Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
by LilyPatToo » Wed Oct 10, 2007 2:52 pm
I'm 60 now and most of the original 50's era guys are dead or very elderly. It isn't looking good at this point....
by MinM » Mon Aug 30, 2010 2:27 pm
Some of the most conspicuous omissions from the Wikipedia LHO (Lee Harvey Oswald) entry include the following:
Within the section: 1.5 Attempt on life of General Walker, there is absolutely no mention of Walker's own contention to the HSCA that the bullet in evidence could not have been the one that was fired at him.46 Within the same section: 1.5 Attempt on life of General Walker, despite the statement that: "In March 1963, Oswald purchased a 6.5 mm caliber Carcano rifle (commonly but improperly called Mannlicher-Carcano) by mail, using the alias A. Hidell.[64] as well as a revolver by the same method.[65]", Oswald, in fact, could NOT have retrieved the rifle from the P.O. box alleged to have been his because his name was not on the application for that P.O. Box.47 Within the same section: 1.5 Attempt on life of General Walker, despite the statement that: "neutron activation tests later showed that it was "extremely likely" that that it was made by the same manufacturer and for the same rifle make as the two bullets which later struck Kennedy.[73]", Gamaliel/Fernandez leaves out this: These same neutron activation analysis (NAA) tests have been thoroughly discredited by the independent work of Bill Tobin and Cliff Spiegelman48, and Eric Randich and Pat Grant.49
Within the section: 1.7 Mexico, there is absolutely no mention of either: a) the findings of the Lopez Report that question Oswald's presence in Mexico City; or b) the FBI's own finding that the CIA's Mexico City tapes of Oswald could not in fact have been Oswald50. Within the section: 1.9 Shootings of JFK and Officer Tippit: there is absolutely no mention of the problem involved with the chain of evidence in the four shells supposedly recovered from the Tippit shooting that are now in evidence.51
But perhaps no reference points out the utter dishonesty and unwarranted "pride" of Gamaliel/Fernandez than the footnote concerning Oswald's Dallas post office box. This is where he was allegedly sent the Mannlicher Carcano rifle. This is the rifle the Commission named as the murder weapon. As alluded to above, and as the FBI knew, there was a serious problem with the application for that box. Anyone can see that by turning to Cadigan Exhibit 13 in Volume 19 of the Commission.
The problem is that the rifle was ordered under the alias Hidell, yet the box was in the name of Lee Oswald. For the post office to deliver merchandise sent to an individual not named on the delivery box, two postal regulation rules had to be broken. Normally, under those circumstances, the rifle should have been returned to the mailer. So what did Gamaliel/Fernandez, or one of his cohorts like John McAdams, do to decieve the reader and get around this problem? They provided a link – footnote 115 – to Oswald's post office box in New Orleans, the place where the rifle did not go. Why? Because Oswald signed his name and listed the names of Marina and Hidell on that particular application card. The one that has nothing to do with this transaction.
On July 5th, 2010, the false fact that the Dallas box had both names – Oswald and Hidell – on it was in the text of the essay. It was gone the next day. But the telltale footnote referenced above remained. The deliberate substitution of false evidence – the Contents of Volume 19 clearly labels that P. O. box application as New Orleans – in order to mislead and create a phony case against Oswald is pure disinformation in every aspect.
Apparently, any mention of the above proven facts risks "overwhelm[ing] the text." Yet planting a false P. O box does not. We could go on and on with further refuting evidence, but the above items amply demonstrate the purpose of Wikipedia's LHO entry: i.e., to keep the reader safely within the sanitized walls of the Warren Commission's 1964 duplicities that still attempt to peg Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. In that regard, the entry may as well have been writen by Arlen Specter.The omission of such important – some would say crucial – information in Wikipedia's LHO entry amounts to nothing less than "the sieve" approach that DiEugenio has described, i.e., an approach that selects only WCR and FBI criteria which have been "patched together after the fact" in order to name Oswald as the lone gunman assassin of JFK.
Recall that intentionality is a key element to disinformation; one must be able to demonstrate a source's intent to deceive. And a blanket denial of all access to all refuting information is not just another way of "stacking the deck," it is by its blanket nature revealing of its intentions: deception by outright censorship. Gamaliel's/Fernandez's comment regarding any attempts to break through such blanket censorship, i.e., "it's like a never ending series of car crashes," further reveals acknowledgement of and complete confidence in this blanket power of censorship.
Based upon our outlined careful means of deconstruction, one would have to be extremely charitable to conclude that Wikipedia's LHO entry is anything but a carefully crafted piece of disinformation...
http://www.blackopradio.com/pod/black489b.mp3
by operator kos » Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:06 pm
by norton ash » Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:14 pm
by LilyPatToo » Mon Aug 30, 2010 3:52 pm
I probably had a crisis and lost track of it in the chaos...I don't actually even recall at this point what happened to distract/discourage me 
But that happens a lot with survivors of systematized abuse--we're broken enough that even if we function at a high enough level for a while to take on a long-running project, there's always the chance that our damage will cause us to be forced to eventually drop the ball. That's when I hope for an activist who's not a survivor to pick up where we left off. Or for a survivor who's higher-functioning than I am to materialize in my place, pick up the torch and run with it for a while. Because even a brief foray against Langley Landscaping is well worth the effort.by Project Willow » Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:00 am
operator kos wrote:On a more serious note, and I may start a new thread about this, I'd really like to get a few people to join me in a concerted effort to clean up Wikipedia's disgusting article on "Ritual Abuse". As it stands, the very first paragraph describes it as a "moral panic" with little to no basis in reality. Any takers?
by LilyPatToo » Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:06 pm
IMO she should have sent that registered letter, though. It would have been additional ammo in her paper trail.by Project Willow » Tue Aug 31, 2010 12:54 pm
LilyPatToo wrote:--talk about supercilious, hostile little twits with a bit of power bullying an actual professional authority on the subject--?!
by elfismiles » Tue Aug 31, 2010 1:48 pm
operator kos wrote:On a more serious note, and I may start a new thread about this, I'd really like to get a few people to join me in a concerted effort to clean up Wikipedia's disgusting article on "Ritual Abuse". As it stands, the very first paragraph describes it as a "moral panic" with little to no basis in reality. Any takers?
Users browsing this forum: stickdog99 and 172 guests
