Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
As I said recently, disinformation season is upon us. The timing makes sense, as we are heading into the 40th and 45th anniversaries of JFK and RFK's assassination next year. Disinformation needs to be in place in advance so the chosen pundits can source and quote their crap from the likes of Posner, Ayton, and most recently, Vince Bugliosi, who wrote a 1600 page defense of the Warren Commission's verdict that Oswald acted alone. But as we all know, as a former prosecutor, Bugliosi is not about presenting both sides, but presenting only the facts that fit his case. WHY he felt the need to devote his later years to this effort remains an exceedingly interesting question.
At any rate, many glowing reviews are appearing in the media, which is really laughable, since I would bet hard money not one of the reviewers read all 1600 pages. Even the review copies have only just become available so that's quite a feat! And if they managed to read 1600 pages in that time, you can bet they had NO time to read any contradictory opinions to inform their coverage.Roger Petersen, a longtime writer and activist on this case, with a keen eye for sound judgment as well as illogic, took on Edward Wyatt's "review" (i.e., propaganda) and wrote this great response. I'm posting it here with Roger's permission.
Mr. Wyatt:
"It's impossible for any reasonable, rational person to read this book with being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone," says Bugliosi.
I guess I should give up.
But then I know an MD who also holds a PhD in physics who has proven that the Bethesda X-rays were deliberately faked.
He gives me reasonable doubt.
And another physician looked at all the testimony of his colleagues in Dallas and Bethesda and showed how the Warren Report deliberately summarized that testimony in contradiction to what the physicians actually said.
Black and white.
What did they actually say?
That JFK was hit from the front.
And yet another physician examined the bone fragments and said it was obvious JFK's head was hit twice, almost simultaneously, once from the front and once from the back.
This all gives me reasonable doubt.
And then that claim that Oswald was a sad lone nut who decided to kill the president, and he was a crack shot, it's been said.
So why did he use a beat-up rifle that Italian soldiers said frequently malfunctioned and why didn't Oswald shoot when the limo was coming directly at him in the street below. Much easier shot, even with a bad rifle.
No, he waited instead to shoot through a blinding tree.
That gives me reasonable doubt about those Oswald claims. After all, all other presidential assassins were quick to admit they did it and were proud to say so.
Not Oswald.
Isn't that curious.
And then there's that other lone nut, Ruby, who felt so bad about Mrs. Kennedy having to testify.
So he decided to pull together some sudden moral outrage, put aside his sordid morality in Chicago and Dallas, and do Mrs... Kennedy the favor of taking out Oswald.
Of course, these two guys had nothing to do with each other, the WC [Warren Commission] said, but we still had to lock up all the information on them for 75 years.
That definitely gives me reasonable doubt.
Many witnesses who swore they saw smoke in front of the limo, and heard shots, were never interviewed by the I've met them; they are reasonable and rational people. I doubt such omissions of testimony were reasonable, if a thorough investigation was intended.
And we can't forget a bullet that has zigged and zagged its way into countless comedy routines, including Seinfeld.
Irrationality makes good comedy.
I can't help but have reasonable doubt about why the Dallas police did not stake out the building tops and have the windows closed, standard procedure elsewhere.
Mr. Wyatt, I do not deal in conspiracy theories.
I deal in facts, as researched and presented by physicians, forensic pathologists, engineers, and army intelligence people.
Anyone who dismisses the countless oddities of the government's investigation as mere coincidences can rightly be dismissed as a coincidence theorist.
Roger Peterson
I just saw the film "Shooter" last night which, surprisingly, had a Cheney look alike, and deals with the horrible blood sacrifices offered on the altar of Big Oil. I'm always heartened to see Hollywood put up money for such politically charged stories, even when couched as action-thrillers. And as with V for Vendetta, the movie makers admit that the system is so broken that no courtoom justice is possible. That's a really strong point, not to be lost. People who massacre people in other countries for oil are never held accountable.
At some point in life one's credibility is outweighed by guaranteed sales and helping out the Secret Team, I suppose.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 174 guests