Aliens did it. This
case is not that complex... the thrust of the truth is in Bloody
Treason & Deep Politics.....Jeff
The Excellent Dude
Excellent Post...But, anybody that calls themselves dude..gets docked.
------------------------------
If I had referred to myself as Poindexter or Albert, would my words have
been more accepted?
I just wish we did know the real truth. It burns hot in my belly. I
lost something when my 4th grade teacher walked in the classroom after
the noon recess and said "The president has been shot and they don't
know if he's going to make it." And what I lost can never be regained;
trust in the government I thought was right and good. A great man that
inspired me and millions of others was taken from us in a most
dishonorable way. Even if the real truth was revealed publicly to us
that secure proud feeling would never come back.
Poindexter
The Excellent Dude
The Excellent Dude
But evidently not in assassination matters.
---------------------------------
I'm sorry you didn't approve of my post. How dare I post my opinions.
After all, admittedly I'm no expert. Posting should be reserved for
experts such as yourself that have all the answers. You my admonisher,
are a bitter, arrogant, little man that looks down on ones with opinions
you deem asinine.
The Excellent Dude
Martin Shackelford
several that I've had to neglect due to my focus on this case.
Martin
The Excellent Dude wrote:
> With the untold number of theories surrounding JFK's assassination, be
> it conspiratorial or lone gunman, even if the REAL COMPLETE TRUTH were
> published, people would scoff at it and dismiss it as just another
> angle. They would methodically shred the truth to pieces. Too many
> people have become wealthy from concocting and selling their own slant
> and version of the assassination. Too many people have been prejudiced
> and confused by the shear volume and variety of misinformation and
> theories. The real truth would be loathed because too many people would
> have to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong. It would put and
> end to the debate and controversy. And the JFK fanatics don't want the
> mystery to come to an end. Too much effort has been expended to keep
> the mystery alive. Perhaps we have already been exposed to the truth and
> buried it.
>
> The Excellent Dude
--
Martin Shackelford
"You're going to find that many of the truths we
cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
-Obi-Wan Kenobi
"You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
Vern Pascal
dude hits me like an Old Milwaukee..if you catch my drift...I'm
certainly glad, I've never called a guy dude. Personally.I'd just as
soon be called Moron...that's ok if you want to bestow it upon yourself
though.
Anyway, you cut the mustard..it's gonna take Beltway
Insiders-Journalists etc. getting off their lard asses to advance the
case...so you are right there..and BTW_don't be so certain of the
title..The Ghost Of JFK Haunts our Country....Jeff
PapaKochenbrot
>From: lazu...@webtv.net (Vern Pascal)
>Date: 6/25/00 3:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8255-39...@storefull-157.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
Jeff wrote.......This case is not that complex... the thrust of the truth is
in Bloody Treason & Deep Politics.....Jeff
That's EXACTLY right Jeff... This case is not at all complicated... IF IF the
facts of the murder are examined....and all the nonsense is laid aside.
Walt
SKeat97
Good post, dude, but be careful. Martin will get on your case for asserting
that anyone became "wealthy" by writing buff books. <g> But wealth is a
relative term, eh? Regards.
Steve K.
Martin Shackelford
I've never said NO ONE ever made money writing a conspiracy book.
Just that few have, and some of those have put far more money into the research
than they ever got out of sale of the books.
Martin
SKeat97 wrote:
--
Aaron Hirshberg
>Excellent Post...But, anybody that calls themselves dude..gets
docked.
debate if
>there is any, isn't all the stuff on here, rather it's Oswald
>alone..or..Mob -CIA -LBJ_ take your pick...nobody believes
Castro-or a
>few Anti-Castro Cubans or the Rt. Wing-orJews or Aliens did it.
This
Bloody
>Treason & Deep Politics.....Jeff
Isn't _Bloody_Treason_ the book that has a subtitle that names
Hoover as a conspirator? I started reading that book, but when
they referred to LHO as a Marxist who worked as an FBI
informant, I stopped.
As for _Deep_Politics_, don't forget _The_Dallas_Conspiracy_,
also by the cryptic professor Scott. It is also an excellent
book.
Aaron Hirshberg
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
fit...@my-deja.com
ske...@aol.com (SKeat97) wrote:
> >From: Excelle...@webtv.net (The Excellent Dude)
>
> Good post, dude, but be careful. Martin will get on your case for
asserting
> that anyone became "wealthy" by writing buff books. <g> But wealth is
a
> relative term, eh? Regards.
>
> Steve K.
>
His "Executive Action" also was made into a pretty fair movie.
And, Lifton's "Best Evidence" was a best seller. Posener did ok,
too, although not a CT.
Fitz
rickh...@my-deja.com
Aaron Hirshberg <ahirshber...@dstina.com.invalid> wrote:
> lazu...@webtv.net (Vern Pascal) wrote:
> >Excellent Post...But, anybody that calls themselves dude..gets
> docked.
> >From regular people over the years( not the diehards)..the
> debate if
> >there is any, isn't all the stuff on here, rather it's Oswald
> >alone..or..Mob -CIA -LBJ_ take your pick...nobody believes
> Castro-or a
> >few Anti-Castro Cubans or the Rt. Wing-orJews or Aliens did it.
> This
> >case is not that complex... the thrust of the truth is in
> Bloody
> >Treason & Deep Politics.....Jeff
>
> Isn't _Bloody_Treason_ the book that has a subtitle that names
> Hoover as a conspirator? I started reading that book, but when
> they referred to LHO as a Marxist who worked as an FBI
> informant, I stopped.
>
> As for _Deep_Politics_, don't forget _The_Dallas_Conspiracy_,
> also by the cryptic professor Scott. It is also an excellent
> book.
The subtitle to Bloody Treason is 'On Solving History's Greatest Murder
Mystery: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy'. The book explores a
ton of possibilities, including the possible involvement of Hoover, LBJ
and others. I thought it an excellent read that contains a lot of
original research. You should have kept reading, in my humble
opinion....Rick
>
> Aaron Hirshberg
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
Martin Shackelford
of good and bad information. Just have to separate the wheat from the
chaff.
Martin
Aaron Hirshberg wrote:
> lazu...@webtv.net (Vern Pascal) wrote:
> >Excellent Post...But, anybody that calls themselves dude..gets
> docked.
> >From regular people over the years( not the diehards)..the
> debate if
> >there is any, isn't all the stuff on here, rather it's Oswald
> >alone..or..Mob -CIA -LBJ_ take your pick...nobody believes
> Castro-or a
> >few Anti-Castro Cubans or the Rt. Wing-orJews or Aliens did it.
> This
> >case is not that complex... the thrust of the truth is in
> Bloody
> >Treason & Deep Politics.....Jeff
>
> Isn't _Bloody_Treason_ the book that has a subtitle that names
> Hoover as a conspirator? I started reading that book, but when
> they referred to LHO as a Marxist who worked as an FBI
> informant, I stopped.
>
> As for _Deep_Politics_, don't forget _The_Dallas_Conspiracy_,
> also by the cryptic professor Scott. It is also an excellent
> book.
>
> Aaron Hirshberg
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
--
Martin Shackelford
by Harrison Livingstone and Robert Groden, after a paperback reprint. But
that about exhausts the list.
Martin
fit...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Vern Pascal
his toy train set go around and around for the billionth time. ...Jeff
P>S>>>>We're walking in the midst of giants.....
debra hartman
On Sun, 25 Jun 2000 15:17:02 -0400 (EDT), Excelle...@webtv.net
(The Excellent Dude) wrote:
>With the untold number of theories surrounding JFK's assassination, be
>it conspiratorial or lone gunman, even if the REAL COMPLETE TRUTH were
>published, people would scoff at it and dismiss it as just another
>angle. They would methodically shred the truth to pieces. Too many
>people have become wealthy from concocting and selling their own slant
>and version of the assassination. Too many people have been prejudiced
>and confused by the shear volume and variety of misinformation and
>theories. The real truth would be loathed because too many people would
>have to swallow their pride and admit they were wrong. It would put and
>end to the debate and controversy. And the JFK fanatics don't want the
>mystery to come to an end. Too much effort has been expended to keep
>the mystery alive.
I would disagree only with the following:
>Perhaps we have already been exposed to the truth and
>buried it.
We *have* indeed been exposed to the truth and a very organized
campaign has attempted to bury it on this newsgroup for several years.
They have not succeeded, but they have fooled the fools, and probably
a few good folks as well.
>
>The Excellent Dude
>
joez...@my-deja.com
papakoc...@aol.com (PapaKochenbrot) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: The Truth Will Never Be Accepted
> >From: lazu...@webtv.net (Vern Pascal)
> >Date: 6/25/00 3:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <8255-39...@storefull-157.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
truth is
> in Bloody Treason & Deep Politics.....Jeff
>
IF IF the
> facts of the murder are examined....and all the nonsense is laid
aside.
>
> Walt
>
Here's some of the nonsense that one has to put aside:
Oswald didn't resist arrest.
Oswald didn't have a gun in his hands.
CE401 is the same document as CE402.
When will you do that, Walt?
--
"We're really in nut country now, Toto."
joez...@my-deja.com
Aaron Hirshberg <ahirshber...@dstina.com.invalid> wrote:
> lazu...@webtv.net (Vern Pascal) wrote:
> >Excellent Post...But, anybody that calls themselves dude..gets
> docked.
> >From regular people over the years( not the diehards)..the
> debate if
> >there is any, isn't all the stuff on here, rather it's Oswald
> >alone..or..Mob -CIA -LBJ_ take your pick...nobody believes
> Castro-or a
> >few Anti-Castro Cubans or the Rt. Wing-orJews or Aliens did it.
> This
> Bloody
> >Treason & Deep Politics.....Jeff
>
> Hoover as a conspirator? I started reading that book, but when
> they referred to LHO as a Marxist who worked as an FBI
> informant, I stopped.
You're thinking of Mark North's book, "Act of Treason: The Role of J.
Edgar Hoover in the Assassination of President Kennedy" (Carroll &
Graf, 1992).
Yes, a truly silly book. However, it does contain Oswald's 1962 tax
return, obtained thru Marina Oswald Porter. So it's not totally
worthless.
>
> As for _Deep_Politics_, don't forget _The_Dallas_Conspiracy_,
> also by the cryptic professor Scott. It is also an excellent
> book.
>
Scott's the guy who conjectured in Dallas, in 1992, at the ASK
conference, that Oswald was being framed as:
*a lone-nut pro-Castro left winger*
by conspirators who deliberately put him in the
*company of right-wing anti-Castro Cubans*
at Sylvia Odio's apartment as part of the frame up.
Asked what the conspirators hoped to accomplish by that act of
silliness, Scott's reply was a classic: "I don't know, but it worked!"
> Aaron Hirshberg
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
>
--
joez...@my-deja.com
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Thanks to "JFK," Crossfire by Jim Marrs did well, too, as did High
Treason
> by Harrison Livingstone and Robert Groden, after a paperback reprint.
But
> that about exhausts the list.
And the Whitewash series is just about Weisberg's sole source of
income. Has been since about 1965. True?
Maybe it hasn't made him rich, but he's clearly doing it for the money.
>
> Martin
>
> fit...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <20000625235041...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
> > ske...@aol.com (SKeat97) wrote:
> > > >From: Excelle...@webtv.net (The Excellent Dude)
> > >
> > > Good post, dude, but be careful. Martin will get on your case for
> > asserting
> > > that anyone became "wealthy" by writing buff books. <g> But
wealth is
> > a
> > > relative term, eh? Regards.
> > >
> > > Steve K.
> > >
> > I believe Mark Lane made a bundle on "Rush to Judgment>"
> > His "Executive Action" also was made into a pretty fair movie.
> > And, Lifton's "Best Evidence" was a best seller. Posener did ok,
> > too, although not a CT.
> >
> > Fitz
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> --
> Martin Shackelford
>
> "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> -Obi-Wan Kenobi
>
> "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
>
>
--
dro...@my-deja.com
Excelle...@webtv.net (The Excellent Dude) wrote:
> I'm sorry you didn't approve of my post. How dare I post my opinions.
Actually, to set the record straight - I DID approve UNTIL you came
down on CT's and called them 'JFK fanatics'. Then my approval ceased
instantly, and you were seen as just another uninformed person - who
just wants to ditch the case and research into it at any cost. If not a
nutter, you became the next worst thing: an escapist. And I've no use
for them.
> After all, admittedly I'm no expert. Posting should be reserved for
> experts such as yourself that have all the answers.
No, not necessarily. But at the very least non-experts or non-
researchers should hold their tongues instead of caustically calling
researchers 'fanatics'. That won't earn you many kudos here, unless
from the nutter ilk- who couldn't care a rat's ass if the truth ever
outs anyhow.
> You my admonisher,
> are a bitter, arrogant, little man that looks down on ones with
opinions
> you deem asinine.
How do you know sauat about me? You don't. Fact is I am quite
reasonable and more than prepared to heap praise when I see a post
that's praiseworthy. I also generally agree with Vern (Pascal) but
didn't this time, because of the segment about 'JFK fanatics'. I find
that a demeaning, ignorant put-down more worthy of a Posner than a
person supposedly trying to convey an 'objective' opinion, I'm sorry.
If you're going to try to assume an objective - 'above it all'
position, then at least act and write the part next time. You blew it
with this post, imho.
> The Excellent Dude
At rhetoric, yes. I give you A+.
--
"The soft, the complacent, the self-satisfied societies, will be swept
dro...@my-deja.com
fit...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I believe Mark Lane made a bundle on "Rush to Judgment>"
Not as much as Posner. Also, it just covered his legal and other
expenses.
> His "Executive Action" also was made into a pretty fair movie.
It was panned by the critics as 'overly long' ended up a loser (1973)
at the box office. Did get some attention once it was shown on TV.
Also, remember he had to share proceeds with co-author Donald Freed.
Martin Shackelford
pension (as a former government investigator). I hardly think his books
have been his sole source of income.
Where do you come up with these bizarre formulations?
Martin
joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3957E35B...@concentric.net>,
> Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> > Thanks to "JFK," Crossfire by Jim Marrs did well, too, as did High
> Treason
> > by Harrison Livingstone and Robert Groden, after a paperback reprint.
> But
> > that about exhausts the list.
>
> And the Whitewash series is just about Weisberg's sole source of
> income. Has been since about 1965. True?
>
> Maybe it hasn't made him rich, but he's clearly doing it for the money.
>
> >
> > Martin
> >
> > fit...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <20000625235041...@ng-fg1.aol.com>,
> > > ske...@aol.com (SKeat97) wrote:
> > > > >From: Excelle...@webtv.net (The Excellent Dude)
> > > >
> > > > Good post, dude, but be careful. Martin will get on your case for
> > > asserting
> > > > that anyone became "wealthy" by writing buff books. <g> But
> wealth is
> > > a
> > > > relative term, eh? Regards.
> > > >
> > > > Steve K.
> > > >
> > > I believe Mark Lane made a bundle on "Rush to Judgment>"
> > > His "Executive Action" also was made into a pretty fair movie.
> > > And, Lifton's "Best Evidence" was a best seller. Posener did ok,
> > > too, although not a CT.
> > >
> > > Fitz
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> >
> > --
> > Martin Shackelford
> >
> > "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> >
> > "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> >
> >
>
> --
> "We're really in nut country now, Toto."
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Shiloh Eliyah
The answer is obvious...
These bits of malicious, salicious, and perditious information
come from our old friends at --
The 'Drodian Fringe.
Shiloh
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:3959416B...@concentric.net...
Martin Shackelford
Martin
joez...@my-deja.com
In article <3959416B...@concentric.net>,
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> When he began JFK research, Weisberg was a chicken farmer with a
government
> pension (as a former government investigator). I hardly think his
books
> have been his sole source of income.
> Where do you come up with these bizarre formulations?
>
Mostly from Weisberg.
"Has Harold Weisberg's sole source of income since 1965 been
assassination-related books?"
CASE OPEN, by Weisberg, relates his experiences with raising chickens.
However, he also says, relating the time-frame of this chicken-raising
experience, that John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State (CASE OPEN,
pg x). Dulles was Secretary of State under Eisenhauer, in the 1950's,
according to ON THE TRAIL OF THE ASSASSINS, by Jim Garrison. He says he
became 'National Barbeque King' and won 1st and 3rd prizes in the whole
country for raising chickens.
Weisberg concludes that farming story in CASE OPEN by relating that
helicopter pilots ruined his busines by flying too close to the farm
(pg x).
Now, in THE SCAVENGERS AND CRITICS OF THE WARREN REPORT, by Schiller and
Lewis, published in 1967, they relate that Weisberg "had probably been
best known as the *1959* National Barbecuing Champion.' [p. 122] They
relate that "Low-flying helicopters, according to Weisberg, eventually
inhibited his flock of geese from reproducing. He sued and won a $750
settlement." [p.123]
They go on to quote Weisberg (p.123):
"I had to stop farming and I decided, 'Well, what do you do when you're
fifty and you have to change your life all over again?' he recalls. 'I
decided to go back to writing. WE WERE LIQUIDATING OUR FARM AT THE TIME
OF THE ASSASSINATION. I was as shocked as everybody else. ... Like
everybody else, I wondered: 'Was there a conspiracy? What kind of a
conspiracy?'... I told my wife two hours before he was killed: 'This
poor son of a bitch is gonna die. They have to close his mouth.' "
[empahsis added]
So, from Weisberg himself, we learn the following:
His farm was being liquidated and his bird-business already dead by
November 22, 1963. (Your point that Weisberg raised chickens for income
when he began his research is therefore false). Apparently so is your
claim that Weisberg was receiving a pension at 50, as Weisberg himself
admitted to no such income.
Weisberg himself admitted in 1967 he turned to writing as a source of
income. His books, to my knowledge, turned out since 1963 amount to 10 -
- one on the M.L.King assassination and 9 on the JFK assassination. All
written, as Weisberg admitted, for the money.
He also admitted he had already decided, by 9:20 on Sunday, 11/24/63 -
only 45 hours after the assassination - that there was a conspiracy of
some sort. And his books reflect that initial rush to judgment. He has
spent the last 30+ years attempting to validate that early decision
that there WAS a conspiracy (at a time when no evidence for one had
been uncovered), a decision which could not have been made on the basis
of the then available evidence.
He has spent the last 30 years raising false and misleading points
about the assassination. In nearly every point he has raised, he has
been proven wrong.
But thank you for bringing up Weisberg's farming. This allowed me the
opportunity to dispel the notion that Weisberg has earned any income
from farming since 1963. This also allowed me the opportunity to point
out that Weisberg himself admitted (in 1967) he turned to writing as a
source of income after the failure of the farm. Since that time, he has
written 10 books on assassinations.
How now, cash cow?
> > > --
> > > Martin Shackelford
> > >
> > > "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> > > cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> > > -Obi-Wan Kenobi
> > >
> > > "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > "We're really in nut country now, Toto."
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
>
> --
> Martin Shackelford
>
> "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> -Obi-Wan Kenobi
>
> "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
>
>
--
SKeat97
>
>Actually, to set the record straight - I DID approve UNTIL you came
>down on CT's and called them 'JFK fanatics'. Then my approval ceased
{...}
Of course the dude referred to them as fanatics. That is exactly the fringe of
the CTers he was referring to. And his post was right on.
Steve K.
SKeat97
>
>Don't give up so easily Aaron. Many books in this field have a mixture
>of good and bad information. Just have to separate the wheat from the
>chaff.
And just how does one do that, Martin? There is far too much chaff and
mis/disinfo out there after 36 years that the wheat can no longer be detected
or seen by most. I think advising anyone to read any or all of these buff books
will only tend to add to the confusion. Regards.
Steve K.
>
>Martin
>
fit...@my-deja.com
papakoc...@aol.com (PapaKochenbrot) wrote:
> >Subject: Re: The Truth Will Never Be Accepted
> >From: lazu...@webtv.net (Vern Pascal)
> >Date: 6/25/00 3:33 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <8255-39...@storefull-157.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
>
truth is
> in Bloody Treason & Deep Politics.....Jeff
>
IF IF the
> facts of the murder are examined....and all the nonsense is laid
aside.
>
> Walt
You're on to something, guys. Either you have a case of Oswald acting
alone and shooting the president or the biggest, most complex
conspiracy plot in the history of the world. But you've got to choose
which one.
The Excellent Dude
But at the very least non-experts or non- researchers should hold their
tongues instead of caustically calling researchers 'fanatics'.
-----------------------------------
So lonegunner2 isn't a fanatic? Hmmmmm?
-----------------------------------
droogoy wrote:
I find that a demeaning, ignorant put-down more worthy of a Posner than
a person supposedly trying to convey an 'objective' opinion,
----------------------------------
Wasn't it you droogoy, that posted a demeaning, ignorant put down of me
in the first place? I think you should practice what you preach.
But enough of this immature smack-talk and flame-throwing. We got off
on the wrong foot here. The point or question I was trying to get
across was this:
There is a plethora of theories surrounding the assassination; each with
their own sizable cult following, Even if the government came clean and
published the whole, true, and complete truth, how would we know if it
really was true? Too much doubt has been sewn to accept it. Wouldn't
there be those that would say "Just more misinformation from a corrupt
and lying government that is tying to confuse us and cover up the real
truth."? Then they would systematically dissect and destroy the truth.
I just don't know how the real truth could be presented so that the
general public would accept it. That's why I believe the truth will
never be accepted. There will always be doubters.
So even though I'm not an expert, I will continue to post my views and
opinions, The founding fathers gave me that right. And droogoy, if you
need to tear apart this post, feel free. The founding fathers gave you
that right too. But I will not get into a flame-throwing contest with
you again.
The Excellent Dude
dro...@my-deja.com
Excelle...@webtv.net (The Excellent Dude) wrote:
> But enough of this immature smack-talk and flame-throwing. We got off
> on the wrong foot here. The point or question I was trying to get
> across was this:
>
> There is a plethora of theories surrounding the assassination; each
with
> their own sizable cult following, Even if the government came clean
and
> published the whole, true, and complete truth, how would we know if it
> really was true? Too much doubt has been sewn to accept it. Wouldn't
> there be those that would say "Just more misinformation from a corrupt
> and lying government that is tying to confuse us and cover up the real
> truth."?
Thaty depends on the public perception of what exactly the government
is doing. Gaeton Fonzi ('The Last Investigation') notes correctly that
there still has not been a 'no holds barred' investigation that hasn't
been in some manner compromised. The public - at least those who read
these 'tomes', aren't impressed and never will be. Until and unless the
government 'comes clean' and at least allows a full throttle - fully
manned investigation. As Fonzi notes regarding the HSCA (p. 405):
"To prevent the American people from knowing the truth, the Committee
had to deliberately distort the conclusions in its final report. This
is the last investigation's deceptive legacy."
"So after all these years, ...what the Kennedy assassination stil
sorely needs is an investigation guided simply by the priority of
truth."
Not politics, not grand-standing, or using it to launch a new career.
Or gain more power.
The onus, then, is on the government's side - to demonstrate it *can*
conduct such an investigation. Uncompromised as the Warren and HSCA
investigations were.
>Then they would systematically dissect and destroy the truth.
That depends on whether the intent and purpose of said investigation
was to truly uncover the 'truth' - not play politics. And this is
understandable - again as Fonzi notes (ibid.):
"The Committee (HSCA) was simply afraid. Such a confrontation (with the
national security apparatus) would be too large, too elemental, too
risky to all the institutions of government that form the power
structure of the Washington establishment. And much too politically
risky."
And there we have it. So long as the would-be 'investigators' regard a
no-holds barred investigation as 'too politically risky' the people are
justified in their perception that the government doesn't really want
the truth out.
> I just don't know how the real truth could be presented so that the
> general public would accept it.
It's not so much 'presentation' - but initial inviestigation, in a no
holds barred manner, that has been the obstacle to success in
previous 'reports'.
> That's why I believe the truth will
> never be accepted. There will always be doubters.
I believe it would be accepted, IF it could also be seen that the
government or whatever investigative body it chooses - has exhausted
every possible resource in doing its job. But, it must be seen to go
all out, not half way, or one third way.
This we haven't seen yet, as Fonzi notes. All we have seen are enormous
tomes, but 'gutted' from the truth because their participants ab initio
lacked the cohones or honor to do the job. What was it one of the
Warren Commissioners said? "WHo cares? The American people don't read
anyway?"
> So even though I'm not an expert, I will continue to post my views and
> opinions, The founding fathers gave me that right. And droogoy, if
you
> need to tear apart this post, feel free.
I don't have any 'need' to tear them apart, but I have responded. Note
that the tone of your post here was imho different and higher standard,
so my own reflects that.
There is more than enough room here for a variety of views, provided
they are delivered with a modicum of respect. I try to adhere to that,
but admit that at certain times, certain content triggers
the 'flamethrower' in me. If I have upset you in any way, I do regret
it.
--
"The soft, the complacent, the self-satisfied societies, will be swept
away with the debris of History." - John F. Kennedy
Shiloh Eliyah
That's meadow muffins, Dude ---
Anybody in their right mind knows that there never was a
Lee Harvey Oswald, Lone Nut Extrodinaire. Everybody who
is anybody knows that.
And it doesn't necessarily got to be the biggest, most complex
conspiracy plot in the history of the world. It really doesn't. It's
just the best covered up conspiracy plot in the whole world.
As Ann-not-dumb-at-all-Archy would say,
Gummint ...
It's the gummint people ...
That's what it is...
Shiloh
<fit...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jddmr$kpt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Shiloh Eliyah
And this Posner idjit -- he wrote his book for what? Roses?
I beat him to the conclusion that there had been a conspiracy
by at least a day, 'cause I decided that on 11/22/63. And I told
my wife (at the time, which was three or four wives ago) "Next,
they're gonna kill Oswald." And they did, the next morning ---
And they did it on National Television, so everybody would
get the point --
Don't mess with the CIA. Don't mess with big oil. Don't mess
with the Military/Industrial complex. Don't mess with J. Edgar
(Lisa) Hoover. And don't try to get folks civil rights. And just
to make sure, before they shot him, they put out posters for him,
that said, "Wanted for Treason" 'cause they wanted him -- and
everybody else to know -- that's how they felt about him.
Weisberg had more integrity under the toenail of his left big
toe than the whole Warren Commission had in their whole sad,
sorry lives, and certainly more than McWhat'sHisPoint.
And, False Diamond ... you're just spreadin' it around again.
Meadow muffins, boy ... Meadow muffins!
Shiloh
<joez...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jd7fk$fc8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Shiloh Eliyah
Amen and amen.
But, there's jes' one li'l thing I think needs to be added...If the
government can't find the guts to hold a no-holds barred investigation
of JFK's assassination...then maybe the time has come to get a whole
new government.
Just vote *everybody* out of office...and if the new bunch doesn't
do it, vote them out, too.
Shiloh
<dro...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8jdv5g$39j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
PapaKochenbrot
>Date: 6/27/00 9:27 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <8jakk3$h40$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>"The soft, the complacent, the self-satisfied societies, will be swept
>away with the debris of History."- John F. Kennedy
WOW!! Did John Kennedy really say this?
Think about it.... That's pretty profound ..and EXACTLY where America is
headed today....
Walt
joez...@my-deja.com
"Shiloh Eliyah" <sel...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Uh ... Joe ... ?
>
> And this Posner idjit -- he wrote his book for what? Roses?
>
> I beat him to the conclusion that there had been a conspiracy
> by at least a day, 'cause I decided that on 11/22/63. And I told
> my wife (at the time, which was three or four wives ago) "Next,
> they're gonna kill Oswald." And they did, the next morning ---
> And they did it on National Television, so everybody would
> get the point --
Oswald wasn't killed the day after the assassination as your post
implies.
>
> Don't mess with the CIA. Don't mess with big oil. Don't mess
> with the Military/Industrial complex. Don't mess with J. Edgar
> (Lisa) Hoover. And don't try to get folks civil rights. And just
> to make sure, before they shot him, they put out posters for him,
> that said, "Wanted for Treason" 'cause they wanted him -- and
> everybody else to know -- that's how they felt about him.
>
> Weisberg had more integrity under the toenail of his left big
> toe than the whole Warren Commission had in their whole sad,
> sorry lives, and certainly more than McWhat'sHisPoint.
>
> And, False Diamond ... you're just spreadin' it around again.
>
> Meadow muffins, boy ... Meadow muffins!
>
All I did was quote Weisberg's statements in Case Open, and his
statements as quoted by Schiller and Lewis. If you have a problem with
that, you have a problem with Weisberg, not me. They're his statements,
not mine.
art guerrilla
joe zee irked-
(pathetic 'proof' that weisberg made a
penny or two from a lifetime of research
redacted)
you are so demonstrably a nit-picking
idjit who can't see the forest for the
trees or separate the wheat from the
chaff, that eye am hereby reclaiming
newsgruppe space by filtering your
cubic zirconia butt outta here...
thanks for your efforts, though; maybe
one day that brain cell will divide and
keep the other one company...
wave buh-bye...
buh-bye
ann cruelty-free archy
eof
joez...@my-deja.com
motivations for writing JFK assassination books? Why, might it upset
some of your deeply-held notions about Weisberg's sainthood?
Yes'm. Buh-bye.
Here it is again:
Mostly from Weisberg.
How now, cash cow?
In article <20000629092535...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
--
debhart
is ego impaired and not a talented writer, but he made a significant
contribution to this case.
At 85+ he's probably at least half-demented, but even in that state he
can no doubt run rings around jerkon.
As for whether Weisberg made money on his books, I certainly hope so.
Dr. Johnson said it best: only a fool writes but for money.
To that I'd add a corollary: only a fool takes "writing assignments"
but for money.
On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:39:03 GMT, joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
>So you don't care to read what Weisberg himself said about his
>motivations for writing JFK assassination books? Why, might it upset
>some of your deeply-held notions about Weisberg's sainthood?
>
>Yes'm. Buh-bye.
>
>Here it is again:
>
>In article <20000629092535...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
> digde...@aol.comoc.loa (art guerrilla) wrote:
>>
>> joe zee irked-
>>
>> (pathetic 'proof' that weisberg made a
>> penny or two from a lifetime of research
>> redacted)
>>
>> you are so demonstrably a nit-picking
>> idjit who can't see the forest for the
>> trees or separate the wheat from the
>> chaff, that eye am hereby reclaiming
>> newsgruppe space by filtering your
>> cubic zirconia butt outta here...
>>
>> thanks for your efforts, though; maybe
>> one day that brain cell will divide and
>> keep the other one company...
>>
>> wave buh-bye...
>> buh-bye
>>
>> ann cruelty-free archy
>>
>> eof
>>
>>
>
tomnln
Neuther are what you would call "Demented".
Perhaps if you took the time (appreciation) to speak with them, you too
would know this.
"debhart" <debhar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:395b8135....@news.earthlink.net...
> Weisberg wrote one very important book, "Oswald in New Orleans". He
> is ego impaired and not a talented writer, but he made a significant
> contribution to this case.
>
> At 85+ he's probably at least half-demented, but even in that state he
> can no doubt run rings around jerkon.
>
> As for whether Weisberg made money on his books, I certainly hope so.
>
> Dr. Johnson said it best: only a fool writes but for money.
>
> To that I'd add a corollary: only a fool takes "writing assignments"
> but for money.
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:39:03 GMT, joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >So you don't care to read what Weisberg himself said about his
> >motivations for writing JFK assassination books? Why, might it upset
> >some of your deeply-held notions about Weisberg's sainthood?
> >
> >Yes'm. Buh-bye.
> >
> >Here it is again:
> >
> >In article <20000629092535...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
> > digde...@aol.comoc.loa (art guerrilla) wrote:
> >>
> >> joe zee irked-
> >>
> >> (pathetic 'proof' that weisberg made a
> >> penny or two from a lifetime of research
> >> redacted)
> >>
> >> you are so demonstrably a nit-picking
> >> idjit who can't see the forest for the
> >> trees or separate the wheat from the
> >> chaff, that eye am hereby reclaiming
> >> newsgruppe space by filtering your
> >> cubic zirconia butt outta here...
> >>
> >> thanks for your efforts, though; maybe
> >> one day that brain cell will divide and
> >> keep the other one company...
> >>
> >> wave buh-bye...
> >> buh-bye
> >>
> >> ann cruelty-free archy
> >>
> >> eof
> >>
> >>
> >
Dave Reitzes
>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
>Date: 6/14/00 1:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <394719f7....@news.earthlink.net>
>
>I didn't write this quote, so why have you implied that I did?
>
>On 14 Jun 2000 03:04:27 GMT, papakoc...@aol.com (PapaKochenbrot)
>wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Lee Harvey Oswald and Nick McDonald
>>>From: debhar...@yahoo.com (Debra Hartman)
>>>Date: 6/13/00 10:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>>Message-id: <39466828....@news.earthlink.net>
>>
>>>>Thanks, Gene. But unfortunately, you're not up to speed on this.
>>
>>Hey Hanky... Gene is more abreast of the evidence in this case than you
>>are...You're stuck in the SBT groove and just keep playing the same old
>refrain
>>again and again.
>>
>>Walt
duquesne
You forgot to mention "The Smear".
Funny, you also forgot to reply to this:
http://www.webcom.com/~ctka/LetJusticeBeDone/rebuttal.htm
Eh, Patricia?
gene
Martin Shackelford
Why would you suggest I consider Weisberg a saint? That's idiotic. He's
honest, but with a reputation for being irrascible. He was open enough
to offer Posner the use of his files, but Posner declined the offer.
Repeating your post a second time does nothing to strengthen your
argument.
Martin
Martin Shackelford
several years ago, in which he acknowledged an award being presented to him.
Martin
tomnln wrote:
--
dro...@my-deja.com
debhar...@yahoo.com (debhart) wrote:
> As for whether Weisberg made money on his books, I certainly hope so.
>
> Dr. Johnson said it best: only a fool writes but for money.
Actually, many academic have no choice but to write- and often for
little or no money. Writing books easily beats having to publish dozens
of papers each year (as part of the 'publish or perish' academic
requirement) and 2 books - like at Johns Hopkins Univ- can usually be
equated to half dozen papers in a scholastic journal.
A typical academic book, i.e. remaindered, usually has sold fewer than
500 copies and made very little for its author.
This shows there are other reasons apart from money, i.e. academic
reputation, for which a person would write.
> To that I'd add a corollary: only a fool takes "writing assignments"
> but for money.
Well, I'm glad you clarified that with 'assignments'. Many of us,
however, write for the sheer love of it (including ng posts). Or to
impart information, knowledge to others. We don't have to have our
palms greased to deem it worthwhile.
Others are in the process of honing their craft, as in writing novels,
or short stories. This you have to do first *without* remuneration- to
get your standard to the point it will merit (decent) remuneration
tomorrow.
Btw, the guy that wrote the FAQ for this ng rec'd no pay, as I am
certain applies to most FAQ writers across usenet.
--
"The soft, the complacent, the self-satisfied societies, will be swept
away with the debris of History." - John F. Kennedy
joez...@my-deja.com
ME? An off the cuff 'propagandist' definition would be someone who
bends the truth to serve their own purposes. Let's examine our
respective claims.
> Why would you suggest I consider Weisberg a saint? That's idiotic.
Yes it would, especially since I did no such thing. The post alluding
to sainthood was not addressed to you, but to 'Art Guerilla", whomever
that may be. So claiming I suggested *you* consider Weisberg a saint is
yet another false claim you have made, Martin.
(Earlier, you alluded to Weisberg's income from his chicken farming and
pension. We discovered, from examining Weisberg's own words, that he
made no such claims, in fact he said his farm was being liquidated at
the time of the assassination). He also said he was looking around for
something to do at fifty (as a source of income is implied). He never
mentioned a pension. Now, while you may believe you know more about
Weisberg's finances in 1963 than he does, I doubt you do. So I trust
Weisberg on this, not you. And he claimed the farm was being
liquidated. You said he was a chicken farmer when he bagan his
research. Sorry, Weisberg's claims in this regard take precedence over
yours).
> He's
> honest, but with a reputation for being irrascible. He was open enough
> to offer Posner the use of his files, but Posner declined the offer.
Side issue. The issue was who made money on their books. You named a
few, I added Weisberg's name. You took issue. Remember? I fail to see
what the above has to do with the issue under debate. I find people
attempt to chance the subject when they perceive they are losing the
debate on the current issue. Why bring this up Martin? Feel you are
losing on the Weisberg income issue?
PS: To date, you haven't presented one iota of evidence to back up
either claim you made concerning Weisberg's income from chicken farming
and pension at the time he began his JFK research. I've provided quotes
from Weisberg discussing his finances, statements that are
diametrically opposed to what you claim is true about Weisberg's
finances. Should we disbelieve Weisberg, and simply believe you,
concerning Weisberg's finances?
> Repeating your post a second time does nothing to strengthen your
> argument.
>
Hello? My argument was that you didn't know what you were talking about
when you objected to my adding Weisberg to the list of those who made
money on their JFK books, and when you claimed Weisberg was a chicken
farmer wth a gov pension when he began his research into the JFK
assassination. Weisberg, too, from the quotes I could find, says you
were wrong. That's good enough for me. Maybe not for you.
Here's what we first wrote on the subject, and what you took issue to:
You:
>>> Thanks to "JFK," Crossfire by Jim Marrs did well, too, as did High
>>> Treason by Harrison Livingstone and Robert Groden, after a
>>> paperback reprint. But that about exhausts the list.
Me:
>> And the Whitewash series is just about Weisberg's sole source of
>> income. Has been since about 1965. True?
>> Maybe it hasn't made him rich, but he's clearly doing it for the
>> money.
Then you:
> When he began JFK research, Weisberg was a chicken farmer with a
> government pension (as a former government investigator). I hardly
> think his books have been his sole source of income.
> Where do you come up with these bizarre formulations?
Now that you've had a chance to read Weisberg's actual statements
concerning his chicken farming and sources of income, would you care to
retract or re-write anything above? Weisberg himself proves your
statements above are not in conformance with objective reality, Martin.
In other words, Martin, you should take your own signoff more to
heart: "you must unlearn what you have learned".
> Martin
joez...@my-deja.com
> is ego impaired and not a talented writer, but he made a significant
> contribution to this case.
>
> At 85+ he's probably at least half-demented, but even in that state he
> can no doubt run rings around jerkon.
>
>
> Dr. Johnson said it best: only a fool writes but for money.
>
> but for money.
Thank you, Deb. Yes, that's my point exactly. Weisberg wrote the books
for the money. Martin took exception to that. You should tell him, not
me.
>
> On Thu, 29 Jun 2000 14:39:03 GMT, joez...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >So you don't care to read what Weisberg himself said about his
> >motivations for writing JFK assassination books? Why, might it upset
> >some of your deeply-held notions about Weisberg's sainthood?
> >
> >Yes'm. Buh-bye.
> >
> >Here it is again:
> >
> >In article <20000629092535...@ng-fq1.aol.com>,
> > digde...@aol.comoc.loa (art guerrilla) wrote:
> >>
> >> joe zee irked-
> >>
> >> (pathetic 'proof' that weisberg made a
> >> penny or two from a lifetime of research
> >> redacted)
> >>
> >> you are so demonstrably a nit-picking
> >> idjit who can't see the forest for the
> >> trees or separate the wheat from the
> >> chaff, that eye am hereby reclaiming
> >> newsgruppe space by filtering your
> >> cubic zirconia butt outta here...
> >>
> >> thanks for your efforts, though; maybe
> >> one day that brain cell will divide and
> >> keep the other one company...
> >>
> >> wave buh-bye...
> >> buh-bye
> >>
> >> ann cruelty-free archy
> >>
> >> eof
> >>
> >>
> >
joez...@my-deja.com
dro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <395b8135....@news.earthlink.net>,
> debhar...@yahoo.com (debhart) wrote:
>
> > As for whether Weisberg made money on his books, I certainly hope
so.
> >
> > Dr. Johnson said it best: only a fool writes but for money.
>
> little or no money. Writing books easily beats having to publish
dozens
> of papers each year (as part of the 'publish or perish' academic
> requirement) and 2 books - like at Johns Hopkins Univ- can usually be
> equated to half dozen papers in a scholastic journal.
>
> A typical academic book, i.e. remaindered, usually has sold fewer than
> 500 copies and made very little for its author.
>
> This shows there are other reasons apart from money, i.e. academic
> reputation, for which a person would write.
Yes, but Weisberg clearly doesn't fall into that category.
>
> > To that I'd add a corollary: only a fool takes "writing assignments"
> > but for money.
>
> Well, I'm glad you clarified that with 'assignments'. Many of us,
> however, write for the sheer love of it (including ng posts). Or to
> impart information, knowledge to others. We don't have to have our
> palms greased to deem it worthwhile.
>
Correctomundo.
> Others are in the process of honing their craft, as in writing novels,
> or short stories. This you have to do first *without* remuneration- to
> get your standard to the point it will merit (decent) remuneration
> tomorrow.
>
> Btw, the guy that wrote the FAQ for this ng rec'd no pay, as I am
> certain applies to most FAQ writers across usenet.
>
> --
> "The soft, the complacent, the self-satisfied societies, will be swept
> away with the debris of History." - John F. Kennedy
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
joez...@my-deja.com
> honest, but with a reputation for being irrascible. He was open enough
> to offer Posner the use of his files, but Posner declined the offer.
> argument.
Ask Weisberg when he gave the aerial map depicted below to the NO DA
office.
http://jfksouth.tripod.com/sig.jpg
It bears a date of 4/66, but Garrison's professed interest in the JFK
assassination didn't happen until later, from what I recall.
Does this date mean Garrison was lying about the Russell Long
conversation sparking his interest? It certainly makes a better story,
but if the date of 4/66 is accurate, and the NODA office was dealing
with Weisberg then, then it was Weisberg's books that sparked
Garrison's interest, not the purported later plane conversation.
What does Weisberg say about the map above?
>
> Martin
Bob Livingstone
http://www.aboveworld.com/people/integrity/legacy.htm
and this is the truth that JFK Jr.'s murderers did not want to
acknowledge:
http://normajean.8m.com/truth.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Bob Livingstone
Bob Livingstone
http://www.aboveworld.com/people/integrity/legacy.htm
and this is the truth that JFK Jr.'s murderers did not want to
acknowledge:
http://normajean.8m.com/truth.htm
most competent researchers understand these basic facts
Bob Livingstone
http://www.aboveworld.com/people/integrity/legacy.htm
and this is the truth that JFK Jr.'s murderers did not want to
acknowledge:
http://normajean.8m.com/truth.htm
the Kennedy assassination is the most transparent secret in
world history
Martin Shackelford
I don't know Weisberg personally, and am not in contact with him.
If you want to ask him a question, feel free.
As for the 4/66 map, maybe Garrison had an interest in the case,
but hadn't yet begun investigating it. Maybe someone ELSE received it on
4/66, and later gave it to Garrison (this seems possible if Gurvich
signed it, and didn't join the investigation until December 1966, for
example).
joez...@my-deja.com
Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote:
> Joe:
>
> I don't know Weisberg personally, and am not in contact with
him.
Yet you jumped in to defend him without knowing any of the specifics
concerning his farming, his income, and his motives for writing his
books. I had to enlighten you on all those points by quoting Weisberg's
own words back to you. Remember?
Weisberg's own words.
> If you want to ask him a question, feel free.
> As for the 4/66 map, maybe Garrison had an interest in the case,
> but hadn't yet begun investigating it. Maybe someone ELSE received it
on
> 4/66, and later gave it to Garrison (this seems possible if Gurvich
> signed it, and didn't join the investigation until December 1966, for
> example).
>
> Martin
> --
> Martin Shackelford
>
> "You're going to find that many of the truths we
> cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."
> -Obi-Wan Kenobi
>
> "You must unlearn what you have learned." --Yoda
>
>
--
joez...@my-deja.com
"tomnln" <tom...@home.com> wrote:
> I personally speak with Harold & Lil on a regular basis.
>
> Neuther are what you would call "Demented".
Could you ask Weisberg when he gave the aerial map depicted below to
the NO DA office, if he in fact did?
It bears a date of 4/66, but Garrison's professed interest in the JFK
assassination didn't happen until later, from what I recall.
Does this date mean Garrison was lying about the Russell Long
conversation sparking his interest? It certainly makes a better story,
but if the date of 4/66 is accurate, and the NODA office was dealing
with Weisberg then, then it was Weisberg's books that sparked
Garrison's interest, not the purported later plane conversation.
What does Weisberg say about the map above?
>
> Perhaps if you took the time (appreciation) to speak with them, you
too
> would know this.
>
--
tomnln
Ask him yourself.
If your caim of expertise is true.. you should have already been in contact
with Harold & Lil Weisberg.
--
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
<joez...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8kg1ao$6o3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <YGM65.8317$7W2....@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com>,
> "tomnln" <tom...@home.com> wrote:
> > I personally speak with Harold & Lil on a regular basis.
> >
> > Neuther are what you would call "Demented".
>
> Could you ask Weisberg when he gave the aerial map depicted below to
> the NO DA office, if he in fact did?
>
> http://jfksouth.tripod.com
>
> It bears a date of 4/66, but Garrison's professed interest in the JFK
> assassination didn't happen until later, from what I recall.
>
> Does this date mean Garrison was lying about the Russell Long
> conversation sparking his interest? It certainly makes a better story,
> but if the date of 4/66 is accurate, and the NODA office was dealing
> with Weisberg then, then it was Weisberg's books that sparked
> Garrison's interest, not the purported later plane conversation.
>
> What does Weisberg say about the map above?
>
>
>
> >
> > Perhaps if you took the time (appreciation) to speak with them, you
> too
> > would know this.
> >
>
joez...@my-deja.com
"tomnln" <tom...@home.com> wrote:
> WITHOUT DIPLOMATIC VENACULAR...
>
> Ask him yourself.
>
> If your caim of expertise is true.. you should have already been in
contact
> with Harold & Lil Weisberg.
Thanks, I knew I could count on you!
While you're at it, ask him what he thinks of Garrison. Is it true he
said, "As an investigator, Garrison couldn't find a pubic hair in a
whore house" ?
And did he mean he thought Garrison's prosecution of Shaw was wrong-
headed and wrong?
Thanks again.
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Click here for Free Video!!
> http://www.gohip.com/free_video/
>
> <joez...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8kg1ao$6o3
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <YGM65.8317$7W2....@news1.wwck1.ri.home.com>,
> > "tomnln" <tom...@home.com> wrote:
> > > I personally speak with Harold & Lil on a regular basis.
> > >
> > > Neuther are what you would call "Demented".
> >
> > Could you ask Weisberg when he gave the aerial map depicted below to
> > the NO DA office, if he in fact did?
> >
> > http://jfksouth.tripod.com
> >
> > It bears a date of 4/66, but Garrison's professed interest in the
JFK
> > assassination didn't happen until later, from what I recall.
> >
> > Does this date mean Garrison was lying about the Russell Long
> > conversation sparking his interest? It certainly makes a better
story,
> > but if the date of 4/66 is accurate, and the NODA office was dealing
> > with Weisberg then, then it was Weisberg's books that sparked
> > Garrison's interest, not the purported later plane conversation.
> >
> > What does Weisberg say about the map above?
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Perhaps if you took the time (appreciation) to speak with them,
you
> > too
> > > would know this.
> > >
> >