Drew Phipps Wrote:I was happy to see the John Liggett story get some airtime, but I don't really believe that Liggett used his mortician skills on Tippet's body to make a "JFK's corpse", and then somehow the mighty conspirators forgot to swap the fake body for the real one. Liggett was a murderer and a bad apple, to be sure, but the only source of information for his involvement as a mortician in JFK is his estranged ex-wife and family (who also insist that his subsequent shooting death by DPD while escaping was faked). If his mortician skills were so great, how did the results end so badly?
Furthermore I find that the story of him "relaxing," after Oswald is killed, not at all indicative of his involvement as a mortician. How on earth would Oswald know (prior to his arrest, and thus be able to confess to cops) that Liggett would be called to alter JFK's corpse to frame him (Oswald)? If Liggett knew Ferrie, as stated in the video, that might suggest another type of involvement, but not in that particular way.
Quote:The Dallas Morning News - Saturday, February 15, 1975 page 10C Police Kill Escapee, Prowler in 2 Incidents A fleeing Dallas County jail inmate and a man thought to be burglarizing an off-duty policeman's car were shot and killed by local law enforcement officers in separate incidents Friday. John Melvin Liggett, 41, in the Dallas County jail awaiting trial on indictments for intent to murder, arson and aggravated robbery, was shot by Deputy Joe Crawford when he fled from a jail chain while being returned to the old county jail from a court appearance at 2 p.m. Friday. And Nathan Drew Miller, 26, of 4323 Brown, was shot and killed by off-duty Dallas police officer James Jolly, 23, after Jolly surprised Miller in the act of stealing a city-issed shotgun from the officer's car early Friday morning. Liggett was arrested last March and the charges against him stemmed from the March 26 attack on Mrs. Dorothy Peck, 44, at her home at 1202 Melrose in Garland. Friday, Liggett was taken to Judge Ed Gossett's Criminal District Court No. 5 for a pre-trial hearing. The hearing was reset for Feb. 20, and Liggett was being returned to the old jail on a chain with 11 other prisoners when he slipped from the handcuff. Crawford, 27, ordered him to halt, but the prisoner kept running, and Crawford fired a single shot from his 9-millimeter automatic. In the incident involving the Dallas officer, Jolly told detectives he was awakened about 2:30 a.m. in his apartment at 4329 Congress in the Oak Lawn area by the sound of breaking glass. Jolly peered from a bedroom window and saw a man leaning through a window in Jolly's car. As Jolly reached the parking lot, the man was standing at the rear of the car holding the shotgun. Jolly said he shouted, "Police, freeze it." He said he fired his revolver one time as the man turned to face him and leveled the shotgun.
Do you think Liggett murdered this "suicide by self inflicted gunshot victim," dead just a year after this photo was taken? The press and IMDB have had quite a challenged accurately publishing Peck's name...... b. Jan. 2, 1902 d. Jul. 5, 1969 http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?pag...d=98376983
Jay Bert Peck divorced late in life and married Dorothy, about 30 years younger, an event similar to 75 years old OV Campbell marrying a 43 years old woman from The Colony, TX.
His mother was Emma Johnson, daughter of Robert Preston Johnson and Nancy Thomas. It is doubtful Peck was LBJ's cousin but not possible to fully determin because genealogy research so far attributes Robert's father Solomon
being born in the same year as Robert, 1838.: http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?pag...d=58825103
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.
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:We will never be taken seriously unless we take ourselves seriously.
Hi Jim, nice to meet you. I agree with you completely on this point, and as a n00b, perhaps I can share my fresh experience in coming up to speed.
I've been doing "JFK research" for about a year now, and most of my work so far has been online. My problem has been, wading through all the disinformation that's posted in the cloud. For example, you mentioned the bit about Bush being in Dealey Plaza, and there's a perfect example.
As a n00b ("any" n00b), if I google on "Bush Dealey Plaza" the first hit I get is that picture. And then, I get one article after another that claims "Bush was in Dealey Plaza", and then on page two or three I finally start seeing some of the counter-claims saying it's a different guy.
The point being, that the fake story is above the real story, in the Google results. In other words, there's no organization of the information - there's no historical trail, nothing that will save me hours of research and tell me at a glance, "this claim has been debunked, and here's why", and then point me to the original evidence so I can see for myself.
Otherwise, what's a n00b to do? Look at the picture, and without any other knowledge you might be able to nod your head in agreement, "yep, that's Bush". And the result of that is, for the first year or two we have all these n00bs floating around saying "Bush was in Dealey plaza", and then those posts wind up in the Google search results under "Bush dealey plaza", and they end up pushing down the real stories even further!
There needs to be an authoritative site where everyone (n00bs included) can go to get an instant historical perspective on any given issue within the JFK assassination domain. Someone needs to be able to type in "Igor Vaganov" and get the whole story about how he was taken down to 10th and Patton and photographed there and so on... without having to do days of research to "maybe" get something approximating the real skinny.
This is work, right? We're talking about a whole heckuva lot of work. But, it's also a way of organizing the research community, and maybe saving a little bandwidth on some of the for-profit JFK sites.
What are the chances of building an information repository like that? And making it public and free of charge, so anyone and everyone can wade through the disinformation quickly and efficiently?
Jim DiEugenio Wrote:We will never be taken seriously unless we take ourselves seriously.
Hi Jim, nice to meet you. I agree with you completely on this point, and as a n00b, perhaps I can share my fresh experience in coming up to speed.
I've been doing "JFK research" for about a year now, and most of my work so far has been online. My problem has been, wading through all the disinformation that's posted in the cloud. For example, you mentioned the bit about Bush being in Dealey Plaza, and there's a perfect example.
As a n00b ("any" n00b), if I google on "Bush Dealey Plaza" the first hit I get is that picture. And then, I get one article after another that claims "Bush was in Dealey Plaza", and then on page two or three I finally start seeing some of the counter-claims saying it's a different guy.
The point being, that the fake story is above the real story, in the Google results. In other words, there's no organization of the information - there's no historical trail, nothing that will save me hours of research and tell me at a glance, "this claim has been debunked, and here's why", and then point me to the original evidence so I can see for myself.
Otherwise, what's a n00b to do? Look at the picture, and without any other knowledge you might be able to nod your head in agreement, "yep, that's Bush". And the result of that is, for the first year or two we have all these n00bs floating around saying "Bush was in Dealey plaza", and then those posts wind up in the Google search results under "Bush dealey plaza", and they end up pushing down the real stories even further!
There needs to be an authoritative site where everyone (n00bs included) can go to get an instant historical perspective on any given issue within the JFK assassination domain. Someone needs to be able to type in "Igor Vaganov" and get the whole story about how he was taken down to 10th and Patton and photographed there and so on... without having to do days of research to "maybe" get something approximating the real skinny.
This is work, right? We're talking about a whole heckuva lot of work. But, it's also a way of organizing the research community, and maybe saving a little bandwidth on some of the for-profit JFK sites.
What are the chances of building an information repository like that? And making it public and free of charge, so anyone and everyone can wade through the disinformation quickly and efficiently?
Brian,
According to some likeminded members of a site in "the Outback," they are what you are wishing for, a final arbiter. It doesn't work the way you are hoping it can. Have you accepted yet that there is a strong proclivity to either be in the "there is no tooth fairy or Easter Bunny" camp, vs. the "Oh, yes there is" camp? This pursuit is no different than persuading others that the Republican party is of no useful purpose, quite the opposite, in fact, or that "the Democrat party," is a leftist cabal bent on confiscating all wealth and expropriating all corporations. (Have you noticed that GW Bush began describing it as "Democrat party" and "Democrat leaders" and he and others in their party with their own always on point language have no influenced broadcast journalist to drop the "ic" from Democratic, even the name of the quadrennial nominating convention?)
Fact check everything everyone in this work posts or writes and you will get a sense of who is fact checking and who is repeating what they are impressed with.
Here is more to chew on, as far as this thread. Bill Decker's dept. knew how to pick 'em, and don't get me started on Jay Bert Peck's wife, Dorothy, 28 years his junior and still living with her parents in Preston Hollow in the late 1950's, but she marries Peck because he has looks to die for and lives in a 900 sq. feet ranch house in Garland, where she goes, despite her millionaire father and being his only surviving heir, and stays in Peck's house after he is murdered or suicided there and even after Liggett burns the house with her in it......
We have al- ways felt the charges against Peck w e r e trumped up. He was accused of indecent exposure to minors. It was charged he approached a school bus ...
Jul 1, 1984 - Deputy resigns before indecency charge filed ... Roger Craig Jr. 30. of the 8800 block of Files ..... assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
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.
Tom Scully Wrote:Brian,
According to some likeminded members of a site in "the Outback," they are what you are wishing for, a final arbiter.
Hi Tom - why don't we start simple? Nothing so ambitious as an "arbiter", just an organization of the evidence would be a step up from what exists today.
For instance - on the topic of the Tippit shells, there are several "theories" about what the markings mean, yes? So, you list them out - here's Theory #1 and here's the evidence that supports it, here's Theory # 2 and its evidence, and so on. Right now, there is no single place anyone can go for the "scope" of what this issue really is.
Quote:It doesn't work the way you are hoping it can. Have you accepted yet that there is a strong proclivity to either be in the "there is no tooth fairy or Easter Bunny" camp, vs. the "Oh, yes there is" camp?
Oh, sure - the old "LN vs CT" game.
Well, that game goes on in large part because of the disorganization of the evidence, IMO. When you look at the forums, you see a lot of bandwidth being expended rehashing the same old arguments over and over again. So fine - lay out the argument "plain and simple", so everyone can see what it is. For Joe Average who only cares about "debate", this is sufficient - but for the genuine researcher, this is essential. Wouldn't you say? I mean, don't each of us, as we're coming up to speed, do this exact thing? We all have to do this individually, and the truth is the evidence is so disorganized that any given person can go out on a limb at any given time, just following one trail or another. Example... Col Jose Rivera. Does he have anything to do with Crichton, Boise Smith, or John W Mayo? If you're starting from scratch, it takes you a year to even be able to ask that question. On the other hand, if you're looking at a page with the evidence neatly summarized, it only takes you a few minutes to understand the issue and what its "current state of research" is. And, on top of that, the historical trail is invaluable. Like, the history of the various theories and claims around the Odio incident - that would be a great one for an historical summary.
Quote:This pursuit is no different than persuading others that the Republican party is of no useful purpose, quite the opposite, in fact, or that "the Democrat party," is a leftist cabal bent on confiscating all wealth and expropriating all corporations. (Have you noticed that GW Bush began describing it as "Democrat party" and "Democrat leaders" and he and others in their party with their own always on point language have no influenced broadcast journalist to drop the "ic" from Democratic, even the name of the quadrennial nominating convention?)
Yeah. And in 1963 Dallas blacks were communists, the two were indistinguishable for some people. Have you read through the book of 112th MIG reports on racial unrest? It's literally a book, they wrote so many reports on it they fill an entire book.
Quote:Fact check everything everyone in this work posts or writes and you will get a sense of who is fact checking and who is repeating what they are impressed with.
Agreed. Sometimes it's hard for a n00b to tell the difference. How can I say this - the Mary Ferrell web site, has almost universal respect. Because, it's mostly "evidence only", outside of a few book reports and editorial pieces the majority of the site is "evidence". You have to lay out the evidence plain and simple, for the layman. Oswald was wearing a brown shirt, and there was someone who looked a lot like Oswald wearing a white shirt. Using this simple concept, you can reveal an astounding amount about the inaccuracies in the Warren Commission's Report and the manner in which the witnesses were railroaded and their testimonies were manipulated. Presented in that form, the evidence is neatly organized and it's hard to crack.
Quote:Here is more to chew on, as far as this thread. Bill Decker's dept. knew how to pick 'em, and don't get me started on Jay Bert Peck's wife, Dorothy, 28 years his junior and still living with her parents in Preston Hollow in the late 1950's, but she marries Peck because he has looks to die for and lives in a 900 sq. feet ranch house in Garland, where she goes, despite her millionaire father and being his only surviving heir, and stays in Peck's house after he is murdered or suicided there and even after Liggett burns the house with her in it......
Interesting. Thanks for that, Tom, I'll have to check into this one! (I'm still a n00b)...
Quote:It doesn't work the way you are hoping it can. Have you accepted yet that there is a strong proclivity to either be in the "there is no tooth fairy or Easter Bunny" camp, vs. the "Oh, yes there is" camp?
I wasn't including LNs, instead confining my observation to the non-LN's who hold the government to a much higher standard of earnestness, proof, and accuracy than they hold themselves and the ones who take much on faith despite the facts/existing evidence (Lovelady is Oswald, prayerman is Oswald, the ones who post that any official document they disagree with is fake .....) IOW, the faith vs. fact, LN opposition. When you read something that makes you wish you were a card carrying LN instead of having an opinion that neither the shooting of Oswald or the official story of four pilots and fifteen "muscle hijackers" are reasonable, you can identify with the picture I am trying to paint. Assume everything vs. assume nothing, sprinkled with the flavor of what appear to be on the surface, at least, profit driven or government directed, or symptomatic of senility, a Judyth Baker-like medley of "contributors" to the knowledge base of assassination research.
It may be a big tent, this area north of LNicity, but in my experience, it ain't big enough. It can make you
want to sleep out in the rain.
How many empty cartridges were recovered at the Tippit murder scene, and when actually did the FBI take custody of them?
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.
Quote:It doesn't work the way you are hoping it can. Have you accepted yet that there is a strong proclivity to either be in the "there is no tooth fairy or Easter Bunny" camp, vs. the "Oh, yes there is" camp?
I wasn't including LNs, instead confining my observation to the non-LN's who hold the government to a much higher standard of earnestness, proof, and accuracy than they hold themselves and the ones who take much on faith despite the facts/existing evidence (Lovelady is Oswald, prayerman is Oswald, the ones who post that any official document they disagree with is fake .....) IOW, the faith vs. fact, LN opposition. When you read something that makes you wish you were a card carrying LN instead of having an opinion that neither the shooting of Oswald or the official story of four pilots and fifteen "muscle hijackers" are reasonable, you can identify with the picture I am trying to paint. Assume everything vs. assume nothing, sprinkled with the flavor of what appear to be on the surface, at least, profit driven or government directed, or symptomatic of senility, a Judyth Baker-like medley of "contributors" to the knowledge base of assassination research.
I understand. Yes, I agree, there are some far-fetched theories.
Quote:It may be a big tent, this area north of LNicity, but in my experience, it ain't big enough. It can make you
want to sleep out in the rain.
Okay, well.... how can I say this... there is stuff that's "in evidence", and there's models that are built "around" that evidence. For instance, we have the Alyea film. There's no dispute that it exists. It just... "is". And, it shows certain things, and we have various recollections from Alyea himself as to how and when those scenes were filmed, and statements regarding the crime scene made after the fact, like, "there were no chicken bones on the 6th floor, we covered every inch of that floor and there were no bones". Well, unless you have reason to call Alyea a liar, your "model" of what Alyea is saying has to explain the presence of the chicken bones on the 6th floor (as stated by dozens of officers in their testimonies and depositions). So, whatever model you come up with, will first be the subject of some skepticism, 'cause it's 12 to 1 in terms of witnesses - however, it's possible there is a model that makes no one a liar. It's possible there is an explanation for what everyone saw, and it's possible that everyone was telling the truth about what they saw. So then, if you come up with a "theory" (an hypothesis) that says "Fritz found the bones on the fifth floor and took them up to the sixth floor", then people are going to point out that there's no testimony to that effect (not by "anyone"). So then, there are consequences of that model, for instance you have to surmise that half the officers at the TSBD ended up covering for Fritz's incompetence at the crime scene. And then you can further surmise (if you dare) that the incompetence was due to a hidden agenda of some kind.
Again, all these possibilities are very logical, at some point we run out of "possibilities" for the crime scene, yes? Why can't they be simply and logically catalogued? I've heard some oddball stuff about Masons, the Vatican, and even space aliens - these are all "models", they're nothing but one-liners built on top of the basic evidence. Becoming emotionally (or financially) attached to an Oswald double is the same as becoming emotionally (or financially) attached to a theory about space aliens, isn't it?
Quote:How many empty cartridges were recovered at the Tippit murder scene, and when actually did the FBI take custody of them?
See? You're raising another perfect example. The short answer is "we don't really know", right? Alyea figures into this story too, he makes some claims about Fritz's handling of the shells. But then we have the whole song and dance with JC Day and the evidence numbers, which required an affidavit to clear up the previous affidavit which was in error, which was already correcting the first affidavit which was also in error. Stuff like that... is comical. What it means is anyone's guess - but at the end of the day you can summarize the original evidence in a few short sentences. And those in turn lead to dozens of possible "crime scene models" to explain the evidence. The separation of the model from the evidence is vital, isn't it? Half the reason people bicker is because they're confused about what's actually evidence and what's just a theory or a conclusion.
The Tomlinson thing with CE-399, there's another good one. People have been arguing about that for years, discussing the timing of the elevators and everything else - and here comes Sam Kinney saying "I did it", which if true completely destroys the Warren Commission's carefully constructed crime scene hypothesis. That possibility however, should have been on the list all along, yes? Because the truth is we have no idea how that bullet got on the stretcher, and we never had any idea how it got there. And furthermore, there have been rumors about "another" bullet for a very long time, one which supposedly did drop out of Connally somehow, and was picked up by a nurse. So maybe now we can finally examine that body of evidence independently, instead of constantly having it tied to the Tomlinson scenario (and having to listen to arguments like, "well, they can't both be true, you have to pick one or the other").
I hear you loud and clear Tom, it's just painful as a n00b having to watch the old-timers at each others' throats, and engaging in unpleasant behavior just because they were mistreated a dozen years ago. Speaking only for myself, I'm not much interested in "theories", I'm more about the uncovering of new evidence. For instance, what are the way in which Oswald might have been recruited up into the ONI? Well, he could have been recruited at an early age in the housing projects of New York, or, he could have come up through the Civil Air Patrol and been identified as somehow "useful" to the Powers That Be, or, he could have been singled out during his tenure at Atsugi... there's only so many possibilities we can dream up, it's a pretty short list. It seems to me a good investigator needs to be able to switch hats and juggle crime scene models quickly and repeatedly, and in the tree of all possible models that say "Oswald was an intelligence agent" there are realities that can be invoked to prune the tree.
So, right at the moment, this is why I'm investigating the civil defense angle in this case, because if the civil defense network was active on that day then it speaks volumes about some of the stuff that's "behind the veil". The Cabinet plane didn't have its code book, and neither did a bunch of SAC planes, what's up with that? The CIA couldn't do that, and neither could the Mafia. The Dallas police certainly couldn't do it, and neither could the FBI or the Secret Service. But, how true is that rumor? I don't know, I haven't gotten around to investigating it yet. I'm still trying to figure out if the communications infrastructure to support such a thing was actually in place. It looks like it might have been, and it looks like the people who were controlling it are the same people who were manipulating Dallas police officers at the various crime scenes. It would be an important model if it can be developed, and a lot of people like PD Scott and Russ Baker and others have gone part of the way down the path, but there's a lot more to it than the suggestions I've read so far. And, maybe I can help in this area, I know 1960's radio technology like the back of my hand, I was immersed in it for dozens of years. Been under the hood of more Collins R-390A's than I can count. Seems to me it would be important to bring some definition to this area, so it can either be considered as an important crime scene model or rejected as just another extremist conspiracy fantasy. I'm willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, I have no particular attachment to any one model or group of models. And when someone tells me I'm FOS or something, I try to translate to get to the "your model doesn't work because..." part. That's the part I care about, I couldn't care less whether someone wants to call me an ass for daring to float a crime scene model, and when I post a model to the internet I'm really asking, "is this important, and should I be spending any more time on it?" In the case of the 488th and the people swirling around it, it would take "a lot" to convince me to drop that investigation. That stuff just leaps off the page, whenever I start reading about it. But I've checked for first hand information, there's not much of it. I was able to piece together Boise B Smith's service record from newspaper clippings (mainly because of his mom, who was a society lady and got written up in the society columns and was constantly bragging about her wonderful son), but there is ZIP on his actual role in the Dallas City-County Civil Defense and Disaster Commission. I've been able to find a very small body of evidence pertaining to its role in shelter planning and the publicizing of the CD "effort", but there is absolutely nothing on its operations in the National Archives, the Texas State Archives, or the Dallas Archives. So, we're going to have to find out a different way.
This is "research", right? I'd like to spend my time doing "research", instead of arguing about how many shell casings were found in Dealey Plaza. This latter part, should be documented once, thoroughly, because that body of evidence doesn't change over time. Once it's up to date, all that remains is to keep it current, and that could easily be done in a collaborative manner by even a small group of like-minded people. I don't think we're going to find any additional evidence about those casings, do you?
