Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Earl Warren question
#11
Drew Phipps Wrote:Earl Warren did a lot of good for our country and our ideals as Chief Justice before he was dragooned into heading the Warren Coverup. I wish we knew more about his motives or circumstances. He must know that he has to be careful about how he talks to Ruby, because Ruby is a defendant in a criminal case, at the time of this interview. Anything other than total circumspection might blow the State's case against Ruby, making the Commission's work even less convincing. The proverbial "buck" stops at Earl Warren's desk, to be sure, but that doesn't mean he authored the various fabrications present in the Warren Commission's work.

Ruby says here there's no conspiracy (to kill Oswald, I'm guessing). He said that at trial. It was in his interest to deny any conspiracy or premeditation. He might have been fearful that the next "prisoner transfer" was going to be his, but it didn't happen. He lived a long time after his trial.

Actually Ruby lived just long enough to be granted an appeal then died suddenly of cancer. Which he himself said had been injected.
My favorite Ruby quote to Warren and Ford is that if they do not take him to Washington and talk freely a "whole new form of government " would take over and that "(he) would not live" . Doesn't get any more powerful than this. In spite of all the reforms of the Warren court in the area of criminal law especially, THIS is his sad legacy. The Warren Commission lie.

Dawn
Reply
#12
"Practically all the Cabinet members of President Kennedy's administration, along with Director J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI and Chief James Rowley of the Secret Service, whose duty it was to protect the life of the President, testified that to their knowledge there was no sign of any conspiracy. To say now that these people, as well as the Commission, suppressed, neglected to unearth, or overlooked evidence of a conspiracy would be an indictment of the entire government of the United States. It would mean the whole structure was absolutely corrupt from top to bottom, with not one person of high or low rank willing to come forward to expose the villany..."
Reply
#13
Phil Dagosto Wrote:"Practically all the Cabinet members of President Kennedy's administration, along with Director J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI and Chief James Rowley of the Secret Service, whose duty it was to protect the life of the President, testified that to their knowledge there was no sign of any conspiracy. To say now that these people, as well as the Commission, suppressed, neglected to unearth, or overlooked evidence of a conspiracy would be an indictment of the entire government of the United States. It would mean the whole structure was absolutely corrupt from top to bottom, with not one person of high or low rank willing to come forward to expose the villany..."


I think you could cut through this with a knife just as equally as you could the picture of Dulles, Johnson, Ford and all the rest of the crooks celebrating their crime at the White House:



https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site...B840%3B629
Reply
#14
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Actually Ruby lived just long enough to be granted an appeal then died suddenly of cancer. Which he himself said had been injected.
Dawn

Have you read the book "Mary's Monkeys" (?) a highly speculative but interesting book tying David Ferrie to a LA. University's high energy research into monkey viruses, which (allegedly) caused cancer (and possibly AIDS) in other species...exactly the sort of thing Ruby claimed had been done to him...
Reply
#15
Drew Phipps Wrote:
Richard Coleman Wrote:Still and all, you'd think he might have leaked a few hints..........


I think the blatant problem(s) with the Report and the contradictions contained in the thousands of pages of exhibits might actually BE the hint. What if they followed orders and managed to plant the seeds of public debate at the same time?


I've suspected something of the sort for a long time but not about Warren. Marina. How could someone change their stories so much and come up with provable lies without realizing they would be detected? Maybe that was the point.
Reply
#16
Richard Coleman Wrote:
Drew Phipps Wrote:
Richard Coleman Wrote:Still and all, you'd think he might have leaked a few hints..........


I think the blatant problem(s) with the Report and the contradictions contained in the thousands of pages of exhibits might actually BE the hint. What if they followed orders and managed to plant the seeds of public debate at the same time?


I've suspected something of the sort for a long time but not about Warren. Marina. How could someone change their stories so much and come up with provable lies without realizing they would be detected? Maybe that was the point.

While Marina was telling many lies or fibs and changing her story for a long time, it was NOT she dictating the 'story line'....she was given an intelligence-connected 'interpreter' who often mis-interpreted what she said to conform with the 'official version'; she was surrounded by intelligence-connected people and kept secluded. They primed her with her 'story' and 'history' for herself and Oswald. Her rendition at one moment didn't match that at other moments because she was telling so many untruths it was hard to remember what was said before. I don't think this part of the charade was meant to signal anything, nor to say 'yeah we killed him and there is nothing you can do about it!', etc [as perhaps the public execution at high-noon in broad daylight in a major city; then totally lied about and not investigated, but covered-up and the patsy murdered and his murderer silenced, etc. could be interpreted]. It was simply a ham-handed attempt at a total cover-up. They thought everyone would forget about it, not notice the changes and contradictions - the impossibilities and lies. They never thought 50 years on we would still be on the case and that they would still have to ACTIVELY cover it all up.

Now, Marina believes Oswald was innocent, a patsy silenced, and the whole thing was covered-up from 'on high'; but she avoids speaking to her elaborate prior misstatements, and prefers to just remain silent about them. She too was a victim of the events in more ways then I'm even hinting about here.
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
Reply
#17
Peter Lemkin Wrote:
Richard Coleman Wrote:
Drew Phipps Wrote:
Richard Coleman Wrote:Still and all, you'd think he might have leaked a few hints..........


I think the blatant problem(s) with the Report and the contradictions contained in the thousands of pages of exhibits might actually BE the hint. What if they followed orders and managed to plant the seeds of public debate at the same time?


I've suspected something of the sort for a long time but not about Warren. Marina. How could someone change their stories so much and come up with provable lies without realizing they would be detected? Maybe that was the point.

While Marina was telling many lies or fibs and changing her story for a long time, it was NOT she dictating the 'story line'....she was given an intelligence-connected 'interpreter' who often mis-interpreted what she said to conform with the 'official version'; she was surrounded by intelligence-connected people and kept secluded. They primed her with her 'story' and 'history' for herself and Oswald. Her rendition at one moment didn't match that at other moments because she was telling so many untruths it was hard to remember what was said before. I don't think this part of the charade was meant to signal anything, nor to say 'yeah we killed him and there is nothing you can do about it!', etc [as perhaps the public execution at high-noon in broad daylight in a major city; then totally lied about and not investigated, but covered-up and the patsy murdered and his murderer silenced, etc. could be interpreted]. It was simply a ham-handed attempt at a total cover-up. They thought everyone would forget about it, not notice the changes and contradictions - the impossibilities and lies. They never thought 50 years on we would still be on the case and that they would still have to ACTIVELY cover it all up.

Now, Marina believes Oswald was innocent, a patsy silenced, and the whole thing was covered-up from 'on high'; but she avoids speaking to her elaborate prior misstatements, and prefers to just remain silent about them. She too was a victim of the events in more ways then I'm even hinting about here.

Good points. I had forgotten about the translation issues.
Reply
#18
Drew Phipps Wrote:
Dawn Meredith Wrote:Actually Ruby lived just long enough to be granted an appeal then died suddenly of cancer. Which he himself said had been injected.
Dawn

Have you read the book "Mary's Monkeys" (?) a highly speculative but interesting book tying David Ferrie to a LA. University's high energy research into monkey viruses, which (allegedly) caused cancer (and possibly AIDS) in other species...exactly the sort of thing Ruby claimed had been done to him...

There are two, both by Ed Haslam. I have the second one "Dr. Mary's Monkey" and it is one of the scariest reads I ever had. I don't consider it speculative. That is also the part of Judyth Baker's story that I believe. When Ed spoke in Dallas in 09 he had a lot of news articles about a young Judy Baker and her work.
Dawn
Reply
#19
Haslam's story is more believable without Judyth Baker.
Reply
#20
Peter Lemkin Wrote:While Marina was telling many lies or fibs and changing her story for a long time, it was NOT she dictating the 'story line'....she was given an intelligence-connected 'interpreter' who often mis-interpreted what she said to conform with the 'official version'; she was surrounded by intelligence-connected people and kept secluded. They primed her with her 'story' and 'history' for herself and Oswald. Her rendition at one moment didn't match that at other moments because she was telling so many untruths it was hard to remember what was said before. I don't think this part of the charade was meant to signal anything, nor to say 'yeah we killed him and there is nothing you can do about it!', etc [as perhaps the public execution at high-noon in broad daylight in a major city; then totally lied about and not investigated, but covered-up and the patsy murdered and his murderer silenced, etc. could be interpreted]. It was simply a ham-handed attempt at a total cover-up. They thought everyone would forget about it, not notice the changes and contradictions - the impossibilities and lies. They never thought 50 years on we would still be on the case and that they would still have to ACTIVELY cover it all up.

Now, Marina believes Oswald was innocent, a patsy silenced, and the whole thing was covered-up from 'on high'; but she avoids speaking to her elaborate prior misstatements, and prefers to just remain silent about them. She too was a victim of the events in more ways then I'm even hinting about here.

Well said, Peter. Thank you!

[size=12]Jim
[/SIZE]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Witnesses who were never called before the Warren Commission Gil Jesus 2 2,017 02-04-2022, 01:37 PM
Last Post: Milo Reech
  James DiEugenio, I have a single question, would you answer? Scott Kaiser 12 7,710 11-06-2019, 04:32 AM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser
  The Mystery Of Allen Dulles' Appointment To The Warren Commission James Lewis 3 3,679 09-02-2018, 02:33 PM
Last Post: James Lewis
  The Warren Commission and Mexico City Jim DiEugenio 0 3,089 27-04-2017, 08:58 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Former Warren Commission counsel Sam Stern Scott Kaiser 2 3,475 02-03-2017, 10:34 PM
Last Post: Scott Kaiser
  Gibson's Milestone Article on the Creation of the Warren Commission Jim DiEugenio 4 4,644 02-02-2017, 08:44 PM
Last Post: Jim DiEugenio
  Warren Hinckle and the Glory that was Ramparts Jim DiEugenio 30 13,817 18-09-2016, 07:59 PM
Last Post: Richard Coleman
  Warren Commission Executive Session of 22 Jan 1964 Alan Ford 38 21,870 24-01-2016, 12:04 AM
Last Post: Alan Ford
  Bill Simpich: How the Warren Commission Covered Up JFK's Murder Alan Dale 28 15,912 10-07-2015, 01:58 PM
Last Post: Drew Phipps
  Question to David Josephs re: WCD 298 Bob Prudhomme 4 2,858 01-03-2015, 07:37 PM
Last Post: Chris Davidson

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)