Tuesday, November 24, 2015

I am going to review the article written by Dale Myers for the 52nd anniversary, which can be found here:


I want to point out first that making definitive statements doesn't count for squat. And he makes a lot of them.

Lee Harvey Oswald never had his day in court, as we all know. But, it’s a historic fact that the crimes committed on November 22, 1963, lie at his feet alone.

Fifty-two years of argument about the evidence against him hasn’t moved the ball one inch, and more than five decades of digging by an army of investigators—both private and official (an unprecedented effort by any standard) —has failed to uncover one believable scrap of undeniable evidence that anyone else committed either crime that day or that others were involved.

Let that sink in for a moment. 

There is nothing to sink in. How dare he even say it? That's just Myers wagging his lips, making claims, talking trash. 

Anybody can do that. And it doesn't count for squat. And just because he says it with conviction, that doesn't improve it either. In other words, if we're going to think of this as a debate and the scoring of debate points, he gets 0 points for that blathering. And this piece of his is mostly blathering. 

Dale, I'm only interested in arguments. Do you know what an argument is? An argument is a position that is championed based upon cited evidence and a line of reasoning, where both the logic and the substantiation of the argument are compelling. 

So, let's see if he actually makes one. And from this point onward, I am not going to quote any more of his blather. Again: it counts for zilch.

First, Myers weighs in on Philip Shenon who wrote a book who endorsed everything in the Warren Report EXCEPT that Oswald may have gotten some encouragement/support from people he met in Mexico City. I'll give you a little help with that one Myers: Oswald denied going to Mexico City, and the only images we have of him there are images of impostors. 

Don't you think that if Oswald had really gone to Mexico City, they would not have had to resort to impostor images? You don't have to be a photo expert to realize that none of those figures are Lee Harvey Oswald. But, I'll tell you what: hold that thought. Let's approach this a different way. When Oswald supposedly went to Mexico City, he had absolutely no prospect, no anticipation of ever having an opportunity to kill JFK. Therefore, why would he have had it on his mind and been talking about it to anybody? Remember: the official story has it that the opportunity for Oswald to kill Kennedy only arose because Ruth Paine enjoyed tea and crumpets with the kindly neighbor ladies in Irving, and one of them mentioned that they were still hiring at the Book Depository. Oswald could have had no expectation in early September of that happening. So, Oswald had no reason to be thinking about or talking about the assassination of John F. Kennedy with anybody. 

So yes, you're right that the whole idea of Oswald colluding with others in Mexico City is absolutely groundless, worthless, and stupid nonsense; but you know something? You don't get any points for that. In no way does it bolster any of your claims. So, we can move on, but you still haven't scored a single debate point.

Next, Myers gets to Talbot's new book about Dulles, and his tactic is to deny that JFK was ever even displeased with Dulles, and that he didn't fire him; Dulles, according to Meyers, RESIGNED! And JFK RELUCTANTLY accepted it. 

Oh really, Myers? Then why did Dulles resign? Don't you think it was important to mention it? How can you claim that he resigned without saying why? Because, according to Talbot, Dulles was very depressed about losing his job, and that doesn't sound like he resigned. 

That is one hell of a claim to make. You would think he would realize the need to substantiate it. How did Myers substantiate it? He didn't. He cited Kennedy giving Dulles the National Security Medal at which ceremony he said nice things about him. That's a fucking thing called politics, Myers. JFK knew that Dulles had a lot of friends and supporters in the CIA, in the military, and even in Congress, and many of them were people that Kennedy had to continue working with. He knew he was upsetting a lot of people by firing Dulles, and he wanted to minimize the damage. And he was realistic: the man had served under 7 Presidents, including Republicans and Democrats. He wanted to get rid of him but with the least amount of fallout. So, he said some nice things about him at an award ceremony. Big deal. That's all that amounted to. It does not establish that Dulles resigned, and it does not establish that the sacking of Dulles was anything less than that: the sacking of Dulles. 

From there, Myers went on to claim that JFK really liked the CIA and he really cooperated with the CIA better than any other President- before or since. And for that, he quoted some other apologists, and it's as though JFK's conflicts and struggles with the CIA never existed, and I am really quite amazed with the brazenness of Myers' claims. Myers is brazen and undaunted; I'll give him credit for that. 

Next, Myers put down the new study out of Dartmouth about the Backyard photos being authentic. I've pointed out that that study didn't even address any of the major issues in dispute, such as the anvil-like chin which isn't Oswald's. But, Myers lampooned it based on the idea that it was totally unnecessary because Marina Oswald said she took the pictures.  Of course, Myers didn't mention that she first said that she took them in early February when Oswald didn't officially get the rifle until March 25. Oops. He also didn't mention the problem of Oswald picking up the rifle from his LHO PO Box that was sent to A. Hidell. There is no paperwork relating to it. Then, Myers cited the HSCA photo experts who said it was valid, but there is no chance that they would have gotten photo experts who said otherwise; that it was fake, so what does it matter? In other words: they went looking for and found photo experts who would say what they wanted them to say; that they were valid. That was the litmus test. It was part of the job description. 

Just as with Robert Groden. He was their photo expert on the Doorman issue. His job was to find for Lovelady as Doorman. They hired Groden with the understanding that he would find for Lovelady. It was not like they ever said to him, 

"Listen, Robert, just use your best judgment. If you think it was Oswald in the doorway, if that's where your analysis takes you, then rest assured, we're going to publish it. We want you to know that in advance  because all we care about is the truth."

No. It wasn't like that. Not even close to that. Not with Groden and not with the other photo experts. The HSCA was just another show trial, another dog and pony show, and they got experts who wold say what they wanted them to say. You can always find such experts.

Next, Myers really got brazen again. He said that Oswald admitted his attempt to shoot Walker. But, Myers didn't cite what he based it on. I suspect it was Marina's testimony. But, as I've pointed out, she took no action to distance herself and her daughter from a homicidal maniac; she mentioned it to no one, not even Ruth Paine (with whom she was very close at the time) or any of the Russian women in Dallas with whom she got close. She didn't mention it to her aunt and uncle in Russia (who were like parents to her) to whom she sent cheery letters AFTER the alleged Walker shooting incident. And she spoke glowingly of Oswald in earshot of Ruth Paine, telling her daughter June that "Papa loves us." How is that possible if he was beating her and trying to kill people? 

Then, Myers apparently missed my tearing apart of the claim that Oswald tried to shoot Officer Nick MacDonald in the theater, for which there is zero evidence. But, there is the ominous fact that MacDonald changed his story about it after FBI experts determined that Oswald's pistol did not backfire. 

Myers is brazen and extreme the way he plays his card, as if he's holding good ones. He's not. 

One interesting fact came out of this: Myers was a close personal friend of JD Tippit's closest personal friend Robert Jack Christopher. Hmmm.

Hey Myers! Since you to took stock of JFK happenings over the last year, why didn't you mention the Oswald Innocence Campaign? Why didn't you mention the resurgence of Oswald in the doorway? You didn't mention it at all, even though among Oswald defenders, there is no location more often cited as Oswald's location during the shooting than the doorway. That's according to several online polls. 


But, that is typical. People like Myers will mention totally innocuous and non-threatening things, like whether Oswald colluded with anyone in Mexico City but say not a word about the real threat, which is Oswald in the doorway.

Well, Myers, I am going to make an argument, and I'm to go back it up. Let's see you overcome this:

Prediction: Myers wouldn't address any of those correlations. I know what he would say. He'd say the rote stuff, like that the Warren Commission interviewed witnesses who all said it was Lovelady. But, the fact is: they cherry-picked those witnesses, and Billy Lovelady never identified Doorway Man as himself to the Warren Commission. And, Myers would go on to say that the HSCA looked at, and they got Robert Groden, a conspiracy theorist, to find for Lovelady, and so did the anthropologists, but you know something, Myers? None of that has any bearing on this:

You still have to answer for it, and you still have to present a collage of Billy Lovelady that matches better than it. So, in a nutshell, Myers would just recite the rote stuff, the usual talking points about why this is a closed issue, and he would ignore the collage completely- even though it is staring him in the face. Well, it's not going away, Myers. And neither are we. And neither is he. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.