14-10-2018, 03:04 AM
Mr. Josephs,
I am thankful for all the people like you who are willing to pour over the massive amount of documents released in search of the truth. Not just on this forum, but other places as well. I am merely a layman and no expert, but even Stevie Wonder or Ray Charles could see some of the ridiculous inconsistencies and conflicts with the recorded testimonies.
Whaley's testimony seems unacceptable to me. Either coerced, or total BS that was fabricated. The reason I even brought my sister-in-law's experience up is because she herself was responsible for transcribing from her own notes what she recorded during trials. And she knew her transcriptions were either deliberately or mistakenly altered before they were entered into the official record. And this bothered her a great deal when she was later forced to testify and say what was in the official record was "not" what she remembered recording. (She never came right out and said to our family or in court that something "shady" was going on....but she knew that it was. She knew.)
There have been so many people that said the FBI and Warren Commission DID NOT accurately record their statements, or flat-out changed their statements, or added things to their statements that they never said.....that I am just skeptical of virtually every single testimony taken in this case. Unless it served the purpose of backing up the desired scenario "they" wanted to promote, I don't give much credence to anything anybody supposedly said for the record.
I've known guys like Whaley who drove cabs for most of their life.They not only knew every street like the back of their hand (especially in the commercial districts) they knew where to go to get whatever the customer desired, if you know what I mean. And really, Dallas wasn't that big of a city in 1963. It was a "small" big city back then. Guys like McWatters and Whaley knew their burg. So I don't believe a guy like Whaley could make the mistakes he supposedly did in his "so-called" testimony. I wish that independent researchers could've spoken with McWatters, and especially Whaley after the fact. Like in 1965 or so. But even then those guys might have been reluctant to set the record straight. Self-preservation is a highly motivating factor. As far as I'm concerned both of their versions of what happened was either altered, or coerced, and not worth a damn thing. Except maybe as testimonials to an inefficient cover-up/frame-up after the fact.
That so many documents have been released that BEG for explanation vis-a-vis the official version of events is astounding. All your research on the whole "Oswald went to Mexico" fairy tale is a prime case in point. That the cover-up was hastily conceived and executed after the fact is obvious to anyone willing to see. We've been uncovering contradictory evidence in the US Govt's own files for decades. Had efficient preparations taken place before the coup all those files would have been purged before the deed was done. But nobody I know of has ever accused the Federal Govt. of being efficient. And I feel 99.9% of the Feds never knew that the hit on JFK was going to happen, anyway. That's why the cover-up has proven to be so sloppy and inefficient. It wouldn't have succeeded at all without that All-American attitude of CYA by many Federal Agencies.
And that is why I put no confidence in the accuracy of anyone's "so-called" statements. Neither to the FBI, or before the Warren Commission, or even before the HSCA. We know for a fact that people perjured themselves as late as the 1970's, although I don't think their testimonies were altered or coerced for the record to any extent near as much in the 70s as they were in 63 and 64.
I am thankful for all the people like you who are willing to pour over the massive amount of documents released in search of the truth. Not just on this forum, but other places as well. I am merely a layman and no expert, but even Stevie Wonder or Ray Charles could see some of the ridiculous inconsistencies and conflicts with the recorded testimonies.
Whaley's testimony seems unacceptable to me. Either coerced, or total BS that was fabricated. The reason I even brought my sister-in-law's experience up is because she herself was responsible for transcribing from her own notes what she recorded during trials. And she knew her transcriptions were either deliberately or mistakenly altered before they were entered into the official record. And this bothered her a great deal when she was later forced to testify and say what was in the official record was "not" what she remembered recording. (She never came right out and said to our family or in court that something "shady" was going on....but she knew that it was. She knew.)
There have been so many people that said the FBI and Warren Commission DID NOT accurately record their statements, or flat-out changed their statements, or added things to their statements that they never said.....that I am just skeptical of virtually every single testimony taken in this case. Unless it served the purpose of backing up the desired scenario "they" wanted to promote, I don't give much credence to anything anybody supposedly said for the record.
I've known guys like Whaley who drove cabs for most of their life.They not only knew every street like the back of their hand (especially in the commercial districts) they knew where to go to get whatever the customer desired, if you know what I mean. And really, Dallas wasn't that big of a city in 1963. It was a "small" big city back then. Guys like McWatters and Whaley knew their burg. So I don't believe a guy like Whaley could make the mistakes he supposedly did in his "so-called" testimony. I wish that independent researchers could've spoken with McWatters, and especially Whaley after the fact. Like in 1965 or so. But even then those guys might have been reluctant to set the record straight. Self-preservation is a highly motivating factor. As far as I'm concerned both of their versions of what happened was either altered, or coerced, and not worth a damn thing. Except maybe as testimonials to an inefficient cover-up/frame-up after the fact.
That so many documents have been released that BEG for explanation vis-a-vis the official version of events is astounding. All your research on the whole "Oswald went to Mexico" fairy tale is a prime case in point. That the cover-up was hastily conceived and executed after the fact is obvious to anyone willing to see. We've been uncovering contradictory evidence in the US Govt's own files for decades. Had efficient preparations taken place before the coup all those files would have been purged before the deed was done. But nobody I know of has ever accused the Federal Govt. of being efficient. And I feel 99.9% of the Feds never knew that the hit on JFK was going to happen, anyway. That's why the cover-up has proven to be so sloppy and inefficient. It wouldn't have succeeded at all without that All-American attitude of CYA by many Federal Agencies.
And that is why I put no confidence in the accuracy of anyone's "so-called" statements. Neither to the FBI, or before the Warren Commission, or even before the HSCA. We know for a fact that people perjured themselves as late as the 1970's, although I don't think their testimonies were altered or coerced for the record to any extent near as much in the 70s as they were in 63 and 64.