Charles Baxter's answers to my questions

[F. Carlier]

Hello everybody,

In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I sent to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Perry, asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly replied.
I copied/pasted Doctor Baxter's answers on my blog.

See:
http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.fr/

I think it is interesting.
As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, I have scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to copy the image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.
I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles Crenshaw's claims, and also what he thinks of David Lifton's work.
I would also like to underline what Baxter says of Gerald Posner. Let me quote : "Posner did a most thorough job. […] Posner is truly a scholar who, to my mind, is the one person who did a thorough job of collecting facts".
Charles Baxter also wrote (I quote) : "As long as there's money to be made, the conspiracy will continue"…"
Next time I'll write an article about what can be learned from my documents.

My best regards,

/François Carlier/

[Ben Holmes]

In article <1edfdf98-d89c-43aa...@googlegroups.com>, F. Carlier
says...
>
>Hello everybody,
>
>In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I sent=
> to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Perry,=
> asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly replied=

>.
>I copied/pasted Doctor Baxter's answers on my blog.
>
>See:
>http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.fr/
>
>I think it is interesting.

>As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, I h=
>ave scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to copy t=

>he image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.

>I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles Cr=
>enshaw's claims,


I find it interesting that everyone here *knows* better, even if no-one
will say anything. It's a provable FACT that Crenshaw was in the trauma
room.

>and also what he thinks of David Lifton's work.

>I would also like to underline what Baxter says of Gerald Posner. Let me qu=
>ote : "Posner did a most thorough job. [=85] Posner is truly a scholar who,=

> to my mind, is the one person who did a thorough job of collecting facts".

>Charles Baxter also wrote (I quote) : "As long as there's money to be made,=
> the conspiracy will continue"=85"
>Next time I'll write an article about what can be learned from my documents=
>.
>
>My best regards,
>
>/Fran=E7ois Carlier/
>


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[Bud]

On Jun 19, 9:27 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <1edfdf98-d89c-43aa...@googlegroups.com>, F. Carlier
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Hello everybody,
>
> >In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I sent=
> > to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Perry,=
> > asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly replied=
> >.
> >I copied/pasted Doctor Baxter's answers on my blog.
>
> >See:
> >http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.fr/
>
> >I think it is interesting.
> >As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, I h=
> >ave scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to copy t=
> >he image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.
> >I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles Cr=
> >enshaw's claims,
>
> I find it interesting that everyone here *knows* better, even if no-one
> will say anything. It's a provable FACT that Crenshaw was in the trauma
> room.

CTers are often forced to call the witnesses liars when what they
relate doesn`t support their faith.

[Herbert Blenner]

On Jun 19, 10:03 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> On Jun 19, 9:27 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <1edfdf98-d89c-43aa...@googlegroups.com>, F. Carlier
> > says...
>
> > >Hello everybody,
>
> > >In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I sent=
> > > to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Perry,=
> > > asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly replied=
> > >.
> > >I copied/pasted Doctor Baxter's answers on my blog.
>
> > >See:
> > >http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.fr/
>
> > >I think it is interesting.
> > >As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, I h=
> > >ave scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to copy t=
> > >he image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.
> > >I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles Cr=
> > >enshaw's claims,
>
> > I find it interesting that everyone here *knows* better, even if no-one
> > will say anything. It's a provable FACT that Crenshaw was in the trauma
> > room.
>
>   CTers are often forced to call the witnesses liars when what they
> relate doesn`t support their faith.

Mr. SPECTER. Can you identify any other doctors who were there at that
time?
Dr. BAXTER. Oh, let’s see-I’m not sure whether the others came before
or after I did. There was Crenshaw, Peters, and Kemp Clark, Dr.
Bashour finally came. I believe Jackie Hunt-yes-she was, I believe she
was the anesthesiologist who came.

Although Dr. Baxter was uncertain whether Crenshaw was in the room or
arrived later, the testimony places Crenshaw in the emergency room.

Dr. Don Curtis corroborated the testimony of Dr. Baxter.

Mr. SPECTER. What other doctors were present there at that time?
Dr. CURTIS. I know that Dr. Perry was there and I know Dr. Baxter was
there, and then I recall Dr. Jenkins from the Anesthesia Department,
and Dr. Seldin, Dr. Crenshaw, and that’s about all the doctors-I could
think of others probably, but I can’t remember now.

The testimony of Dr. McClelland is further evidence that Dr. Crenshaw
was in the emergency room.

Mr. SPECTER. And what action, if any, did you take following that
notification?
Dr. MCCLELLAND. Immediately upon hearing that, I accompanied the
Resident, Dr. Crenshaw, who brought this news to me, to the emergency
room, and down to the trauma room 1 where President Kennedy had been
taken immediately upon arrival.

Crenshaw was among these doctors that Dr. Kenneth Salyer remembered as
being present in the emergency room.

Mr. SPECTER. And, upon your arrival at the emergency room, who was
present?
Dr. SALYER. Oh, I don’t recall - I know that there were a room full of
doctors - I could list specific ones that I remember if you would
like.
SPECTER. Would you please?
Dr. SALYER. I don’t really think I could give you every one, but I
remember Dr. Jenkins and Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter, and also Dr. Bob
McClelland and Dr. Carrico and Dr. Crenshaw, and I think a Dr. Gene
Akin was there also at that time, when I first came in.

Herbert

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/19/2012 10:03 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Jun 19, 9:27 pm, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article<1edfdf98-d89c-43aa...@googlegroups.com>, F. Carlier
>> says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Hello everybody,
>>
>>> In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I sent=
>>> to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Perry,=
>>> asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly replied=
>>> .
>>> I copied/pasted Doctor Baxter's answers on my blog.
>>
>>> See:
>>> http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.fr/
>>
>>> I think it is interesting.
>>> As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, I h=
>>> ave scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to copy t=
>>> he image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.
>>> I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles Cr=
>>> enshaw's claims,
>>
>> I find it interesting that everyone here *knows* better, even if no-one
>> will say anything. It's a provable FACT that Crenshaw was in the trauma
>> room.
>
> CTers are often forced to call the witnesses liars when what they
> relate doesn`t support their faith.
>

WC defenders automatically call witnesses liars whenever they say
anything indicating conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/19/2012 9:27 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article<1edfdf98-d89c-43aa...@googlegroups.com>, F. Carlier
> says...
>>
>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I sent=
>> to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Perry,=
>> asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly replied=
>> .
>> I copied/pasted Doctor Baxter's answers on my blog.
>>
>> See:
>> http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.fr/
>>
>> I think it is interesting.
>> As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, I h=
>> ave scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to copy t=
>> he image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.
>> I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles Cr=
>> enshaw's claims,
>
>
> I find it interesting that everyone here *knows* better, even if no-one
> will say anything. It's a provable FACT that Crenshaw was in the trauma
> room.

Does he really have to prove it in court when there is sworn testimony
that he was there? Oh, and BTW he did and Humes, Boswell and Company
paid him big bucks for the libel.
WC defenders always engage in libel because they don't have any facts.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 8:35:01 PM UTC-7, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/19/2012 9:27 PM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > In article<1edfdf98-d89c-43aa...@googlegroups.com>, F. Carlier
> > says...
> >>
> >> Hello everybody,
> >>
> >> In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I sent=
> >> to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Perry,=
> >> asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly replied=
> >> .
> >> I copied/pasted Doctor Baxter's answers on my blog.
> >>
> >> See:
> >> http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.fr/
> >>
> >> I think it is interesting.
> >> As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, I h=
> >> ave scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to copy t=
> >> he image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.
> >> I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles Cr=
> >> enshaw's claims,
> >
> >
> > I find it interesting that everyone here *knows* better, even if no-one
> > will say anything. It's a provable FACT that Crenshaw was in the trauma
> > room.
>
> Does he really have to prove it in court when there is sworn testimony
> that he was there? Oh, and BTW he did and Humes, Boswell and Company
> paid him big bucks for the libel.

What? Humes and Boswell were not involved in that case. JAMA was the loser, not the Parkland staff.

[F. Carlier]

Hello everybody,

I think you are all missing something.
I, for one, do not deny for a minute that Docteur Crenshaw was in Trauma Room one at some point.
That's agreed.
But then again, being present in a room for a short time without anything special to make is one thing. Painting a huge conspiracy out of whole cloth and pretending you had an important role when you didn't is another !!

In 1997, while replying to my letter Charles Baxter couldn't remember precisely whether Crenshaw had been there that day (34 years earlier), that's why he replied "NO" to my question whether he (Baxter) could state that Crenshaw was there. No, he could not state it for a fact, but that does not mean Crenshaw may not have been there.

As to Crenshaw's claims (a big conspiracy, JFK's body altered, wounds that no one else saw, etc...), Charles Baxter is very adamant in one word : "fabricated".

And I certainly agree with him on that point !

/François Carlier/

[Ben Holmes]

In article <6ecd26e0-56b0-419c...@googlegroups.com>, F. Carlier
says...
>
>Le mardi 19 juin 2012 22:55:14 UTC+2, F. Carlier a =E9crit=A0:
>> Hello everybody,
>>=20
>> In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I se=
>nt to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Perr=
>y, asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly repli=

>ed.
>> I copied/pasted Doctor Baxter's answers on my blog.

>>=20
>> See:
>> http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.fr/
>>=20

>> I think it is interesting.

>> As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, I=
> have scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to copy=

> the image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.

>> I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles =

>Crenshaw's claims, and also what he thinks of David Lifton's work.

>> I would also like to underline what Baxter says of Gerald Posner. Let me =
>quote : "Posner did a most thorough job. [=85] Posner is truly a scholar wh=
>o, to my mind, is the one person who did a thorough job of collecting facts=
>".
>> Charles Baxter also wrote (I quote) : "As long as there's money to be mad=
>e, the conspiracy will continue"=85"
>> Next time I'll write an article about what can be learned from my documen=
>ts.
>>=20
>> My best regards,
>>=20
>> /Fran=E7ois Carlier/

>
>Hello everybody,
>
>I think you are all missing something.

>I, for one, do not deny for a minute that Docteur Crenshaw was in Trauma Ro=

>om one at some point.
>That's agreed.

>But then again, being present in a room for a short time without anything s=
>pecial to make is one thing. Painting a huge conspiracy out of whole cloth =

>and pretending you had an important role when you didn't is another !!
>

>In 1997, while replying to my letter Charles Baxter couldn't remember preci=
>sely whether Crenshaw had been there that day (34 years earlier), that's wh=
>y he replied "NO" to my question whether he (Baxter) could state that Crens=
>haw was there. No, he could not state it for a fact, but that does not mean=

> Crenshaw may not have been there.
>

>As to Crenshaw's claims (a big conspiracy, JFK's body altered, wounds that =
>no one else saw, etc...), Charles Baxter is very adamant in one word : "fab=

>ricated".
>
>And I certainly agree with him on that point !
>

>/Fran=E7ois Carlier/


I invite everyone to read my response in the open forum.

It's unfortunate that I can't post it here.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <ca14445e-9a95-447d...@v33g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...
>
>On Jun 19, 9:27=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <1edfdf98-d89c-43aa...@googlegroups.com>, F. Ca=
>rlier
>> says...
>>
>> >Hello everybody,
>>
>> >In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I s=
>ent=3D
>> > to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Per=
>ry,=3D
>> > asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly repl=
>ied=3D

>> >.
>> >I copied/pasted Doctor Baxter's answers on my blog.
>>
>> >See:
>> >http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.fr/
>>
>> >I think it is interesting.

>> >As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, =
>I h=3D
>> >ave scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to cop=
>y t=3D

>> >he image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.

>> >I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles=
> Cr=3D

>> >enshaw's claims,
>>
>> I find it interesting that everyone here *knows* better, even if no-one
>> will say anything. It's a provable FACT that Crenshaw was in the trauma
>> room.
>
> CTers are often forced to call the witnesses liars when what they
>relate doesn`t support their faith.

Baxter calls *HIMSELF* a liar when he contradicts his earliest testimony.

"Faith" isn't involved at all.



It's *STILL* a provable fact that Crenshaw was in the trauma room treating
JFK.


Whether you wish to admit it or not...

>> >and also what he thinks of David Lifton's work.

>> >I would also like to underline what Baxter says of Gerald Posner. Let me=
> qu=3D
>> >ote : "Posner did a most thorough job. [=3D85] Posner is truly a scholar=
> who,=3D
>> > to my mind, is the one person who did a thorough job of collecting fact=
>s".
>> >Charles Baxter also wrote (I quote) : "As long as there's money to be ma=
>de,=3D
>> > the conspiracy will continue"=3D85"
>> >Next time I'll write an article about what can be learned from my docume=
>nts=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >My best regards,
>>
>> >/Fran=3DE7ois Carlier/

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/20/2012 10:01 AM, F. Carlier wrote:
> Le mardi 19 juin 2012 22:55:14 UTC+2, F. Carlier a ?crit :

>> Hello everybody,
>>
>> In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I sent to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Perry, asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly replied.
>> I copied/pasted Doctor Baxter's answers on my blog.
>>
>> See:
>> http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.fr/
>>
>> I think it is interesting.
>> As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, I have scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to copy the image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.
>> I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles Crenshaw's claims, and also what he thinks of David Lifton's work.

>> I would also like to underline what Baxter says of Gerald Posner. Let me quote : "Posner did a most thorough job. [?] Posner is truly a scholar who, to my mind, is the one person who did a thorough job of collecting facts".
>> Charles Baxter also wrote (I quote) : "As long as there's money to be made, the conspiracy will continue"?"

>> Next time I'll write an article about what can be learned from my documents.
>>
>> My best regards,
>>

>> /Fran?ois Carlier/

>
> Hello everybody,
>
> I think you are all missing something.
> I, for one, do not deny for a minute that Docteur Crenshaw was in Trauma Room one at some point.
> That's agreed.
> But then again, being present in a room for a short time without anything special to make is one thing. Painting a huge conspiracy out of whole cloth and pretending you had an important role when you didn't is another !!
>

What is your goal in making false charges about that Crenshaw did or
claimed to have done? Which side does that serve? Whose side are you on?
Crenshaw never claimed that he took a major role. He describes what he
witnessed, which he was forbidden from doing for many years by the
cover-up. I understand that it makes you personally uncomfortable to see
the cover-up unravel right before your very eyes, but it is a natural
process that happens in any conspiracy. I can imagine how the conservative
Republicans here felt when they started hearing the Watergate tapes for
themselves.

> In 1997, while replying to my letter Charles Baxter couldn't remember precisely whether Crenshaw had been there that day (34 years earlier), that's why he replied "NO" to my question whether he (Baxter) could state that Crenshaw was there. No, he could not state it for a fact, but that does not mean Crenshaw may not have been there.
>

Are you aware that Baxter admitted on tape that he gathered all the
Parkland personell into a room and personally threatened to destroy their
careers if any of them broke their silence about the JFK case? Maybe you
are, but maybe you approve of such Fascist tactics given your background.

> As to Crenshaw's claims (a big conspiracy, JFK's body altered, wounds that no one else saw, etc...), Charles Baxter is very adamant in one word : "fabricated".
>

That does not come from what he witnessed but from all the books he's read.

> And I certainly agree with him on that point !
>

> /Fran?ois Carlier/
>

[Anthony Marsh]

What? You are interjecting to agree with me just to be pretending to
correct me? What type of tactic is that?

[Ben Holmes]

In article <4fe1fa83$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

This is a perfect example of why you can't get the truth in a censored
forum.

>>> WC defenders always engage in libel because they don't have any facts.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and also what he thinks of David Lifton's work.
>>>>>I would also like to underline what Baxter says of Gerald Posner. Let me qu=
>>>>>ote : "Posner did a most thorough job. [=85] Posner is truly a scholar who,=
>>>>> to my mind, is the one person who did a thorough job of collecting facts".
>>>>>Charles Baxter also wrote (I quote) : "As long as there's money to be made,=
>>>>> the conspiracy will continue"=85"
>>>>>Next time I'll write an article about what can be learned from my documents=
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>>> My best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> /Fran=E7ois Carlier/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[pjsp...@aol.com]

What tactic? I was simply pointing out should anyone who gives a darn be
reading that Humes and Boswell had no involvement in the case, and did not
pay Crenshaw "big bucks" or even one buck.


> >>>> /Fran=E7ois Carlier/

[Anthony Marsh]

The case arose because of the libel by Humes and Boswell that JAMA
published.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <4fe37b36$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, Anthony Marsh says...

You claim that "Humes & Boswell and Company paid him big bucks".

Can you name the figure that was paid, and *cite* for who was required to
pay it?

Can you explain why Humes & Boswell would have said *anything at all*
about Crenshaw's presence in the trauma room?

>>>>>>> /Fran=E7ois Carlier/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> WC defenders always engage in libel because they don't have any facts.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and also what he thinks of David Lifton's work.
>>>>>>>I would also like to underline what Baxter says of Gerald Posner. Let me qu=
>>>>>>>ote : "Posner did a most thorough job. [=85] Posner is truly a scholar who,=
>>>>>>>to my mind, is the one person who did a thorough job of collecting facts".
>>>>>>>Charles Baxter also wrote (I quote) : "As long as there's money to be made,=
>>>>>>> the conspiracy will continue"=85"
>>>>>>>Next time I'll write an article about what can be learned from my documents=
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>
>
>

[John McAdams]

On 19 Jun 2012 21:27:04 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>In article <1edfdf98-d89c-43aa...@googlegroups.com>, F. Carlier
>says...
>>
>>Hello everybody,
>>
>>In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I sent=
>> to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Perry,=
>> asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly replied=
>>.
>>I copied/pasted Doctor Baxter's answers on my blog.
>>
>>See:
>>http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.fr/
>>
>>I think it is interesting.
>>As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, I h=
>>ave scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to copy t=
>>he image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.
>>I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles Cr=
>>enshaw's claims,
>
>
>I find it interesting that everyone here *knows* better, even if no-one
>will say anything. It's a provable FACT that Crenshaw was in the trauma
>room.
>

There is no doubt he was in the ER, but there is also no doubt that
he's grossly unreliable:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 20 Jun 2012 10:01:25 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
wrote:

It's worth pointing out that JAMA merely paid to make a nuisance
lawsuit go away.

Crenshaw could have never won in court.

Crenshaw was a "public figure," and under the SULLIVAN decision, it
would have been virtually impossible for him to win a judgment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan

It's the way the U.S. system of tort liability works. You can extort
money.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 20 Jun 2012 14:24:58 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>In article <6ecd26e0-56b0-419c...@googlegroups.com>, F. Carlier
>says...
>>
>>

>>In 1997, while replying to my letter Charles Baxter couldn't remember preci=
>>sely whether Crenshaw had been there that day (34 years earlier), that's wh=
>>y he replied "NO" to my question whether he (Baxter) could state that Crens=
>>haw was there. No, he could not state it for a fact, but that does not mean=
>> Crenshaw may not have been there.
>>
>>As to Crenshaw's claims (a big conspiracy, JFK's body altered, wounds that =
>>no one else saw, etc...), Charles Baxter is very adamant in one word : "fab=
>>ricated".
>>
>>And I certainly agree with him on that point !
>>
>>/Fran=E7ois Carlier/
>
>
>I invite everyone to read my response in the open forum.
>
>It's unfortunate that I can't post it here.

You can post any *substantive* response here.

But your usual "liar, liar" rhetoric can't be posted here.

If you fail to post your arguments here, that shows you are unable to
address *substantive* arguments.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Friday, June 22, 2012 7:29:26 AM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> On 20 Jun 2012 10:01:25 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>

I don't think this is true, John. If they just wanted the case to go away,
they would never have let it go on as long as they did. Crenshaw had a
heckuva case. JAMA printed claims that Crenshaw was lying about
everything, when a simple re-reading of the Warren Commission testimony of
those making those claims would have shown their recollections to have
been incorrect. The writer and editor of the JAMA article, moreover, had
let their bias be known--that they didn't simply fail to double-check
their sources, and fail to contact Crenshaw to see if he could refute the
claims of their sources, but that the articles they published using these
sources were created to undermine Crenshaw's credibility in the first
place. OOPS!

The usual claim there was an "Absence of Malice" would not apply in this
case. They set out to destroy Crenshaw, and failed to employ the least bit
of restraint, or caution, in doing so. Now, is it a slam dunk that
Crenshaw would have won a jury decision? Probably not. But there can be no
doubt JAMA's prestige was on the line, and would never have settled if
they thought they'd had a leg to stand on. Crenshaw WON. Period. It had
nothing to do with the accuracy of his "theories" or recent recollections.
But he WON nevertheless.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <ma09u7hqrqmn79so7...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

As you are well aware, when I *do* follow the rules you just laid out,
I'll still be censored for "badgering".

Now, let's see if *this* factual statement makes it through censorship...

[John McAdams]

On 22 Jun 2012 16:13:20 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>

wrote:

>In article <ma09u7hqrqmn79so7...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>On 20 Jun 2012 14:24:58 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>

>>>I invite everyone to read my response in the open forum.
>>>
>>>It's unfortunate that I can't post it here.
>>
>>You can post any *substantive* response here.
>>
>>But your usual "liar, liar" rhetoric can't be posted here.
>>
>>If you fail to post your arguments here, that shows you are unable to
>>address *substantive* arguments.
>>
>
>

>As you are well aware, when I *do* follow the rules you just laid out,
>I'll still be censored for "badgering".
>
>Now, let's see if *this* factual statement makes it through censorship...
>
>

Well it's not a factual statement, but it did pass "censorship."

If you say the same thing 8 or 10 times, ignoring the responses that
have been directed to you, we moderators are likely to reject your
post.

But if you have a substantive argument to make about Baxter, you are
perfectly free to make it.

OTOH, if all you can do is shout "liar! liar!" at the other poster, we
won't let you.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 22 Jun 2012 14:58:30 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Friday, June 22, 2012 7:29:26 AM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:

>> On 20 Jun 2012 10:01:25 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"=20
>>=20
>> wrote:
>>=20

>> >
>> >What? Humes and Boswell were not involved in that case.
>> >JAMA was the loser, not the Parkland staff.

>>=20

>> It's worth pointing out that JAMA merely paid to make a nuisance
>> lawsuit go away.
>>
>> Crenshaw could have never won in court.
>>
>> Crenshaw was a "public figure," and under the SULLIVAN decision, it
>> would have been virtually impossible for him to win a judgment.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
>>
>> It's the way the U.S. system of tort liability works. You can extort
>> money.
>>
>

>I don't think this is true, John. If they just wanted the case to go away,
>they would never have let it go on as long as they did. Crenshaw had a
>heckuva case. JAMA printed claims that Crenshaw was lying about
>everything, when a simple re-reading of the Warren Commission testimony of
>those making those claims would have shown their recollections to have
>been incorrect.

Which makes is sloppy journalism.

And of course, Crenshaw was lying about most everything.

>The writer and editor of the JAMA article, moreover, had
>let their bias be known--that they didn't simply fail to double-check
>their sources, and fail to contact Crenshaw to see if he could refute the
>claims of their sources, but that the articles they published using these
>sources were created to undermine Crenshaw's credibility in the first
>place. OOPS!
>

Of *course* they were created to undermine Cranshaw's credibility.

When the SPOTLIGHT did their story on E. Howard Hunt, it was to label
him a plotter in the JFK assassination.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm

The court defined "actual malice" rather narrowly there, and the jury
let the SPOTLIGHT off.

When Dan Rather and CBS used those bogus Bush National Guard
documents, their purpose was to *get* Bush.

But nobody has suggested that Bush could have suied for libel.

Do you think Bush could have won a libel suit?

If being "out to get" somebody were actual malice, it would be easy
for a "public figure" to sue. But it's not.

>The usual claim there was an "Absence of Malice" would not apply in this
>case. They set out to destroy Crenshaw, and failed to employ the least bit
>of restraint, or caution, in doing so.

You mean like Bush and CBS?

>Now, is it a slam dunk that
>Crenshaw would have won a jury decision? Probably not. But there can be no
>doubt JAMA's prestige was on the line, and would never have settled if
>they thought they'd had a leg to stand on.

You don't understand the tort liability system in this country, and
the fact that you can get soaked with massive legal costs *even if*
you are virtually guaranteed to prevail in a trial.

The costs of going to trial are huge.

We really need to "loser pays" system that prevails in Europe.


>Crenshaw WON.

No, he and his lawyere were bought off.

>Period. It had
>nothing to do with the accuracy of his "theories" or recent recollections.
>But he WON nevertheless.
>

Are you admitting that his account was absurdly unreliable?

[Anthony Marsh]

Why do you always cover up for your fellow WC defenders? I wasn't sloppy
journalism. It was deliberate intent. Intentional libel. A hatchet job.

> And of course, Crenshaw was lying about most everything.
>

Ok then, let's hear YOUR libel. Make sure it equals or exceeds JAMA.

>
>> The writer and editor of the JAMA article, moreover, had
>> let their bias be known--that they didn't simply fail to double-check
>> their sources, and fail to contact Crenshaw to see if he could refute the
>> claims of their sources, but that the articles they published using these
>> sources were created to undermine Crenshaw's credibility in the first
>> place. OOPS!
>>
>
> Of *course* they were created to undermine Cranshaw's credibility.
>
> When the SPOTLIGHT did their story on E. Howard Hunt, it was to label
> him a plotter in the JFK assassination.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
>
> The court defined "actual malice" rather narrowly there, and the jury
> let the SPOTLIGHT off.
>

Maybe a smart defense attorney got Spotlight off.
Remind everyone who the defense attorney was in that case.

> When Dan Rather and CBS used those bogus Bush National Guard
> documents, their purpose was to *get* Bush.

Yes. My question is if it was CBS who wanted to get Bush and used Dan
Rather or Dan Rather who wanted to get Bush and used CBS? What exactly was
it in the report which was wrong?

>
> But nobody has suggested that Bush could have suied for libel.
>
> Do you think Bush could have won a libel suit?
>

Do you understand the subtle difference between a libel lawsuit and a
defamation of character lawsuit? Do you happen to remember a lawsuit that
a WC defender won against a conspiracy believer? Was that libel or was it
defamation of character and what important InterNet precedent that that
ruling establish?

> If being "out to get" somebody were actual malice, it would be easy
> for a "public figure" to sue. But it's not.
>
>
>> The usual claim there was an "Absence of Malice" would not apply in this
>> case. They set out to destroy Crenshaw, and failed to employ the least bit
>> of restraint, or caution, in doing so.
>
> You mean like Bush and CBS?
>
>
>> Now, is it a slam dunk that
>> Crenshaw would have won a jury decision? Probably not. But there can be no
>> doubt JAMA's prestige was on the line, and would never have settled if
>> they thought they'd had a leg to stand on.
>
> You don't understand the tort liability system in this country, and
> the fact that you can get soaked with massive legal costs *even if*
> you are virtually guaranteed to prevail in a trial.
>

The side which brings a phony case and loses can likewise get soaked.

> The costs of going to trial are huge.
>
> We really need to "loser pays" system that prevails in Europe.
>

So now you're a European Socialist and you spit on the US Constitution.
How times change.

[Anthony Marsh]

You do when it is one of your WC defender buddies shouting it at me.
But you won't even allow me to point out that some is just plain wrong.
You have no concept of fail play.

[Anthony Marsh]

Unreliable? That's an opinion. The case was about facts.
It's my opinion that you are unreliable. But it's a fact that you wrote
a book.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Ben Holmes]

In article <4fe4d205....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 22 Jun 2012 16:13:20 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <ma09u7hqrqmn79so7...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>On 20 Jun 2012 14:24:58 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I invite everyone to read my response in the open forum.
>>>>
>>>>It's unfortunate that I can't post it here.
>>>
>>>You can post any *substantive* response here.
>>>
>>>But your usual "liar, liar" rhetoric can't be posted here.
>>>
>>>If you fail to post your arguments here, that shows you are unable to
>>>address *substantive* arguments.
>>>
>>
>>
>>As you are well aware, when I *do* follow the rules you just laid out,
>>I'll still be censored for "badgering".
>>
>>Now, let's see if *this* factual statement makes it through censorship...
>>
>>
>
>Well it's not a factual statement, but it did pass "censorship."

LOL!

>If you say the same thing 8 or 10 times, ignoring the responses that
>have been directed to you, we moderators are likely to reject your
>post.
>
>But if you have a substantive argument to make about Baxter, you are
>perfectly free to make it.

I did. In the forum with no censorship.

>OTOH, if all you can do is shout "liar! liar!" at the other poster, we
>won't let you.
>
>.John

You claim it's not a "factual" statement.

I can produce the post that you censored for "badgering". Not a *hint* of
labeling any lies or liars to be found.

So your claim that I can post without censorship as long as I refrain from
pointing out lies is simply not true.


Indeed, if I continue to point out that I'm simply telling the truth, it
will *certainly* be censored for whatever reason you decide is the current
reason.

No-one need be called for lying.

[MK Ultra JQuillin]

On Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:55:14 PM UTC-4, F. Carlier wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>

> In 1997, as part of my research into the Kennedy assassination case, I sent to Doctor Charles Baxter the very same letter that I sent to Doctor Perry, asking him questions about the medical evidence. He too obligingly replied.

> I copied/pasted Doctor Baxter's answers on my blog.
>
> See:
> http://facts-carlier-jfk-assassination.blogspot.fr/
>
> I think it is interesting.

> As Doctor Baxter's writing is very small and a little hard to decipher, I have scanned it into a .jpeg image format, which allows my readers to copy the image and zoom in any sentence on their computer screen.
> I like the part where Doctor Baxter writes what he thinks of Dr. Charles Crenshaw's claims, and also what he thinks of David Lifton's work.
> I would also like to underline what Baxter says of Gerald Posner. Let me quote : "Posner did a most thorough job. […] Posner is truly a scholar who, to my mind, is the one person who did a thorough job of collecting facts".
> Charles Baxter also wrote (I quote) : "As long as there's money to be made, the conspiracy will continue"…"
> Next time I'll write an article about what can be learned from my documents.
>
> My best regards,
>
> /François Carlier/

Just a curiosity that is not quite on the trend of how this discussion
went regarding Crenshaw, but when exactly did Baxter have an opportunity
to see JFK's brains "splattered against the back of the front seat"?

[Anthony Marsh]

Someone does not actually have to see something to comment on what he
thinks happened.
Especially if he gets his information second hand as Baxter did. I would
never listen to anything Baxter has to say as he led the cover-up at
Parkland.

[MK Ultra JQuillin]

That is pretty much my point. Seems he wrote that as if he inspected the
limo himself, or he is trying to back up his conclusion? Either way he
called his own credibility into question by writing that in my opinion.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Friday, June 22, 2012 1:24:24 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2012 14:58:30 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>

Lying? Or suffering from a bad memory? He was accused of lying about ever
being in the room. It turned out, however, that HIS memory was correct on
that point. So, were those making out that he wasn't even there "lying" or
similarly mistaken?

>
>
> >The writer and editor of the JAMA article, moreover, had
> >let their bias be known--that they didn't simply fail to double-check
> >their sources, and fail to contact Crenshaw to see if he could refute the
> >claims of their sources, but that the articles they published using these
> >sources were created to undermine Crenshaw's credibility in the first
> >place. OOPS!
> >
>
> Of *course* they were created to undermine Cranshaw's credibility.
>
> When the SPOTLIGHT did their story on E. Howard Hunt, it was to label
> him a plotter in the JFK assassination.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
>
> The court defined "actual malice" rather narrowly there, and the jury
> let the SPOTLIGHT off.

Yes, of course they let the SPOTLIGHT off, because a jury ruled that there
was some evidence supporting SPOTLIGHT's story, to the extent that some
people might reasonably believe it. Heck, some members of the jury
believed it. You can't win a libel suit if members of the jury believe the
"libelous" story is true.

>
> When Dan Rather and CBS used those bogus Bush National Guard
> documents, their purpose was to *get* Bush.
>
> But nobody has suggested that Bush could have suied for libel.
>
> Do you think Bush could have won a libel suit?

Not likely. While he may have been able to prove Rather and his team were
sloppy, and introduced documents they should have suspected were fake, the
issue of "whether or nor the documents were obviously fake" would have
come in to it, which would have led to witnesses testifying, in a court of
law, that Bush failed to show up for his Guard duty, and disappeared for a
year. Once again, you can't win a libel suit--even if the journalists were
sloppy--if the jury believes the story is true. And there's NO way Bush's
team could get a majority of a jury to believe the story wasn't true.
Because it was.

>
> If being "out to get" somebody were actual malice, it would be easy
> for a "public figure" to sue. But it's not.

It takes three ingredients, as I remember. Malice plus sloppy and
inaccurate journalism plus believability. Larry Flynt successfully
defended the lawsuit brought against him by Jerry Falwell after Falwell
said no reasonable person would believe what he'd said about Falwell.

>
>
> >The usual claim there was an "Absence of Malice" would not apply in this
> >case. They set out to destroy Crenshaw, and failed to employ the least bit
> >of restraint, or caution, in doing so.
>
> You mean like Bush and CBS?

CBS actually did some digging, and asked Bush's people for comment. JAMA
did neither. They printed interviews with doctors claiming another doctor
was a liar, without even asking this doctor for comment, or reading the
pertinent testimony, which proved the interviewees were in error.

>
>
> >Now, is it a slam dunk that
> >Crenshaw would have won a jury decision? Probably not. But there can be no
> >doubt JAMA's prestige was on the line, and would never have settled if
> >they thought they'd had a leg to stand on.
>
> You don't understand the tort liability system in this country, and
> the fact that you can get soaked with massive legal costs *even if*
> you are virtually guaranteed to prevail in a trial.

Really? I don't understand? Of course, I understand. I also understand a bit about the law and the culture behind JAMA, and JAMA would not have settled if they'd thought they stood a reasonable chance of convincing a jury they were in the right.

>
> The costs of going to trial are huge.

A large part of those costs are the cost of taking depositions. And
depositions aplenty were taken in this case.

>
> We really need to "loser pays" system that prevails in Europe.

Sometimes that does happen. But that system unfortunately rewards the rich.
The threat of having to pay for a rich man's fatcat lawyer gives scumbags
unfair leverage in any possible legal action. It's bad enough that they can
afford the hotshot attorneys, and receive preferential access to the law,
but giving them an additional cloak of protection by making poor people pay
for those hotshots? That's disgusting.

>
>
> >Crenshaw WON.
>
> No, he and his lawyere were bought off.

Newsflash. In a civil suit getting bought off is called "WINNING."

>
>
> >Period. It had
> >nothing to do with the accuracy of his "theories" or recent recollections.
> >But he WON nevertheless.
> >
>
> Are you admitting that his account was absurdly unreliable?

The lawsuit wasn't about the reliability of his memory beyond that he
claimed to have been involved in something they said he wasn't involved
in--and they were clearly in error. But yes, I'm inclined to agree that
Crenshaw's memory was inaccurate on some points. The irony, of course, is
that his inaccurate recollections of the head wound as being on the back
of the head came from the VERY doctors who later denounced him...for
taking THEIR reports and testimony seriously. They owed him a BIG apology,
IMO.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <js1sm...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

My guess is that Anthony Marsh is refusing to answer this post.

[John McAdams]

On 23 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>

How about lying about having seen the throat wound?

How about lying about LBJ calling up and demanding that Oswald be
killed (which was watered down a bit when nobody would buy it)?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm

>>
>>
>> >The writer and editor of the JAMA article, moreover, had
>> >let their bias be known--that they didn't simply fail to double-check
>> >their sources, and fail to contact Crenshaw to see if he could refute the
>> >claims of their sources, but that the articles they published using these
>> >sources were created to undermine Crenshaw's credibility in the first
>> >place. OOPS!
>> >
>>
>> Of *course* they were created to undermine Cranshaw's credibility.
>>
>> When the SPOTLIGHT did their story on E. Howard Hunt, it was to label
>> him a plotter in the JFK assassination.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
>>
>> The court defined "actual malice" rather narrowly there, and the jury
>> let the SPOTLIGHT off.
>
>Yes, of course they let the SPOTLIGHT off, because a jury ruled that there
>was some evidence supporting SPOTLIGHT's story,

No.

You got suckered by Mark Lane!

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm

Lane quotes one (rather crackpot) juror who thought there was a
conspiracy, but the majority of the jury decided the case on the issue
of "actual malice."

I found the newspaper accounts. You accepted Mark Lane.

>to the extent that some
>people might reasonably believe it. Heck, some members of the jury
>believed it. You can't win a libel suit if members of the jury believe the
>"libelous" story is true.

But the majority didn't.

You *really* need to be a bit critical of what you real from Mark
Lane.

>
>>
>> When Dan Rather and CBS used those bogus Bush National Guard
>> documents, their purpose was to *get* Bush.
>>
>> But nobody has suggested that Bush could have suied for libel.
>>
>> Do you think Bush could have won a libel suit?
>
>Not likely. While he may have been able to prove Rather and his team were
>sloppy, and introduced documents they should have suspected were fake, the
>issue of "whether or nor the documents were obviously fake" would have
>come in to it, which would have led to witnesses testifying, in a court of
>law, that Bush failed to show up for his Guard duty, and disappeared for a
>year. Once again, you can't win a libel suit--even if the journalists were
>sloppy--if the jury believes the story is true. And there's NO way Bush's
>team could get a majority of a jury to believe the story wasn't true.
>Because it was.
>

You are trying to defend terrible journalism from CBS.

CBS made specific charges of misconduct against Bush, and the charges
were false, supported by forged documents.

I've never seen any evidence of actual misconduct by Bush in the Guard
-- as opposed to his being a lackadaisical Guardsman, which he clearly
was.

So you are using CBS' "fake but true" defense.

>>
>> If being "out to get" somebody were actual malice, it would be easy
>> for a "public figure" to sue. But it's not.
>
>It takes three ingredients, as I remember. Malice plus sloppy and
>inaccurate journalism plus believability. Larry Flynt successfully
>defended the lawsuit brought against him by Jerry Falwell after Falwell
>said no reasonable person would believe what he'd said about Falwell.
>

But people *do* believe Crenshaw, and they did believe CBS -- at least
until the segment was blown out of the water within hours.

>>
>>
>> >The usual claim there was an "Absence of Malice" would not apply in this
>> >case. They set out to destroy Crenshaw, and failed to employ the least bit
>> >of restraint, or caution, in doing so.
>>
>> You mean like Bush and CBS?
>
>CBS actually did some digging, and asked Bush's people for comment. JAMA
>did neither. They printed interviews with doctors claiming another doctor
>was a liar, without even asking this doctor for comment, or reading the
>pertinent testimony, which proved the interviewees were in error.
>

Yes, they were guilty of sloppy journalism, much like CBS.

>>
>>
>> >Now, is it a slam dunk that
>> >Crenshaw would have won a jury decision? Probably not. But there can be no
>> >doubt JAMA's prestige was on the line, and would never have settled if
>> >they thought they'd had a leg to stand on.
>>
>> You don't understand the tort liability system in this country, and
>> the fact that you can get soaked with massive legal costs *even if*
>> you are virtually guaranteed to prevail in a trial.
>
>Really? I don't understand? Of course, I understand. I also understand
>a bit about the law and the culture behind JAMA, and JAMA would not
>have settled if they'd thought they stood a reasonable chance of
>convincing a jury they were in the right.

That's just not true. Going to court in a case like this can cost
into six figures very quickly.

And irresponsible juries sometimes make huge awards to people with
cases that should have been dismissed.

>>
>> The costs of going to trial are huge.
>
>A large part of those costs are the cost of taking depositions. And
>depositions aplenty were taken in this case.
>
>>
>> We really need to "loser pays" system that prevails in Europe.
>
>Sometimes that does happen. But that system unfortunately rewards the rich.
>The threat of having to pay for a rich man's fatcat lawyer gives scumbags
>unfair leverage in any possible legal action. It's bad enough that they can
>afford the hotshot attorneys, and receive preferential access to the law,
>but giving them an additional cloak of protection by making poor people pay
>for those hotshots? That's disgusting.
>

Sashay(tm)!

Tort liability lawyers are happy to take cases from very poor people
on a continguncy fee basis.

Even where criminal law is concerned, are you saying that every poor
person should have an O.J. "dream team" legal defense?

Had it not been for a black racist jury, even the "dream team" would
not have gotten O.J. off, since he was clearly guilty.

>>
>>
>> >Crenshaw WON.
>>
>> No, he and his lawyere were bought off.
>
>Newsflash. In a civil suit getting bought off is called "WINNING."
>

It's called "successful extortion."

>>
>>
>> >Period. It had
>> >nothing to do with the accuracy of his "theories" or recent recollections.
>> >But he WON nevertheless.
>> >
>>
>> Are you admitting that his account was absurdly unreliable?
>
>The lawsuit wasn't about the reliability of his memory beyond that he
>claimed to have been involved in something they said he wasn't involved
>in--and they were clearly in error. But yes, I'm inclined to agree that
>Crenshaw's memory was inaccurate on some points.

But by a funny coincidence, his "memory errors" involved inserting
into his story conspiracy factoids -- including one wild one about LBJ
calling.

>The irony, of course, is
>that his inaccurate recollections of the head wound as being on the back
>of the head came from the VERY doctors who later denounced him...for
>taking THEIR reports and testimony seriously. They owed him a BIG apology,
>IMO.
>

No, you are going with the Aguilar distortions of what they said.
Their actual testimony was all over the place.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar

But even if Aguilar had been right, Crenshaw had no business taking
material from other sources and claiming to have a memory of things he
did not see.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 22 Jun 2012 22:37:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>>
>> We really need to "loser pays" system that prevails in Europe.
>>
>
>So now you're a European Socialist and you spit on the US Constitution.
>How times change.
>

There is nothing in the Constitution that would preclude "loser pays."

You need to read it.

And sometimes European socialists are more sensible than U.S.
socialists (aka liberal Democrats). Sweden, for example, has the
system of complete school choice, which includes private schools.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 22 Jun 2012 22:43:59 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
wrote:

>In article <4fe4d205....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>
>>>
>>>

>>>As you are well aware, when I *do* follow the rules you just laid out,
>>>I'll still be censored for "badgering".
>>>
>>>Now, let's see if *this* factual statement makes it through censorship...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well it's not a factual statement, but it did pass "censorship."
>
>
>LOL!
>
>
>>If you say the same thing 8 or 10 times, ignoring the responses that
>>have been directed to you, we moderators are likely to reject your
>>post.
>>
>>But if you have a substantive argument to make about Baxter, you are
>>perfectly free to make it.
>
>
>I did. In the forum with no censorship.
>

You could have posted it here, if you had the courage.

>
>
>>OTOH, if all you can do is shout "liar! liar!" at the other poster, we
>>won't let you.
>>
>
>

>You claim it's not a "factual" statement.
>
>I can produce the post that you censored for "badgering". Not a *hint* of
>labeling any lies or liars to be found.
>

Calling other people "liar" is not the only thing that runs afoul of
the rules.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/newgroup5.txt

When you simply post the same argument over and over again, ignoring
what the other poster has said, that's not allowed.

You got to post your silly "largest fragment" argument eight or ten
times. But finally we moderators clamped down.

We've done that with Harris too, when he won't accept that the other
poster disagrees with him, and simply keeps coming back with an
identical argument time after time.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/23/2012 5:02 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2012 22:43:59 -0400, Ben Holmes<ad...@burningknife.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In article<4fe4d205....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As you are well aware, when I *do* follow the rules you just laid out,
>>>> I'll still be censored for "badgering".
>>>>
>>>> Now, let's see if *this* factual statement makes it through censorship...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well it's not a factual statement, but it did pass "censorship."
>>
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>>
>>> If you say the same thing 8 or 10 times, ignoring the responses that
>>> have been directed to you, we moderators are likely to reject your
>>> post.
>>>
>>> But if you have a substantive argument to make about Baxter, you are
>>> perfectly free to make it.
>>
>>
>> I did. In the forum with no censorship.
>>
>
> You could have posted it here, if you had the courage.
>
>>
>>
>>> OTOH, if all you can do is shout "liar! liar!" at the other poster, we
>>> won't let you.
>>>
>>
>>
>> You claim it's not a "factual" statement.
>>
>> I can produce the post that you censored for "badgering". Not a *hint* of
>> labeling any lies or liars to be found.
>>
>
> Calling other people "liar" is not the only thing that runs afoul of
> the rules.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/newgroup5.txt
>

Those are not the rules. You make up the rules from day to day on a
whim, maybe based on what you had for lunch.

> When you simply post the same argument over and over again, ignoring
> what the other poster has said, that's not allowed.
>

Oh, you mean like your buddy WC defenders who keep posting the same
nonsense every day after being proved wrong?

> You got to post your silly "largest fragment" argument eight or ten
> times. But finally we moderators clamped down.
>
> We've done that with Harris too, when he won't accept that the other
> poster disagrees with him, and simply keeps coming back with an
> identical argument time after time.
>

You mean when he doesn't give in to bullying.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/23/2012 4:57 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 22 Jun 2012 22:37:35 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> We really need to "loser pays" system that prevails in Europe.
>>>
>>
>> So now you're a European Socialist and you spit on the US Constitution.
>> How times change.
>>
>
> There is nothing in the Constitution that would preclude "loser pays."
>
> You need to read it.
>

I have. I was just savoring the irony. I love it when the rightwing nuts
stake out a position and then reverse it later. Like when the Republicans,
including Romney proposed universal healyhcare, but when a black man
proposes it suddenly it's a sign that he's a Socialist. Or when the
rightwing nuts blamed Obama for the rising price of gas. But now that gas
prices are plummeting they blame Obama for the dropping price of gas.

> And sometimes European socialists are more sensible than U.S.
> socialists (aka liberal Democrats). Sweden, for example, has the
> system of complete school choice, which includes private schools.
>

Oh, so now I get it. European Socialists are more conservative than US
Liberals. That's why you Want to be a European Socialist. Conservatives
are always after the money, not what's best for the country.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 23 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>

wrote:

>On Friday, June 22, 2012 1:24:24 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 22 Jun 2012 14:58:30 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>>
>> >>

>> >> Crenshaw could have never won in court.
>> >>
>> >> Crenshaw was a "public figure," and under the SULLIVAN decision, it
>> >> would have been virtually impossible for him to win a judgment.
>> >>
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan
>> >>
>> >> It's the way the U.S. system of tort liability works. You can extort
>> >> money.
>> >>
>> >
>> >I don't think this is true, John. If they just wanted the case to go away,
>> >they would never have let it go on as long as they did. Crenshaw had a
>> >heckuva case. JAMA printed claims that Crenshaw was lying about
>> >everything, when a simple re-reading of the Warren Commission testimony of
>> >those making those claims would have shown their recollections to have
>> >been incorrect.
>>
>> Which makes is sloppy journalism.
>>
>> And of course, Crenshaw was lying about most everything.
>
>Lying? Or suffering from a bad memory? He was accused of lying about ever
>being in the room. It turned out, however, that HIS memory was correct on
>that point. So, were those making out that he wasn't even there "lying" or
>similarly mistaken?
>

What about this, Pat?

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48686&relPageId=19

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

The lying was on the part of the WC defenders who lied about what
Crenshaw wrote.

We have shown right here in this newsgroup that some documents are
obviously fake even though some conspiracy believers think they are
real. I laughed when Dick Gregory went around waving that Nixon/Ruby
memo. And I instantly spotted one of the SS documents I myself had
scanned in as the source of the phony McCone memo.

>>
>> If being "out to get" somebody were actual malice, it would be easy
>> for a "public figure" to sue. But it's not.
>
> It takes three ingredients, as I remember. Malice plus sloppy and
> inaccurate journalism plus believability. Larry Flynt successfully
> defended the lawsuit brought against him by Jerry Falwell after Falwell
> said no reasonable person would believe what he'd said about Falwell.
>

There is also a subtle difference between malice and parody. Parody is
almost always protected free speech.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe it depends on what he actually wrote rather than just what a lying
WC defender said he wrote.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/23/2012 6:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:

Gus Russo is a paid professional CIA disinformation agent. Like the story
his CIA handlers told him about JFK's brain being buried in JFK's casket
during the reinterment. Even going so far as to claiming it was Kennedy's
brain in the wooden box near Cardinal Cushing. As everyone here saw I
found the documents and photographs to prove that his story was a lie.

That is exactly why the WC defenders do not want the documents to be
released to the public.

> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Ben Holmes]

In article <fgbcu791knaf48d32...@4ax.com>, John McAdams says...

>
>On 22 Jun 2012 22:43:59 -0400, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <4fe4d205....@news.supernews.com>, John McAdams says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>As you are well aware, when I *do* follow the rules you just laid out,
>>>>I'll still be censored for "badgering".
>>>>
>>>>Now, let's see if *this* factual statement makes it through censorship...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Well it's not a factual statement, but it did pass "censorship."
>>
>>
>>LOL!
>>
>>
>>>If you say the same thing 8 or 10 times, ignoring the responses that
>>>have been directed to you, we moderators are likely to reject your
>>>post.
>>>
>>>But if you have a substantive argument to make about Baxter, you are
>>>perfectly free to make it.
>>
>>
>>I did. In the forum with no censorship.
>>
>
>You could have posted it here, if you had the courage.

You know, more than anyone, just how to correctly label that claim.

>>>OTOH, if all you can do is shout "liar! liar!" at the other poster, we
>>>won't let you.
>>>
>>
>>
>>You claim it's not a "factual" statement.
>>
>>I can produce the post that you censored for "badgering". Not a *hint* of
>>labeling any lies or liars to be found.
>>
>
>Calling other people "liar" is not the only thing that runs afoul of
>the rules.
>
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/newgroup5.txt
>
>When you simply post the same argument over and over again, ignoring
>what the other poster has said, that's not allowed.

Yep... just as I stated above. Glad you agree, since I have the proof of
it.

>You got to post your silly "largest fragment" argument eight or ten
>times. But finally we moderators clamped down.

You really don't want to go there, John.


If you had the courage, you could do so in the wide open forum.

>We've done that with Harris too, when he won't accept that the other
>poster disagrees with him, and simply keeps coming back with an
>identical argument time after time.
>
>.John
>--------------
>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:55:07 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>

Au contraire, you know as well as I that many would have bought it. Which
suggests that, in removing this bit, Crenshaw was trying to tell the
truth, at least the truth as he knew it.

>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >The writer and editor of the JAMA article, moreover, had
> >> >let their bias be known--that they didn't simply fail to double-check
> >> >their sources, and fail to contact Crenshaw to see if he could refute the
> >> >claims of their sources, but that the articles they published using these
> >> >sources were created to undermine Crenshaw's credibility in the first
> >> >place. OOPS!
> >> >
> >>
> >> Of *course* they were created to undermine Cranshaw's credibility.
> >>
> >> When the SPOTLIGHT did their story on E. Howard Hunt, it was to label
> >> him a plotter in the JFK assassination.
> >>
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
> >>
> >> The court defined "actual malice" rather narrowly there, and the jury
> >> let the SPOTLIGHT off.
> >
> >Yes, of course they let the SPOTLIGHT off, because a jury ruled that there
> >was some evidence supporting SPOTLIGHT's story,
>
> No.
>
> You got suckered by Mark Lane!
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/denial.htm
>
> Lane quotes one (rather crackpot) juror who thought there was a
> conspiracy, but the majority of the jury decided the case on the issue
> of "actual malice."
>
> I found the newspaper accounts. You accepted Mark Lane.

I must admit that when I first read Lane's book, I believed most of it.
Since that time I have read stuff (some of it by you) which convinced me
some of it was exaggerated. But it is not an exaggeration to say some of
the jurors believed Hunt was guilty, and it is a logical inference from
this that the jury would not have concluded the story printed by SPOTLIGHT
was so obviously wrong that no one should have believed it. Joe Trento
still stands by it, and says he got the info directly from Angleton.
Angleton fudged his answers when asked about it in his testimony. There's
something there.

>
>
> >to the extent that some
> >people might reasonably believe it. Heck, some members of the jury
> >believed it. You can't win a libel suit if members of the jury believe the
> >"libelous" story is true.
>
> But the majority didn't.
>
> You *really* need to be a bit critical of what you real from Mark
> Lane.

Don't worry, I am. He writes defense briefs for Oswald same as you write
briefs for the prosecution.

>
>
> >
> >>
> >> When Dan Rather and CBS used those bogus Bush National Guard
> >> documents, their purpose was to *get* Bush.
> >>
> >> But nobody has suggested that Bush could have suied for libel.
> >>
> >> Do you think Bush could have won a libel suit?
> >
> >Not likely. While he may have been able to prove Rather and his team were
> >sloppy, and introduced documents they should have suspected were fake, the
> >issue of "whether or nor the documents were obviously fake" would have
> >come in to it, which would have led to witnesses testifying, in a court of
> >law, that Bush failed to show up for his Guard duty, and disappeared for a
> >year. Once again, you can't win a libel suit--even if the journalists were
> >sloppy--if the jury believes the story is true. And there's NO way Bush's
> >team could get a majority of a jury to believe the story wasn't true.
> >Because it was.
> >
>
> You are trying to defend terrible journalism from CBS.
>
> CBS made specific charges of misconduct against Bush, and the charges
> were false, supported by forged documents.

WHAT? READ UP ON THIS, will you? There is no evidence Bush served in the
Alabama Guard. None. He was obviously AWOL. No one really disputes this.
Rather has made the rounds recently discussing this in detail. Where's the
libel suit against him? We're waiting.

>
> I've never seen any evidence of actual misconduct by Bush in the Guard
> -- as opposed to his being a lackadaisical Guardsman, which he clearly
> was.
>
> So you are using CBS' "fake but true" defense.

The woman who first claimed the documents were fake has insisted from the
beginning that the claims by her boss within them were true. YOU GOT
SUCKERED. Bush and his sycophants have successfully convinced you that the
documents are the issue, and not the dozens of people involved--NONE of
them who remember Bush serving in the Alabama Guard.

>
>
> >>
> >> If being "out to get" somebody were actual malice, it would be easy
> >> for a "public figure" to sue. But it's not.
> >
> >It takes three ingredients, as I remember. Malice plus sloppy and
> >inaccurate journalism plus believability. Larry Flynt successfully
> >defended the lawsuit brought against him by Jerry Falwell after Falwell> >said no reasonable person would believe what he'd said about Falwell.
> >
>
> But people *do* believe Crenshaw, and they did believe CBS -- at least
> until the segment was blown out of the water within hours.

People in the know--Democrat and Republican alike, KNOW the story about
Bush was true. Because 1) the evidence supports that it is true, 2) the
way the Bush crowd argued against it supports that it is true.

>
> >>
> >>
> >> >The usual claim there was an "Absence of Malice" would not apply in this
> >> >case. They set out to destroy Crenshaw, and failed to employ the least bit
> >> >of restraint, or caution, in doing so.
> >>
> >> You mean like Bush and CBS?
> >
> >CBS actually did some digging, and asked Bush's people for comment. JAMA
> >did neither. They printed interviews with doctors claiming another doctor
> >was a liar, without even asking this doctor for comment, or reading the
> >pertinent testimony, which proved the interviewees were in error.
> >
>
> Yes, they were guilty of sloppy journalism, much like CBS.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Now, is it a slam dunk that
> >> >Crenshaw would have won a jury decision? Probably not. But there can be no
> >> >doubt JAMA's prestige was on the line, and would never have settled if
> >> >they thought they'd had a leg to stand on.
> >>
> >> You don't understand the tort liability system in this country, and
> >> the fact that you can get soaked with massive legal costs *even if*
> >> you are virtually guaranteed to prevail in a trial.
> >
> >Really? I don't understand? Of course, I understand. I also understand
> >a bit about the law and the culture behind JAMA, and JAMA would not
> >have settled if they'd thought they stood a reasonable chance of
> >convincing a jury they were in the right.
>
>
> That's just not true. Going to court in a case like this can cost
> into six figures very quickly.
>
> And irresponsible juries sometimes make huge awards to people with
> cases that should have been dismissed.

Then the burden is on you. Find another case of such magnitude in which
JAMA paid off the defendant claiming they'd libeled him, when it's obvious
they did not.

>
> >>
> >> The costs of going to trial are huge.
> >
> >A large part of those costs are the cost of taking depositions. And
> >depositions aplenty were taken in this case.
> >
> >>
> >> We really need to "loser pays" system that prevails in Europe.
> >
> >Sometimes that does happen. But that system unfortunately rewards the rich.
> >The threat of having to pay for a rich man's fatcat lawyer gives scumbags
> >unfair leverage in any possible legal action. It's bad enough that they can
> >afford the hotshot attorneys, and receive preferential access to the law,
> >but giving them an additional cloak of protection by making poor people pay
> >for those hotshots? That's disgusting.
> >
>
> Sashay(tm)!
>
> Tort liability lawyers are happy to take cases from very poor people
> on a continguncy fee basis.

SO...public policy should be based upon the assumption rich lawyers will
occasionally gamble?

>
> Even where criminal law is concerned, are you saying that every poor
> person should have an O.J. "dream team" legal defense?
>
> Had it not been for a black racist jury, even the "dream team" would
> not have gotten O.J. off, since he was clearly guilty.

WOW. Talk about a straw man. One wonders if you were nearly as concerned
when white racists juries cleared dozens of murderers in the fifties and
sixties, as you were when this one guy got off in the nineties...perhaps
in part because he was black, but definitely because he was rich.

>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Crenshaw WON.
> >>
> >> No, he and his lawyere were bought off.
> >
> >Newsflash. In a civil suit getting bought off is called "WINNING."
> >
>
> It's called "successful extortion."

Somehow I doubt you've ever claimed as much at a courthouse. Something
tells me a lawyer or two might take offense.

>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >Period. It had
> >> >nothing to do with the accuracy of his "theories" or recent recollections.
> >> >But he WON nevertheless.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Are you admitting that his account was absurdly unreliable?
> >
> >The lawsuit wasn't about the reliability of his memory beyond that he
> >claimed to have been involved in something they said he wasn't involved
> >in--and they were clearly in error. But yes, I'm inclined to agree that
> >Crenshaw's memory was inaccurate on some points.
>
> But by a funny coincidence, his "memory errors" involved inserting
> into his story conspiracy factoids -- including one wild one about LBJ
> calling.

If you'd ever read anything about human memory, and remembered it, you'd
know these kind of errors happen all the time. Are you ready to claim
Brennan lied to CBS and than again in his book? Or that every distortion
by Specter and Baden in their books was a deliberate lie? I thought not.

>
>
> >The irony, of course, is
> >that his inaccurate recollections of the head wound as being on the back
> >of the head came from the VERY doctors who later denounced him...for
> >taking THEIR reports and testimony seriously. They owed him a BIG apology,
> >IMO.
> >
>
> No, you are going with the Aguilar distortions of what they said.
> Their actual testimony was all over the place.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar

Uggghhh. I have two chapters devoted to this topic. You really ought to
read it. It takes what you've written and expands upon it tremendously.
Yes, the original reports are not suggestive of a wound on the far back of
the head. But, Crenshaw's memory also absorbed the so-called McClelland
drawing-- which was purported to show their recollections. Which did.

>
> But even if Aguilar had been right, Crenshaw had no business taking
> material from other sources and claiming to have a memory of things he
> did not see.

Once again, you clearly know nothing about human memory, and its failings.

>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 24 Jun 2012 15:40:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:55:07 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 23 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>>
>> >

You've been victimized by reading only leftie anti-Bush sources.

http://www.factcheck.org/new_evidence_supports_bush_military_service_mostly.html

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 23 Jun 2012 21:05:51 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 6/23/2012 6:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 23 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> And of course, Crenshaw was lying about most everything.
>>>
>>> Lying? Or suffering from a bad memory? He was accused of lying about ever
>>> being in the room. It turned out, however, that HIS memory was correct on
>>> that point. So, were those making out that he wasn't even there "lying" or
>>> similarly mistaken?
>>>
>>
>> What about this, Pat?
>>
>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48686&relPageId=19
>>
>> .John
>
>Gus Russo is a paid professional CIA disinformation agent.

And you know that how?

>Like the story
>his CIA handlers told him about JFK's brain being buried in JFK's casket
>during the reinterment. Even going so far as to claiming it was Kennedy's
>brain in the wooden box near Cardinal Cushing. As everyone here saw I
>found the documents and photographs to prove that his story was a lie.
>

Why would the CIA tell him that?

Since the HSCA, it's been obvious that RFK got the brain.

What he did with it has no bearing on whether there was a conspiracy.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/24/2012 4:07 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 23 Jun 2012 21:05:51 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/23/2012 6:19 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 23 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And of course, Crenshaw was lying about most everything.
>>>>
>>>> Lying? Or suffering from a bad memory? He was accused of lying about ever
>>>> being in the room. It turned out, however, that HIS memory was correct on
>>>> that point. So, were those making out that he wasn't even there "lying" or
>>>> similarly mistaken?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What about this, Pat?
>>>
>>> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48686&relPageId=19
>>>
>>> .John
>>
>> Gus Russo is a paid professional CIA disinformation agent.
>
> And you know that how?
>

By the fact that he lunched with those CIA officers in Washington and
accepted the propaganda they fed him and informed them about JFK
conspiracy researchers.

>
>> Like the story
>> his CIA handlers told him about JFK's brain being buried in JFK's casket
>> during the reinterment. Even going so far as to claiming it was Kennedy's
>> brain in the wooden box near Cardinal Cushing. As everyone here saw I
>> found the documents and photographs to prove that his story was a lie.
>>
>
> Why would the CIA tell him that?
>

So that no one will look for the brain because they know we can't get an
exhumation ordered.

> Since the HSCA, it's been obvious that RFK got the brain.
>

Yes, RFK got it, or rather his representative got it.

> What he did with it has no bearing on whether there was a conspiracy.
>

Yes it does. A careful examination of the brain proves that there was no
bullet from behind which went through the brain. But rather a bullet
hitting the front of the head exploded, depositing a chemical residue on
the brain and blowing the right front part of the brain out of the head.
The first autopsy report indicated conspiracy. Unless you can figure out a
way for the sniper in the TSBD to shoot JFK in the forehead.

http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Langley29.jpg


> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

You've been victimized by reading only extreme rightwing sources.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 24 Jun 2012 20:30:45 -0400, Anthony Marsh

<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 6/24/2012 4:07 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 23 Jun 2012 21:05:51 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Gus Russo is a paid professional CIA disinformation agent.
>>
>> And you know that how?
>>
>
>By the fact that he lunched with those CIA officers in Washington and
>accepted the propaganda they fed him and informed them about JFK
>conspiracy researchers.
>

You really should can the irresponsible statements, Tony.

Of course any journalist would want to hear what CIA officers have to
say about a variety of issues.

And why *shouldn't* he tell them about JFK conspiracy researchers?
What buff "researchers" are doing is not any kind of confidential
information.

Of course, you have no evidence for "paid professional CIA
disinformation agent." It's just another of your irresponsible slurs.

>>
>>> Like the story
>>> his CIA handlers told him about JFK's brain being buried in JFK's casket
>>> during the reinterment. Even going so far as to claiming it was Kennedy's
>>> brain in the wooden box near Cardinal Cushing. As everyone here saw I
>>> found the documents and photographs to prove that his story was a lie.
>>>
>>
>> Why would the CIA tell him that?
>>
>
>So that no one will look for the brain because they know we can't get an
>exhumation ordered.
>

In fact, saying that the brain is in a particular location would make
it *more likely* that somebody would want to dig it up.

>> Since the HSCA, it's been obvious that RFK got the brain.
>>
>
>Yes, RFK got it, or rather his representative got it.
>
>> What he did with it has no bearing on whether there was a conspiracy.
>>
>
>Yes it does. A careful examination of the brain proves that there was no
>bullet from behind which went through the brain.

Every forensic pathologist who has studied the materials disagrees
with you.

And that includes Wecht.

>But rather a bullet
>hitting the front of the head exploded, depositing a chemical residue on
>the brain and blowing the right front part of the brain out of the head.
>The first autopsy report indicated conspiracy. Unless you can figure out a
>way for the sniper in the TSBD to shoot JFK in the forehead.
>
>http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Langley29.jpg
>
>

So your entire attack on Russo is based on your bizarre theory as to
the head wound.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 24 Jun 2012 15:40:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:55:07 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 23 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>>
>>

>> How about lying about having seen the throat wound?
>>
>> How about lying about LBJ calling up and demanding that Oswald be
>> killed (which was watered down a bit when nobody would buy it)?
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
>
>Au contraire, you know as well as I that many would have bought it. Which
>suggests that, in removing this bit, Crenshaw was trying to tell the
>truth, at least the truth as he knew it.
>

The crazies on the Education Forum would have bought it. But anybody
respectable (a non-fringe publisher, for example) would not have
bought it.

As for "trying to tell the truth," why did his version of "truth"
change when his first story didn't work?

Whether anybody believed it was irrelevant.

The case turned on "actual malice," which is what the jurors said.

>Joe Trento
>still stands by it, and says he got the info directly from Angleton.
>Angleton fudged his answers when asked about it in his testimony. There's
>something there.
>

No, Trento makes reference to a document he can't produce. And we
have to take his word that he heard about it.

Hunt was in DC on the day of the assassination. The Rockefeller
Commission established that.

BTW, given what you say about memory below, could not Trento have a
mangled memory of what he heard?

When somebody produces the documents, I'll believe it ever existed.

>>
>>
>> >to the extent that some
>> >people might reasonably believe it. Heck, some members of the jury
>> >believed it. You can't win a libel suit if members of the jury believe the
>> >"libelous" story is true.
>>
>> But the majority didn't.
>>
>> You *really* need to be a bit critical of what you real from Mark
>> Lane.
>
>Don't worry, I am. He writes defense briefs for Oswald same as you write
>briefs for the prosecution.
>

But since the accused is guilty, I don't have to lie.

See my other post on this. FACTCHECK.ORG does not agree with you.

>>
>>
>> That's just not true. Going to court in a case like this can cost
>> into six figures very quickly.
>>
>> And irresponsible juries sometimes make huge awards to people with
>> cases that should have been dismissed.
>
>Then the burden is on you. Find another case of such magnitude in which
>JAMA paid off the defendant claiming they'd libeled him, when it's obvious
>they did not.
>

No, the burden of proof is on you. Everybody knows this happens all
the time.

>>
>> >>
>> >> The costs of going to trial are huge.
>> >
>> >A large part of those costs are the cost of taking depositions. And
>> >depositions aplenty were taken in this case.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> We really need to "loser pays" system that prevails in Europe.
>> >
>> >Sometimes that does happen. But that system unfortunately rewards the rich.
>> >The threat of having to pay for a rich man's fatcat lawyer gives scumbags
>> >unfair leverage in any possible legal action. It's bad enough that they can
>> >afford the hotshot attorneys, and receive preferential access to the law,
>> >but giving them an additional cloak of protection by making poor people pay
>> >for those hotshots? That's disgusting.
>> >
>>
>> Sashay(tm)!
>>
>> Tort liability lawyers are happy to take cases from very poor people
>> on a continguncy fee basis.
>
>SO...public policy should be based upon the assumption rich lawyers will
>occasionally gamble?
>

But anytime they take a case on a contingency fee basis, they are
gambling.

The problem is that the system is skewed toward the ambulance chasers.

>>
>> Even where criminal law is concerned, are you saying that every poor
>> person should have an O.J. "dream team" legal defense?
>>
>> Had it not been for a black racist jury, even the "dream team" would
>> not have gotten O.J. off, since he was clearly guilty.
>
>WOW. Talk about a straw man. One wonders if you were nearly as concerned
>when white racists juries cleared dozens of murderers in the fifties and
>sixties, as you were when this one guy got off in the nineties...perhaps
>in part because he was black, but definitely because he was rich.
>

I wonder if you are a politically correct person who refuses to judge
black juries on the same basis as white juries. Could it be that you
don't *expect* black juries to act sensibly? Could it be that you
think it's OK if black jurors have a racial chip on their shoulders?

I judge black juries and white juries by the same standard.

You apparently don't.

>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >Crenshaw WON.
>> >>
>> >> No, he and his lawyere were bought off.
>> >
>> >Newsflash. In a civil suit getting bought off is called "WINNING."
>> >
>>
>> It's called "successful extortion."
>
>Somehow I doubt you've ever claimed as much at a courthouse. Something
>tells me a lawyer or two might take offense.
>

Oh, my!

I would never want to say anything that would offend a lawyer!

>> >>
>> >> Are you admitting that his account was absurdly unreliable?
>> >
>> >The lawsuit wasn't about the reliability of his memory beyond that he
>> >claimed to have been involved in something they said he wasn't involved
>> >in--and they were clearly in error. But yes, I'm inclined to agree that
>> >Crenshaw's memory was inaccurate on some points.
>>
>> But by a funny coincidence, his "memory errors" involved inserting
>> into his story conspiracy factoids -- including one wild one about LBJ
>> calling.
>
>If you'd ever read anything about human memory, and remembered it, you'd
>know these kind of errors happen all the time. Are you ready to claim
>Brennan lied to CBS and than again in his book? Or that every distortion
>by Specter and Baden in their books was a deliberate lie? I thought not.
>

Actually, were you not *insisting* that Baden lied about
everything??!!

Have you changed your position?

I know way more about memory than you do. I'm a social scientist,
remember?

Sometimes it's an open question. Zaid and Ford actually argue that
Jean Hill, starting in the 1980s, was not lying, but was actually a
victim of memory confabulation.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zaid.htm

I think that's *barely* possible.

I think the case for Crenshaw is much weaker.

Further, if you want admit he lied, you *are* admitting that he's
grossly unreliable.

>>
>>
>> >The irony, of course, is
>> >that his inaccurate recollections of the head wound as being on the back
>> >of the head came from the VERY doctors who later denounced him...for
>> >taking THEIR reports and testimony seriously. They owed him a BIG apology,
>> >IMO.
>> >
>>
>> No, you are going with the Aguilar distortions of what they said.
>> Their actual testimony was all over the place.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar
>
>Uggghhh. I have two chapters devoted to this topic. You really ought to
>read it. It takes what you've written and expands upon it tremendously.

Yes, I do rememeber your coming up with actual images of Clint Hill
showing where he thought the wound was. That was good work.

>Yes, the original reports are not suggestive of a wound on the far back of
>the head. But, Crenshaw's memory also absorbed the so-called McClelland
>drawing-- which was purported to show their recollections. Which did.
>

Did his "memory absorb" it, or did he lace his account with conspiracy
factoids?

Note his book buys Lifton's theories.

>>
>> But even if Aguilar had been right, Crenshaw had no business taking
>> material from other sources and claiming to have a memory of things he
>> did not see.
>
>Once again, you clearly know nothing about human memory, and its failings.
>

I know quite a lot about that. Which is why I think *some* of what
Crenshaw said is beyond the range of memory failure. Changing "kill
Oswald" to "get a confession" is the clearest case.

But remembering walking into the ER with McClelland and seeing the
unaltered throat wound is close.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[John McAdams]

On 24 Jun 2012 20:31:20 -0400, Anthony Marsh

Tony's definistion of a "right wing" source: any source that tell him
something he doesn't want to believe.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[David Von Pein]

>>> "The first autopsy report indicated conspiracy." <<<

Please show me that autopsy report. I want to see it.

And then, after telling me that it doesn't exist anymore because Humes
destroyed it, tell me how you know that the "first autopsy report
indicated conspiracy".

Did Humes tell you that personally?

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:16:39 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2012 15:40:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>

> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:55:07 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 23 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
> >>
> >>
> >> How about lying about having seen the throat wound?
> >>
> >> How about lying about LBJ calling up and demanding that Oswald be
> >> killed (which was watered down a bit when nobody would buy it)?
> >>
> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
> >
> >Au contraire, you know as well as I that many would have bought it. Which
> >suggests that, in removing this bit, Crenshaw was trying to tell the
> >truth, at least the truth as he knew it.
> >
>
> The crazies on the Education Forum would have bought it. But anybody
> respectable (a non-fringe publisher, for example) would not have
> bought it.
>
> As for "trying to tell the truth," why did his version of "truth"
> change when his first story didn't work?

Who said it "didn't work?" Do you have proof he shopped a book prior to Conspiracy of Silence, but then pulled it back and changed its claims when no one would publish it?

NO. Not that he heard about it. He said, and still says, that Angleton showed it to him. I asked him about this myself. If you read Angleton's testimony, moreover, it's clear there's something there.

>
> Hunt was in DC on the day of the assassination. The Rockefeller
> Commission established that.
>
> BTW, given what you say about memory below, could not Trento have a
> mangled memory of what he heard?

Not what he heard. He saw it and wrote about it right away. The person who he claimed showed it to him was then deposed, and denied the existence of the document at the same time he insisted it was all a misunderstanding. There's something there. It might be that Angleton was playing some kind of a joke. I don't claim to know.

>
> When somebody produces the documents, I'll believe it ever existed.

Niw, really, do you think Angleton would allows such a document to ever see the light of day, after denying its existence?

>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >to the extent that some
> >> >people might reasonably believe it. Heck, some members of the jury
> >> >believed it. You can't win a libel suit if members of the jury believe the
> >> >"libelous" story is true.
> >>
> >> But the majority didn't.
> >>
> >> You *really* need to be a bit critical of what you real from Mark
> >> Lane.
> >
> >Don't worry, I am. He writes defense briefs for Oswald same as you write
> >briefs for the prosecution.
> >
>
> But since the accused is guilty, I don't have to lie.

And yet prosecutors DO lie. As a matter of habit. This is what I mean by your not knowing enough about human cognition and memory. Studies have shown over and over that lawyers randomly chosen to be prosecutors overwhelmingly come to believe the defendant is guilty, and lawyers randomly chosen to be defense attorneys overwhelmingly believe the defendant is innocent. People lie...first and foremost to themselves.

"Everyone knowing" something in general is not evidence regarding this specific case. We're talking about the Journal of the American Medical Association. Find me an instance where they settled a libel case that had no merit, just to save a few bucks. Or admit you know of such case.

>
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> The costs of going to trial are huge.
> >> >
> >> >A large part of those costs are the cost of taking depositions. And
> >> >depositions aplenty were taken in this case.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> We really need to "loser pays" system that prevails in Europe.
> >> >
> >> >Sometimes that does happen. But that system unfortunately rewards the rich.
> >> >The threat of having to pay for a rich man's fatcat lawyer gives scumbags
> >> >unfair leverage in any possible legal action. It's bad enough that they can
> >> >afford the hotshot attorneys, and receive preferential access to the law,
> >> >but giving them an additional cloak of protection by making poor people pay
> >> >for those hotshots? That's disgusting.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Sashay(tm)!
> >>
> >> Tort liability lawyers are happy to take cases from very poor people
> >> on a continguncy fee basis.
> >
> >SO...public policy should be based upon the assumption rich lawyers will
> >occasionally gamble?
> >
>
> But anytime they take a case on a contingency fee basis, they are
> gambling.
>
> The problem is that the system is skewed toward the ambulance chasers.

I see both sides of this issue. One of my best friends is Chief Counsel to one of the biggest insurance companies in America. So I know all about the ambulance chasers. And the way the big boys try to keep them away from the money pot.

>
>
> >>
> >> Even where criminal law is concerned, are you saying that every poor
> >> person should have an O.J. "dream team" legal defense?
> >>
> >> Had it not been for a black racist jury, even the "dream team" would
> >> not have gotten O.J. off, since he was clearly guilty.
> >
> >WOW. Talk about a straw man. One wonders if you were nearly as concerned
> >when white racists juries cleared dozens of murderers in the fifties and
> >sixties, as you were when this one guy got off in the nineties...perhaps
> >in part because he was black, but definitely because he was rich.
> >
>
> I wonder if you are a politically correct person who refuses to judge
> black juries on the same basis as white juries. Could it be that you
> don't *expect* black juries to act sensibly? Could it be that you
> think it's OK if black jurors have a racial chip on their shoulders?
>
> I judge black juries and white juries by the same standard.
>
> You apparently don't.

Well, once again, you're 100% wrong. I was a huge O.J. fan but realized early on he was probably guilty. Even after the Fuhrman nonsense, it seemed clear to me he was guilty. I came close to losing a friend over it. (I think Petrocelli's book did a good job of explaining the racist angle.)

>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >Crenshaw WON.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, he and his lawyere were bought off.
> >> >
> >> >Newsflash. In a civil suit getting bought off is called "WINNING."
> >> >
> >>
> >> It's called "successful extortion."
> >
> >Somehow I doubt you've ever claimed as much at a courthouse. Something
> >tells me a lawyer or two might take offense.
> >
>
> Oh, my!
>
> I would never want to say anything that would offend a lawyer!
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you admitting that his account was absurdly unreliable?
> >> >
> >> >The lawsuit wasn't about the reliability of his memory beyond that he
> >> >claimed to have been involved in something they said he wasn't involved
> >> >in--and they were clearly in error. But yes, I'm inclined to agree that
> >> >Crenshaw's memory was inaccurate on some points.
> >>
> >> But by a funny coincidence, his "memory errors" involved inserting
> >> into his story conspiracy factoids -- including one wild one about LBJ
> >> calling.
> >
> >If you'd ever read anything about human memory, and remembered it, you'd
> >know these kind of errors happen all the time. Are you ready to claim
> >Brennan lied to CBS and than again in his book? Or that every distortion
> >by Specter and Baden in their books was a deliberate lie? I thought not.
> >
>
> Actually, were you not *insisting* that Baden lied about
> everything??!!
>
> Have you changed your position?

It would be hard for me to change a position I never came close to having. I said Baden made errors similar to the kinds of errors Garrison made, but which you chose to call LIES.

>
> I know way more about memory than you do. I'm a social scientist,
> remember?

LOL. Yes, I remember. Your interest is in politics--the art of misrepresenting facts for personal gain.

>
> Sometimes it's an open question. Zaid and Ford actually argue that
> Jean Hill, starting in the 1980s, was not lying, but was actually a
> victim of memory confabulation.
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zaid.htm
>
> I think that's *barely* possible.
>
> I think the case for Crenshaw is much weaker.
>
> Further, if you want admit he lied, you *are* admitting that he's
> grossly unreliable.

I agree. I have a chapter in which I prove Crenshaw was unreliable.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/24/2012 11:51 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 24 Jun 2012 20:30:45 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/24/2012 4:07 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 23 Jun 2012 21:05:51 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>>> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gus Russo is a paid professional CIA disinformation agent.
>>>
>>> And you know that how?
>>>
>>
>> By the fact that he lunched with those CIA officers in Washington and
>> accepted the propaganda they fed him and informed them about JFK
>> conspiracy researchers.
>>
>
> You really should can the irresponsible statements, Tony.
>
> Of course any journalist would want to hear what CIA officers have to
> say about a variety of issues.
>

Journalist? Please. Stop being silly.
It's just like Seymour Hersh starting to write a book about the JFK
assassination until a CIA officer tipped him off to JFK using drugs and
prostitutes and paying several SS agents to spill the beans about what
is supposed to be confidential.

> And why *shouldn't* he tell them about JFK conspiracy researchers?
> What buff "researchers" are doing is not any kind of confidential
> information.
>

Of course it is if it was not already public knowledge.

> Of course, you have no evidence for "paid professional CIA
> disinformation agent." It's just another of your irresponsible slurs.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>> Like the story
>>>> his CIA handlers told him about JFK's brain being buried in JFK's casket
>>>> during the reinterment. Even going so far as to claiming it was Kennedy's
>>>> brain in the wooden box near Cardinal Cushing. As everyone here saw I
>>>> found the documents and photographs to prove that his story was a lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why would the CIA tell him that?
>>>
>>
>> So that no one will look for the brain because they know we can't get an
>> exhumation ordered.
>>
>
> In fact, saying that the brain is in a particular location would make
> it *more likely* that somebody would want to dig it up.
>

No. No one can dig it up. I have said where I think the brain is and not
is trying to dig it up.

>
>>> Since the HSCA, it's been obvious that RFK got the brain.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, RFK got it, or rather his representative got it.
>>
>>> What he did with it has no bearing on whether there was a conspiracy.
>>>
>>
>> Yes it does. A careful examination of the brain proves that there was no
>> bullet from behind which went through the brain.
>
> Every forensic pathologist who has studied the materials disagrees
> with you.
>

None of them studied the brain. They would not allow forensic
pathologists to study the brain.

> And that includes Wecht.
>

Wecht doesn't know everything.

>
>> But rather a bullet
>> hitting the front of the head exploded, depositing a chemical residue on
>> the brain and blowing the right front part of the brain out of the head.
>> The first autopsy report indicated conspiracy. Unless you can figure out a
>> way for the sniper in the TSBD to shoot JFK in the forehead.
>>
>> http://the-puzzle-palace.com/Langley29.jpg
>>
>>
>
> So your entire attack on Russo is based on your bizarre theory as to
> the head wound.
>

No, my theory is AFTER and incidental to Gus Russo lying.

> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe because you only cite extreme rightwing sources.

[John McAdams]

On 25 Jun 2012 15:40:06 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM" <pjsp...@aol.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:16:39 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 24 Jun 2012 15:40:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:55:07 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>> >> On 23 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> How about lying about having seen the throat wound?
>> >>
>> >> How about lying about LBJ calling up and demanding that Oswald be
>> >> killed (which was watered down a bit when nobody would buy it)?
>> >>
>> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
>> >
>> >Au contraire, you know as well as I that many would have bought it. Which
>> >suggests that, in removing this bit, Crenshaw was trying to tell the
>> >truth, at least the truth as he knew it.
>> >
>>
>> The crazies on the Education Forum would have bought it. But anybody
>> respectable (a non-fringe publisher, for example) would not have
>> bought it.
>>
>> As for "trying to tell the truth," why did his version of "truth"
>> change when his first story didn't work?
>
>Who said it "didn't work?" Do you have proof he shopped a book prior
>to Conspiracy of Silence, but then pulled it back and changed its
>claims when no one would publish it?

Do you have proof he didn't?

Why do you think he changed his story?

But you can't produce the document.

And just *what* are you claiming about Angleton's testimony.

QUOTE WHAT YOU THINK SUPPORTS YOUR VIEW.

>>
>> Hunt was in DC on the day of the assassination. The Rockefeller
>> Commission established that.
>>
>> BTW, given what you say about memory below, could not Trento have a
>> mangled memory of what he heard?
>
>Not what he heard. He saw it and wrote about it right away. The person
>who he claimed showed it to him was then deposed, and denied the
>existence of the document at the same time he insisted it was all
>a misunderstanding. There's something there. It might be that Angleton
>was playing some kind of a joke. I don't claim to know.

So Angleton refused to confirm Trento's story.

And you haven't dealt with the fact that Hunt was *not* in Dallas on

the day of the assassination.


>>

>> When somebody produces the documents, I'll believe it ever existed.
>
>Niw, really, do you think Angleton would allows such a document to ever
>see the light of day, after denying its existence?

Translation: the CIA's dog ate my evidence.

>>
>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >to the extent that some
>> >> >people might reasonably believe it. Heck, some members of the jury
>> >> >believed it. You can't win a libel suit if members of the jury believe the
>> >> >"libelous" story is true.
>> >>
>> >> But the majority didn't.
>> >>
>> >> You *really* need to be a bit critical of what you real from Mark
>> >> Lane.
>> >
>> >Don't worry, I am. He writes defense briefs for Oswald same as you write
>> >briefs for the prosecution.
>> >
>>
>> But since the accused is guilty, I don't have to lie.
>
>And yet prosecutors DO lie. As a matter of habit. This is what I mean by
>your not knowing enough about human cognition and memory. Studies have
>shown over and over that lawyers randomly chosen to be prosecutors
>overwhelmingly come to believe the defendant is guilty, and lawyers
>randomly chosen to be defense attorneys overwhelmingly believe the
>defendant is innocent. People lie...first and foremost to themselves.

But I can prove that Lane lied. You can't show that I've lied about
anything.

That is unless you do the buff thing and insist that any assertion you
disagree with is a "lie."

But I don't think you are inclined to do such.

>> >
>> >Then the burden is on you. Find another case of such magnitude in which
>> >JAMA paid off the defendant claiming they'd libeled him, when it's obvious
>> >they did not.
>> >
>>
>> No, the burden of proof is on you. Everybody knows this happens all
>> the time.
>
>"Everyone knowing" something in general is not evidence regarding this
>specific case. We're talking about the Journal of the American Medical
>Association. Find me an instance where they settled a libel case that
>had no merit, just to save a few bucks. Or admit you know of such case.

I doubt there is such a case with the JAMA, since they usually don't
take on JFK assassination buffs.

I know of other cases. I know about one at Marquette, but can't
reveal the source.

>> >
>> >SO...public policy should be based upon the assumption rich lawyers will
>> >occasionally gamble?
>> >
>>
>> But anytime they take a case on a contingency fee basis, they are
>> gambling.
>>
>> The problem is that the system is skewed toward the ambulance chasers.
>
>I see both sides of this issue. One of my best friends is Chief Counsel
>to one of the biggest insurance companies in America. So I know all about
>the ambulance chasers. And the way the big boys try to keep them away
>from the money pot.

I'm all for "loser pays." That's the system in Europe.

>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> Even where criminal law is concerned, are you saying that every poor
>> >> person should have an O.J. "dream team" legal defense?
>> >>
>> >> Had it not been for a black racist jury, even the "dream team" would
>> >> not have gotten O.J. off, since he was clearly guilty.
>> >
>> >WOW. Talk about a straw man. One wonders if you were nearly as concerned
>> >when white racists juries cleared dozens of murderers in the fifties and
>> >sixties, as you were when this one guy got off in the nineties...perhaps
>> >in part because he was black, but definitely because he was rich.
>> >
>>
>> I wonder if you are a politically correct person who refuses to judge
>> black juries on the same basis as white juries. Could it be that you
>> don't *expect* black juries to act sensibly? Could it be that you
>> think it's OK if black jurors have a racial chip on their shoulders?
>>
>> I judge black juries and white juries by the same standard.
>>
>> You apparently don't.
>
>Well, once again, you're 100% wrong. I was a huge O.J. fan but realized
>early on he was probably guilty. Even after the Fuhrman nonsense, it
>seemed clear to me he was guilty. I came close to losing a friend over it.
>(I think Petrocelli's book did a good job of explaining the racist angle.)
>

Good for you on recognizing that.

>> >
>> >If you'd ever read anything about human memory, and remembered it, you'd
>> >know these kind of errors happen all the time. Are you ready to claim
>> >Brennan lied to CBS and than again in his book? Or that every distortion
>> >by Specter and Baden in their books was a deliberate lie? I thought not.
>> >
>>
>> Actually, were you not *insisting* that Baden lied about
>> everything??!!
>>
>> Have you changed your position?
>
>It would be hard for me to change a position I never came close to
>having. I said Baden made errors similar to the kinds of errors
>Garrison made, but which you chose to call LIES.

Sometimes it can be a hard call (as with the case of Jean Hill), but
sometimes it's not.

How would you explain this, for example?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/route.htm

>>
>> I know way more about memory than you do. I'm a social scientist,
>> remember?
>
>LOL. Yes, I remember. Your interest is in politics--the art of
>misrepresenting facts for personal gain.

Which is why people like me are good at analyzing people like
Crenshaw.

>>
>> Sometimes it's an open question. Zaid and Ford actually argue that
>> Jean Hill, starting in the 1980s, was not lying, but was actually a
>> victim of memory confabulation.
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/zaid.htm
>>
>> I think that's *barely* possible.
>>
>> I think the case for Crenshaw is much weaker.
>>
>> Further, if you want admit he lied, you *are* admitting that he's
>> grossly unreliable.
>
>I agree. I have a chapter in which I prove Crenshaw was unreliable.

I'll try to check that out. You may have some material I don't have
on my page on Crenshaw.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/25/2012 3:40 PM, pjsp...@AOL.COM wrote:
> On Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:16:39 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>> On 24 Jun 2012 15:40:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:55:07 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>>>> On 23 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How about lying about having seen the throat wound?
>>>>
>>>> How about lying about LBJ calling up and demanding that Oswald be
>>>> killed (which was watered down a bit when nobody would buy it)?
>>>>
>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
>>>
>>> Au contraire, you know as well as I that many would have bought it. Which
>>> suggests that, in removing this bit, Crenshaw was trying to tell the
>>> truth, at least the truth as he knew it.
>>>
>>
>> The crazies on the Education Forum would have bought it. But anybody
>> respectable (a non-fringe publisher, for example) would not have
>> bought it.
>>
>> As for "trying to tell the truth," why did his version of "truth"
>> change when his first story didn't work?
>
> Who said it "didn't work?" Do you have proof he shopped a book prior to Conspiracy of Silence, but then pulled it back and changed its claims when no one would publish it?

They don't deal in proof, only innuendo.

Gorden Novel told Frontline that Angleton had shown him the photo of
Hoover getting a blowjob from Tolsen and they ran with the story.

>>
>> Hunt was in DC on the day of the assassination. The Rockefeller
>> Commission established that.
>>
>> BTW, given what you say about memory below, could not Trento have a
>> mangled memory of what he heard?
>
> Not what he heard. He saw it and wrote about it right away. The person who he claimed showed it to him was then deposed, and denied the existence of the document at the same time he insisted it was all a misunderstanding. There's something there. It might be that Angleton was playing some kind of a joke. I don't claim to know.
>>
>> When somebody produces the documents, I'll believe it ever existed.
>
> Niw, really, do you think Angleton would allows such a document to ever see the light of day, after denying its existence?

Maybe not that document. Maybe a similar document. Let me give you a few
examples. Several years ago prisoners in a state prison were assigned the
task of cleaning up some old filing cabinets that the prison had been
given as government surplus. When they picked the locks and opened the
cabinets they found hundreds of Top Secret documents that were supposed to
be destroyed. Richard Helms ordered that all copies of the Inspector
General's report on the Bay of Pigs invasion be destroyed. They thought
they had destroyed all the copies, but someone found one that they did not
know about. That is the only remaining copy. Helms ordered all MK/Ultra
documents destroyed, but some bean counters had kept extra copies to
protect themselves if someone asked where the money went. One NSA officer
was threatened when he protested the illegal drug testing program. So he
put down 4 caches of Top Secret documents as leverage to protect himself
and his family. The CIA has found and retrieved 2 of those caches, but
they can not find the other 2. Oliver North covered his tracks in the Iran
Contra Affair by erasing all his e-mails and memos from the computer
system. What he didn't know was that everything was automatically backed
up to a secure back-up system that he didn't know about. Because he was
computer illiterate. He may have been great at assassinating people, but
he didn't know DOS about computers.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/25/2012 7:48 PM, John McAdams wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2012 15:40:06 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:16:39 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 24 Jun 2012 15:40:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:55:07 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
>>>>> On 23 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How about lying about having seen the throat wound?
>>>>>
>>>>> How about lying about LBJ calling up and demanding that Oswald be
>>>>> killed (which was watered down a bit when nobody would buy it)?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
>>>>
>>>> Au contraire, you know as well as I that many would have bought it. Which
>>>> suggests that, in removing this bit, Crenshaw was trying to tell the
>>>> truth, at least the truth as he knew it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The crazies on the Education Forum would have bought it. But anybody
>>> respectable (a non-fringe publisher, for example) would not have
>>> bought it.
>>>
>>> As for "trying to tell the truth," why did his version of "truth"
>>> change when his first story didn't work?
>>
>> Who said it "didn't work?" Do you have proof he shopped a book prior
>> to Conspiracy of Silence, but then pulled it back and changed its
>> claims when no one would publish it?
>
> Do you have proof he didn't?
>

Cheap tactic. When you can't prove YOUR point you demand that your
opponent prove the negative.

> Why do you think he changed his story?
>

What story? The one you made up?

You expect us to produce documents which the government will never
release? OK.

No, because you are biased.

[pjsp...@aol.com]

On Monday, June 25, 2012 4:48:14 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2012 15:40:06 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
>

> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, June 24, 2012 9:16:39 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 24 Jun 2012 15:40:32 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
> >>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Saturday, June 23, 2012 1:55:07 PM UTC-7, John McAdams wrote:
> >> >> On 23 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0400, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> How about lying about having seen the throat wound?
> >> >>
> >> >> How about lying about LBJ calling up and demanding that Oswald be
> >> >> killed (which was watered down a bit when nobody would buy it)?
> >> >>
> >> >> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crenshaw.htm
> >> >
> >> >Au contraire, you know as well as I that many would have bought it. Which
> >> >suggests that, in removing this bit, Crenshaw was trying to tell the
> >> >truth, at least the truth as he knew it.
> >> >
> >>
> >> The crazies on the Education Forum would have bought it. But anybody
> >> respectable (a non-fringe publisher, for example) would not have
> >> bought it.
> >>
> >> As for "trying to tell the truth," why did his version of "truth"
> >> change when his first story didn't work?
> >
> >Who said it "didn't work?" Do you have proof he shopped a book prior
> >to Conspiracy of Silence, but then pulled it back and changed its
> >claims when no one would publish it?
>
> Do you have proof he didn't?

I take this as an acknowledgement that you just decided that he'd changed his story when he couldn't sell the first one. Without any supporting evidence.

>
> Why do you think he changed his story?

Why do so many OLD people change their stories? They're 1) OLD, 2) trying to make their life sound more interesting, 3) trying to correct some of the wilder stuff they've claimed lest people think they're liars.

What good what it do, anyhow? Without the approval stamp of the US Govt, you'd just say it was fake.

>
> And just *what* are you claiming about Angleton's testimony.
>
> QUOTE WHAT YOU THINK SUPPORTS YOUR VIEW.

Angleton's testimony is online. Take a gander and see what he says about the 'document" and Trento. I'll give you a hint. He doesn't say it was all a bunch of nonsense made up by some wacky CTs.

>
>
>
> >>
> >> Hunt was in DC on the day of the assassination. The Rockefeller
> >> Commission established that.
> >>
> >> BTW, given what you say about memory below, could not Trento have a
> >> mangled memory of what he heard?
> >
> >Not what he heard. He saw it and wrote about it right away. The person
> >who he claimed showed it to him was then deposed, and denied the
> >existence of the document at the same time he insisted it was all
> >a misunderstanding. There's something there. It might be that Angleton
> >was playing some kind of a joke. I don't claim to know.
>
> So Angleton refused to confirm Trento's story.
>
> And you haven't dealt with the fact that Hunt was *not* in Dallas on
> the day of the assassination.

Why would I "deal" with something that 1) no one has proven, and 2) is immaterial. I don't believe Hunt was in Dallas on the day of the assassination. I don't believe the specifics of Lorenz's story. But I suspect something is there, nonetheless. It seems more than a coincidence that Lorenz, Hunt's son, Sturgis' nephew, and Gerry Hemming all hinted that these men were involved in some way. But it could all be nonsense.

>
>
> >>
> >> When somebody produces the documents, I'll believe it ever existed.
> >
> >Niw, really, do you think Angleton would allows such a document to ever
> >see the light of day, after denying its existence?
>
> Translation: the CIA's dog ate my evidence.

It's not my evidence. I'm not arguing that this evidence exists. I'm just pointing out that your belief the document never existed is based on little more than wishful thinking.

>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >to the extent that some
> >> >> >people might reasonably believe it. Heck, some members of the jury
> >> >> >believed it. You can't win a libel suit if members of the jury believe the
> >> >> >"libelous" story is true.
> >> >>
> >> >> But the majority didn't.
> >> >>
> >> >> You *really* need to be a bit critical of what you real from Mark
> >> >> Lane.
> >> >
> >> >Don't worry, I am. He writes defense briefs for Oswald same as you write
> >> >briefs for the prosecution.
> >> >
> >>
> >> But since the accused is guilty, I don't have to lie.
> >
> >And yet prosecutors DO lie. As a matter of habit. This is what I mean by
> >your not knowing enough about human cognition and memory. Studies have
> >shown over and over that lawyers randomly chosen to be prosecutors
> >overwhelmingly come to believe the defendant is guilty, and lawyers
> >randomly chosen to be defense attorneys overwhelmingly believe the
> >defendant is innocent. People lie...first and foremost to themselves.
>
> But I can prove that Lane lied. You can't show that I've lied about
> anything.

Sorry. You sunk yourself a few years back when you refused to acknowledge that a sharply descending bullet entering the back at the T-1 level of someone sitting upright in a car and hitting no bones would be likely to exit below the T-1 level.

>
> That is unless you do the buff thing and insist that any assertion you
> disagree with is a "lie."
>
> But I don't think you are inclined to do such.

No. I'm one of the few researchers around who thinks most lies are told on a subconscious level, as a defense mechanism, and that people lie all the time on both sides of the debate, with little deliberate malice.