Kerry Thornley appears to be a limited hanger-outer who isn't telling all he could. Or he was a tool who wasn't informed of everything. My guess is he's telling all he can without getting killed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky7O9COM13o
.
Thornley looks like a 19th century Mormon preacher who just got off the wagon train in St.George Utah.:popworm:
Thornley said he had been the subject of MK-ULTRA LSD experiments. He was then of the right age to experience the 60's.
I think the key to Thornley is his statement he was in Mexico City at the same time as Oswald "to learn Spanish".
Albert Doyle Wrote:Kerry Thornley appears to be a limited hanger-outer who isn't telling all he could. Or he was a tool who wasn't informed of everything. My guess is he's telling all he can without getting killed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky7O9COM13o
.
Man, interesting videos...hard to know what to think...could be telling the truth, could be a ltd. hangout, could have read a lot -like Files- just another interesting wrinkle in this world within a world of levels of intrigue ..."Gordie Novel"? (Vid no 7 just ended) ....Hmmmm...what do others think here?
Dawn
The elephant in the room with Thornley is whether "Brother In Law" was E Howard Hunt? This seems to be traceable since brother in law was the alleged relative of Slim Brooks who was a member of Banister's Anti-Communist League. This seems like simple research work to trace whether brother in law actually was Hunt. Just from what he says it looks like brother in law was too close to New Orleans and nearby, according to Thornley's recounting, to actually be Hunt since Hunt was located in Washington. In a way it doesn't matter if brother in law was Hunt or not since Thornley had close interface with the Garrison New Orleans cabal.
Thornley is another Oswald-type who flips from Ayn Rand capitalist "objectivist" to being on Castro's side if Nixon killed JFK. Maybe the fact Thornley wasn't killed indicates his proximity to the cabal.
Albert Doyle Wrote:The elephant in the room with Thornley is whether "Brother In Law" was E Howard Hunt? This seems to be traceable since brother in law was the alleged relative of Slim Brooks who was a member of Banister's Anti-Communist League. This seems like simple research work to trace whether brother in law actually was Hunt. Just from what he says it looks like brother in law was too close to New Orleans and nearby, according to Thornley's recounting, to actually be Hunt since Hunt was located in Washington. In a way it doesn't matter if brother in law was Hunt or not since Thornley had close interface with the Garrison New Orleans cabal.
Thornley is another Oswald-type who flips from Ayn Rand capitalist "objectivist" to being on Castro's side if Nixon killed JFK. Maybe the fact Thornley wasn't killed indicates his proximity to the cabal.
Ya his living to "tell all" is telling. Also I just can't imagine that many people were wandering around talking with others about how much they wanted to kill JFK. That he seems quite well read is interesting, but his tale also seems to reek of Files crap to me, only more intelligent...His proximity to "LHO" would give him motive to read up and make up, to my way of thinking. Lots of young poeple, including myself, were into Rand til they grew up and realized how the world works, at about age 20 for me. His ties ins with the Watergave stuff seems all too contrived as well. I did not listen past vid 7.
Dawn
The video with the big reveal (6 of 7) is missing.
Adrian Mack Wrote:The video with the big reveal (6 of 7) is missing.
That is somewhat strange, whatever is on the missing part 6. I kept hoping it would show up and viewing the others as well "just in case". Quite a character.
It's curious, to say the least, why video 6 is missing when in video 5 it is clear he was about to detail why this brother in law cabal knew too much in advance to not be directly involved. If taken at his word, Thornley appears to be a minor related player who didn't commit to the cabal and didn't commit to the Garrison investigation either.
He strikes me as much too young to have been involved in what he describes. I was 17 in 1963 and he looks a lot younger than me. How old is he supposed to be? Also he seems like a crackpot with a book to sell. Of course all those Ayn Rand people are are bit flakey, IMO.
Edit: Woops, should have Googled him first. Didn't realize how old the inetrview was, or that he had passwed. Still seems like a nut to me.