posted on February 23, 2002 10:57:59 AM new
Harold Weisberg, acclaimed throughout the world as the foremost authority on the JFK assassination, has died at age 88.
Though out of print, one can still find his books everywhere, from individual online auctions to Amazon.com and the Hood College bookstore.
posted on February 25, 2002 11:59:01 PM new
I know no one here bothered to note this man's passing with more than a cursory glance (if even that) at this thread. It was the same in our mainstream media. I suspect Mr. Weisberg himself would've appreciated the irony of dying within a day of cartoon producer Chuck M. Jones, and receiving not even a tenth of the attention that was accorded to the creator of Elmer Fudd.
But we should all ask ourselves why. Harold Weisberg did more to bring the Freedom of Information Act into mainstream consciousness (and hence, ensure its continued existence) than any other man or agency -- including the ACLU -- in America. Beyond that, he devoted the last 39 years of his life to uncovering both the lies and the truth of the greatest unsolved crime in American history. And what has our response to his efforts been? No major publisher would touch his manuscripts. No PUBLIC agency would turn research documents over to him voluntarily, forcing him to sue them in court over and over again. No American television production dealing with the Kennedy assassination ever sought his input, even though he knew more about it than anyone alive -- and they used HIS OWN FINDINGS (although he's never named) in these slick-but-disingenuous programs as a basis for staging entirely different versions of the facts. (I'm thinking specifically of a "special" hosted by Walter Cronkite -- now *there's* someone we can trust! -- in the 1980's.) When The Cronk's CBS "special" didn't shut Mr. Weisberg up, a laughable book -- "Case Closed" by Gerald Posner -- was promulgated by Random House in 1993. Mr. Weisberg was in failing health by then, and The Powers That DON'T Want You To Know What Happened were hoping to have the last word. Mr. Weisberg rallied to the challenge and took the Posner book apart with the skill of a surgeon. Of course, no mainstream publishing house would touch his findings.
"Why does this matter?" you may ask. Because, whether you voted for Kennedy or not, or would have, or had even been born during his lifetime; whether you liked him or despised him, or only know him now as the lothario which he is purported to have been in today's show-and-tell "biographies", you and I lost -- on November 22nd, 1963 -- a role in our government we've yet to regain.
Harold Weisberg knew this. He railed against it -- not with the mindless ravings of a lunatic but with the cold hard FACTS he wrenched from our own tight-lipped, TAX-SUPPORTED, PUBLIC agencies. He spelled out in plain english the truth of our own subversiveness, in books most of us will never read...
Elmer Fudd will live on and on in endless cartoon syndication. We'll accept that -- it's much easier than demanding a government by the people, FOR the people. And in another twenty years, the OFFICIAL "history" of the Kennedy assassination will read that "Lee Oswald, Boy Scout, accidentally shot the President while playing with his Daddy's gun".
Harold Weisberg's books are already out of print; Mr. Weisberg himself is now officially "off the record", and I say we deserve everything that's headed our way for having ignored the vital information he put at our fingertips, for what he warned of is now upon us, and we're characteristically mourning the wrong death...
posted on February 26, 2002 04:52:21 PM newTomwiii, I realize it requires every ounce of mustard in your pot to tackle the challenging task of naming a puppy, so don't risk your limited stores aiming for sarcasm -- the hurdle's too high...
Nice hat, btw -- suits perfectlythe empty head beneath it.
posted on February 26, 2002 05:11:27 PM new
"Expert" as determined by whom??
You can propose a theory and have thousands of people parrot it, but that doesn't make it true. Remember when one of the main foundations of the theory mongers was that the weapon could not be fired so many times accurately. CBS did a investigation of the Commission findings in the 70's and they had a Marine fire the same kind of weapon from the location and guess what?? You can.
My "problem" with the conspiracy wackos is that everything hinges on literally thousands of people keeping quiet. Cops, FBI, Secret Service, the public, doctors. Yep, someone whispers "please keep this under your hat" and they all comply, even after 40 yrs!
We can all see this, because after all, if they came to you, plsmith, and said "be quiet", you'd do it, right?
posted on February 26, 2002 06:49:15 PM new
It's always entertaining when the reasonable-seeming-but-frequently-wrong DeSquirrel enters a thread. I'm afraid, though, that the generalities he so eloquently spouted above require more specific delineation to merit cogent responses from me ( - Tomwiii having already set himself up to be nothing more substantial than a cheerleader).
Who is it, in particular, DeSquirrel, that you feel was "keeping quiet"? And why? Please cite your source material.
If, on the other hand, you merely wished to appear knowledgeable by travelling down the well-worn "conspiracy nut" highway, then I consider your post a success. And know that it has been accorded all the merit it deserves...
posted on February 26, 2002 07:08:07 PM new
Ahhh, Tomwiii, I *do* enjoy your comedic interludes...
While we're on the subject of your cold puppy, why not name him "Jack"? It'll give you something to think about everytime you scold him for humping your leg...
posted on February 26, 2002 07:46:55 PM new
I'd love to hang around and play some more, but...I'm late! For a very important date!
Judge Bean and Elvis are picking me up in their Black Helicopter and taking me to a New World Order meeting, where we'll be discussing the Fluoridation of YOUR water!
posted on February 26, 2002 08:00:41 PM new
Don't let your pals burn a cross on your lawn, Tomwiii! -- They always *say* they'll pick up the mess but they never do...
posted on February 26, 2002 10:36:43 PM new
That's the "his head snaps back, therefore he was shot from the front" theory. I think the CBS investigation had forensic and ballistics demos disputing this also.
Plsmith
In order for the various "conspiracy" theories to play out, they HAVE to involve the collusion of huge numbers of people. You are a proponent of one or more of the theories. So I simply ask how there can be this steel curtain of silence. Now, engaging in IS-IS NOT, IS-IS NOT, discussions is not a proof. In most of my posts that you find so amusing, I usually pose a question. And it is never answered by the originator.
So when the next haberdasher turned expert with a book to sell points out the 4 gunmen with the 3 rifles on the grassy knoll and the guy on the left is wearing Ray-bans, just remember he knows as much about analysing photographs as my cat.
posted on February 27, 2002 03:45:24 AM new
It doesn't matter what you think, Pollyanna.
The killshot was from the front. He was hit in the back which pushed him forward but the shot that killed him blew his brains out the back. Anyone who's seen/done it knows that, and you could demonstrate it for yourself by simply placing the muzzle of a loaded large caliber pistol to your forehead, pulling the trigger until the pistol fires, and then observing which way your brains (assuming..you know) exit your cranium. I guarantee you that not one little dollop of what looks a lot like lasagna will be in you lap or even on your shirtfront but if you've done your part correctly there will be a substantial mass of mixed bone, blood, hair and other tissue decorating whatever is behind you and that the greatest portion of that goo will be deposited in a line coinciding with the line of your pistol barrel when you fire it. It will be exactly like that stuff that poor Jackie Kennedy desparately tried to put back into her husband's head in her unreasoning horror.
The film clearly shows a human head impacted by a highpower rifle shot. The effect is typical and repeatable. I'd guess that it was a .30-06 caliber using a jacketed bullet of at least 168 grains in weight. It was fired from Kennedy's right front quadrant, exactly from the area of the fence behind the grassy knoll (whoever came up with that stupid descriptive?). It was the final shot in a carefully laid out triangulated shooting sequence. Everything that happened before that shot is irrelevant except for it's diversionary purpose.
Yes, people under a threat of death can stay silent for just the longest time. My! How could you wonder at it? After all, some 35 or more who had, or probably had knowledge of even small seemingly unrelated parts of the plan or the action DID die in pretty short order after the killing. The reality of it must have been crystal clear to all others. But some of them have 'talked', though the little they knew only show the intricacy of the plot. One of the first autopsy team talked about what happened before he was summarily removed from the case, for one example only. We are prevented from knowing what is the extent of any 'talking' done.
Without engaging in one of your tiresome and repetitive trite namecalling exchanges, I'll say this: I believe that the Kennedy assasination was perpetrated by the one group and one person who stood to gain the most from his removal, and the removal of the brother Robert Kennedy. That is Richard M. Nixon and the republican party, the same group who are now realizing their goals at long last, the same group that one of their own, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned the country about in 1958.
posted on February 27, 2002 04:16:31 AM new
Oh my, I see that Eisenhower's warning is his parting speech in 1960, not 1958. Rather than risking entering into all of the break dance involved in an edit, I've just corrected myself here. In finding that, I also found the speech, of course, and I was once again struck by the essential worth of that man, a republican, a warrior, and a patriot in the truest sense. Read what he said. Compare that man as evidenced here with the destructive child who has now become the most dangerous person on earth............
"My fellow Americans:
Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, theauthority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.
This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.
Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.
Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.
My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when,long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.
In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the
Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.
II.
We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
III.
Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope,atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger is poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research --these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.
But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balancebetween cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
IV.
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
V.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
VI.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done.As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
VII.
So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty,disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love."
posted on February 27, 2002 07:33:13 AM new
OH MY GOSH please dont tell me there are people who actually believe Oswald killed him alone????? I heard that people can be talked into believing anything, but to believe Oswald did it alone you have to believe the single bullet theory. The Zapruda film clearly shows he was shot from the front.
posted on February 27, 2002 08:36:11 AM new
I always thought the "mob" theorists were wrong. And the "cuban" theorists. And the "russian" theorists. And the "cia" theorists. And the ...
But whoever would of thought it was Richard M?? It's a good thing "Deep Throat" kept his/her mouth shut.
And IT IS POSSIBLE for large numbers of people to keep silent. Look at the Manhattan Project. Err, well except for the Rosenberg group and the Russians.
It is not a question of being "talked" into anything. Think of it this way. You're on a jury and Ken testifies and then the panel of ballistics and forensics people CBS News hired testifies with a frame by frame analysis of the Zapruder film.
A "theory" is a long way from a hypothesis and a league away from a fact.
posted on February 27, 2002 12:13:28 PM new DeSquirrel, I think much of what has been called "conspiracy" was actually after-the-fact covering-up by the various agencies who dropped the ball and allowed the circumstances of Dallas on That Day to occur. But overall, I believe one need only look at the results of Kennedy's assassination to determine that a conspiracy existed then and persists to this day.
The two laughable government-led "investigations" -- The Warren Commission and The House Select Committee on Assassinations -- represent (to me) the height of bureaucratic stonewalling. Neither body was determined to discover the truth of the matter; they were solely concerned with burying the inquiring public beneath a mountain of paper -- the weight of it alone discouraged investigation, and the official seals attached to it for legitimacy's sake conveniently settled the matter for a generation that had to move on to other things -- the disintegration of the Civil Rights Movement, That Interminable WAR, Watergate, just to name a few.
I don't have a concise theory to lob. What I have is gratitude for those private citizens among us who had the fortitude to unravel the "official" versions of events and publish (often out-of-pocket) their findings. Harold Weisberg was such a one -- a hero, in my economy -- and it will rankle me to my dying day that we have allowed our sensibilities to be so manipulated that instead of focussing on the real issue -- Who killed Kennedy? -- we squabble about "nutty" conspiracy theories.
As I stated above, we deserve everything that's headed our way...
posted on February 27, 2002 12:19:30 PM new
[i]"Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope,
atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method.[/i]"
Wonderful speech wasn't it?
Which hostile ideology was he referring to at that time? He calls it "atheistic in character" .
posted on February 27, 2002 01:29:57 PM new
I agree that the Warren Commission, etc, was a farce, but where others see this as "evidence" of a grand malevolent conspiracy, I think it's just the typical government bungling and desire not to get a huge unending mire started. They were looking for closure above everything else.
posted on February 27, 2002 02:08:55 PM new
And in their bungling and desire for closure (as you put it) they created the very "unending mire" they (perhaps) sought to circumvent. It's not too far a stretch for me to consider their inept and convoluted "handling" of the matter -- and the subsequent decades of tail-chasing their "findings" induced -- as the ultimate (and intentional) "screw-you" to every American who has been denied a thoughtful, thorough, honest exploration of the facts.
Rawbunzel, I believe Eisenhower was referring to Communism.
posted on February 27, 2002 03:01:29 PM new
BTW: Do ya know that JFK and Lucifer Satan Demon Seed (aka Milhous) were very close buddies?
Jack Kennedy was one of the few close fiiends Tricky Dick ever had in his evil existance! They used to dine together almost every week! The 1960 election certainly soured the friendship somewhat & I do tend to blame that monster for everything from acid rain to Kathy Lee, but I think the idea of his involvement in a murder conspiracy is KAKA -- he just twernt that smart!
posted on February 27, 2002 07:17:51 PM new
I thought maybe he meant corporate America since I was trying to relate that part to today too. The threat we face now seems to be exactly the opposite. Certainly a long way away from athiestic.
The threat changes every decade or so it seems but there is always a threat.The biggest one now is the complacency of the American people. We've turned into a flock of sheep.
posted on February 27, 2002 09:29:25 PM new
He spoke of two separate problems. The one, communism, that "hostile ideology -- global in scope,atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. which had embroiled the world in struggle is referred to as atheistic. The other, the internal force of the military industrial result of the struggle against the first, which could threaten democracy and life as we know it is not termed atheistic, but is seem as the greater enemy. Though the firstt is essentially gone from consideration, the second remains with us today and is just as potentially devisive and twice as insidious.
