24-02-2017, 11:44 PM
Tom Scully Wrote:Quote: I suspect that you're terrified, James, that somebody will actually revive that old Lee Farley thread.
My work was outstanding in that thread, and I only regret I didn't get a chance to archive it before Lee Farley (or whomever) deleted it out of abject shame!
Jim, help (stamp) him out.
Quote:https://web.archive.org/web/201307171348...58&page=10
Robert Charles-Dunne - Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:13 PM
.....When something so bizarre as this takes place, one knows there's fraud afoot. To wit, the following list of nineteen people provided by Paul Trejo and what we should find in furtherance of his contentions, but do not:
First, let's clear the decks of the obvious padding.
Mahlon Tobias (and his wife who didn't make Paul's list) have already been dispatched to the remainder bin, as they both testified they personally neither saw nor heard anything except complaints from other tenants of their building. That leaves 18. ....
......We are now down to our final witness on the list of nineteen: Marina Oswald.
I will be uncharacteristically brief and suggest only that one takes seriously what this witness has to say at one's own peril. For in key respects, of all the Commission's witnesses, nobody's narrative has been more flexible, elastic, malleable, changeable, than Marina's.
Physical abuse of spouses is no laughing matter, irrespective of gender, class, religion, et al. It should be condemned at every turn.
It is remarkable that so few of the above nineteen witnesses bothered themselves to do so.
Equally remarkable is that not one of them, including the victim, thought to notify the police.
It is conceivable that the entire group of them didn't care enough, but that is belied by their generosity to and solicitude toward Marina.
The alternative, needless to say, is that the issue was blown out of all proportion - for a specific purpose - when Oswald was alive, and magnified even further by the Commission for its own purpose after his death, in taking testimony of those who could only offer hearsay conjecture, while inexplicably giving the cold shoulder to the only puported witness to Oswald slapping his wife.
That this fraud continues to be cited as probative today only illustrates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of those who traffick in this fiction.
Almost a year, to the day....it is that time, again ! Go figure... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....ent-327319
I am responding to:
Quote:http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....ent-344843
Oh Come on! Sandy, i should have known this was going to happen. PT did the same thing several months ago when this came up. He started smearing Robert when he was not here to defend himself.
Ms. Kathy Beckett was nice enough to actually fish out Robert's excellent work in its original form. As I said it is really a tour de force.
So I would ask, can she do that again in deference to all the fine work that Robert did for this site?
Edited 1 hour ago by James DiEugenio
Peter Janney's uncle was Frank Pace, chairman of General Dynamics who enlisted law partners Roswell Gilpatric and Luce's brother-in-law, Maurice "Tex" Moore, in a trade of 16 percent of Gen. Dyn. stock in exchange for Henry Crown and his Material Service Corp. of Chicago, headed by Byfield's Sherman Hotel group's Pat Hoy. The Crown family and partner Conrad Hilton next benefitted from TFX, at the time, the most costly military contract award in the history of the world. Obama was sponsored by the Crowns and Pritzkers. So was Albert Jenner Peter Janney has preferred to write of an imaginary CIA assassination of his surrogate mother, Mary Meyer, but not a word about his Uncle Frank.