anna k, nelson   (arrb)

ANNA K. NELSON  (ARRB)

On Jul 14, 8:42 am, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 8:23 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On 7/11/2010 8:49 PM, Bud wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 11, 9:00 am, Bill Kelly<billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Jul 10, 7:26 pm, Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Jul 10, 10:05 am, Bill Kelly<billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Jul 9, 2:41 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> On Jul 9, 8:52 am, Bill Kelly<billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> On Jul 8, 9:17 pm, John McAdams<john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> On 9 Jul 2010 00:10:22 -0400, Bill Kelly<billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>>> On Jul 8, 4:38 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> First, we have a post I made on July 4:
>
> > >>>>>>>> Thanks for answering my question John, but I didn't see it right away.
> > >>>>>>>> Sorry about that.
>
> > >>>>>>>> As for the Houma bunker raid, I too concluded that it wasn't the CIA
> > >>>>>>>> but just a bunch of Dixie Yahoos. Nor was the McLaney Lake
> > >>>>>>>> Pontchartrain Training Camp for real or CIA, but just a bunch of
> > >>>>>>>> Yahoos. Here's my article on Houma:
>
> > >>>>>>>>http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2009/05/houma-bunker-raid-revisted...
>
> > >>>>>>>> As for Anna K. Nelson, (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?
> > >>>>>>>> showtopic=15234) I too would assume that her contribution to an
> > >>>>>>>> Anthology on secrecy in government would not have to be vetted or
> > >>>>>>>> edited, but apparently she really didn't know what she was talking
> > >>>>>>>> about.
>
> > >>>>>>>> I don't think it sinster, I just don't think she did her homework, as
> > >>>>>>>> is indicated when she wrote:
>
> > >>>>>>> OK, but why are you bitching at me about it?
>
> > >>>>>>>> "The John F. Kennedy Assassinations Records Collection Act of 1992
> > >>>>>>>> marked an important milestone in the ongoing conflict between the
> > >>>>>>>> public's need to know and the culture of secrecy that evolved during
> > >>>>>>>> the fifty years of the cold war. The act was designed to strip away
> > >>>>>>>> theories that implicated federal agencies in a conspiracy to murder
> > >>>>>>>> the young president. Its unintended consequence has been to crack open
> > >>>>>>>> the door to the inner sanctums of the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence
> > >>>>>>>> agencies."
>
> > >>>>>>>> The act was not designed to strip away theories but to release records
> > >>>>>>>> and let the people decide for themselves what to believe.
>
> > >>>>>>>> Then even yours students could correct her when she wrote: "?The
> > >>>>>>>> Warren Commission Report concluded that President Kennedy had been
> > >>>>>>>> killed by bullets fired by only one assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, from
> > >>>>>>>> the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository. Three shots had been
> > >>>>>>>> fired; one hit the president but did not kill him, one went astray,
> > >>>>>>>> and the third killed Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally of Texas,
> > >>>>>>>> who shared the president's limousine as it slowly moved through
> > >>>>>>>> downtown Dallas. The commission further concluded that, while Oswald
> > >>>>>>>> was influenced by Marxist ideology and was sympathetic to Fidel
> > >>>>>>>> Castro's government in Cuba, his decision to kill the president came
> > >>>>>>> >from internal demons, not an external conspiracy?"
>
> > >>>>>>>> O
>
> > >>>>>>>> Of course it was the first shot that hit the president but did not
> > >>>>>>>> kill him and reputedly went on to wound Connally, and not the third
> > >>>>>>>> shot, that killed Kennedy, but since you don't bother to correct
> > >>>>>>>> mistakes not made by CTs, I wouldn't expect you to even try to correct
> > >>>>>>>> her or inform your leftist colleague that she was wrong and the text
> > >>>>>>>> should be corrected in future editions, as all serious historians
> > >>>>>>>> would do.
>
> > >>>>>>> Bill, are you willing to latch onto any silly thing to attack me?
>
> > >>>>>>> I never even knew that Athan was editing any volume that had any essay
> > >>>>>>> by Anna Nelson in it.
>
> > >>>>>>> Am I somehow supposed to have ESP and know about any piece of writing
> > >>>>>>> that comes to the Marquette campus about JFK?
>
> > >>>>>>> You are being supremely silly.
>
> > >>>>>>> .John
> > >>>>>>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm-Hidequotedtext-
>
> > >>>>>>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >>>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >>>>>> So now I'm silly, as well as making odd arguments, and using faulty
> > >>>>>> logic.
>
> > >>>>> And incorrect English, using "your" instead of "you`re" below.
>
> > >>>>>> Well, if you guys were pals, and both teach at the same school, he
> > >>>>>> would know of your fascination with the JFK assassination, and if he
> > >>>>>> was editing a book on Secrecy in Government that includes a chapter on
> > >>>>>> the assassination, the JFK Act and ARRB, I just thought that while
> > >>>>>> over lunch in the cafateria or bumping into him in the faculty lounge,
> > >>>>>> you might discuss it. Or knowing your interest, he might even give you
> > >>>>>> the prepublication article for peer review.
>
> > >>>>>> So I was wrong, and your not pals and he wouldn't ask you to peer
> > >>>>>> review anything, and you wouldn't correct someone as distinguished as
> > >>>>>> AKN, and he wouldn't bother to have an article written by her fact
> > >>>>>> checked because she is so distinguished and honorable.
>
> > >>>>> <snicker> CTers often find it suspicious when reality conflicts with the
> > >>>>> way they think things should be. He doesn`t know the principles,
> > >>>>> personalities or circumstances, but still feels confident in his opinion
> > >>>>> of how things should play out (in a "talk around it" sort of way).
>
> > >>>>>> Now I know better. Silly me.
>
> > >>>>>> But I'd still like to know if Dr. Theoharis corrected Anna K. Nelson's
> > >>>>>> mistakes in the subsequent editions of his book, as he should have.
>
> > >>>>> Didn`t .John ask you to establish the mistakes?
>
> > >>>> OkayBud, Here you go, I've already posted it before, but since you must
> > >>>> have Haris' syndrome too, I'll repeat it and spell it out for everyone:
>
> > >>>> "A Culture of Secrecy ? The Government Versus the People's Right to
> > >>>> Know," Anthology edited by Athan G. Theoharis (University Press of Kansas,
> > >>>> 1998), with contribution by Matthew M. Aid, Jon Wiener, Anna Kasten
> > >>>> Nielson, et al.
>
> > >>>> 1) "The John F. Kennedy Assassinations Records Collection Act of 1992
> > >>>> marked an important milestone in the ongoing conflict between the public's
> > >>>> need to know and the culture of secrecy that evolved during the fifty
> > >>>> years of the cold war. The act was designed to strip away theories that
> > >>>> implicated federal agencies in a conspiracy to murder the young president.
> > >>>> Its unintended consequence has been to crack open the door to the inner
> > >>>> sanctums of the CIA, FBI, and other intelligence agencies."
>
> > >>>> BK: The act was not designed to strip away theories but to release
> > >>>> records and let the people decide for themselves what to believe.
>
> > >>> More information wouldn`t strip away theories? Well, maybe not in this
> > >>> case, all information seems useful to some CTers to construct conspiracy
> > >>> theories with.
>
> > >>> I think the author could be right, and the intention was to show that
> > >>> there is no smoke, and certainly no fire in the areas CTers find
> > >>> suspicious. But CTers seem to alway insist that the fire can be uncovered
> > >>> if they can only dig a little deeper.
>
> > >> BK: Can't you think about the assassination without considering what
> > >> CT's say?
>
> > > Of course I can, that`s how I came to the correct conclusion about
> > > Oswald`s culpability. You don`t think that is something I got from you
> > > guys, do you?
>
> BK: OSWALD'S CULPABILITY OF DOING WHAT?

Turning water into wine, what do you think? And why are you
responding to my comments in a response to Tony Marsh?

> > > If the CT position did not exist, I would read through the facts of this
> > > case without much ado. It`s CTer speculation, nitpicking, making mountains
> > > out of molehills and molehills out of mountains, misrepresentation,
> > > misinterpretations, ect that CTers seem to insist warrants attention (like
> > > your call for Bugliosi, Posner and Myers to answer your questions here,
> > > like that is going to happen). But you can certainly make the case that I
> > > am giving the CTer position and ideas more attention than they deserve.
>
> > >> You're like DVP and Bugliosi and all those Conservative
> > >> Republican Columnist who can't make a decision without considering
> > >> what Liberals say about it. I hate CT's as much as you do but I don't
> > >> dwell on all their assaine theories. The assassination only happened
> > >> one way, and let's talk about that.
>
> > > The LN position is fairly static.
>
> BK: YOU GOT THAT RIGHT. STATICALY WRONG.

You don`t like it? I was unaware.

> > >> But you can't because you're too
> > >> wrapped up in the CT's bullshit, so you're full of it too.
>
> BK: YOU KEEP CALLING PEOPLE CT'S INCLUDING ME, AND I'M THE ONE WHO
> CHALLENGES MORE CTS BULLSHIT THAN ANYBODY, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO CLAIM
> THE CUBANS OR MAFIA DID IT.

You have groups you prefer to pretend did it.

> > > What I mostly do is argue that the ideas presented by LNers are
> > > superior, and that the ideas presented by CTers are inferior.
>
> BK: SUPERIOR OR INFERIOR TO WHAT? EACH OTHER, OR TO THE TRUTH AS IT
> ACTUALLY HAPPENED?

The LNer position is superior because it is the truth as it actually
happened. CTers really have no legitimate position.

> That is the
>
> > > purpose of these newsgroups. You advanced the idea that certain people
> > > were discredited by the inclusion of erroneous information in their works,
> > > and I pointed out what I saw as the flaws in your ideas. Thats how it`s
> > > done here, this isn`t the Education Forum.
>
> BK: NO, IT'S NOT DONE THAT WAY AT ED FORUM,

I know it.

> WHERE WRONGFULLY HELD
> IDEAS LIKE OSWALD KILLED ANYBODY ARE DISCARDD, AND WHAT REALLY
> HAPPENED DETERMINED. WHY ARE THERE NOW CURRENTLY AT LEAST A HALF DOZEN
> THEADS HIJACKED FROM THE ED FORUM AND BROUGHT HERE BY THE LIKES OF DVP
> AND REITZE AND OTHERS WHO WON'T SIGN ON THERE AS MEMBERS AND DISCUSS
> THE ASSASSINATION WITH ANYONE WHO REALLY KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT IT?

As I explained, there is little exchange of ideas there. Bad ideas
presented there can be brought here and be given the ridicule they
deserve. Thats why I brought some of your ideas here, I wouldn`t be able
to freely attack them there even if I was a member.

> WHY
> BRING THEM HERE TO RIDICULE WHEN YOU CAN TALK TO THE PERSON WHO
> STARTED THE THREAD? BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DISCUSS IT?

If a person presents a really bad idea that they thought was valid, what
is there to discuss with that person? He presented a bad thought to be
considered by a bunch like-minded bad thinkers, not to have his bad
thinking pointed out. These thoughts are brought here to be illustrations
of the bad thinking rife if the CT community, they are usually so bad that
no countering is necessary, they stand alone as examples of how WC critics
think. Poorly.

> WHAT'S THE FLAWS IN MY IDEAS AGAIN? THAT THE JFK ACT WAS NOT INTENDED
> TO INVESTIGATE THE ASSASSINATION AND DISCREDIT CONSPIRACY THEORIES BUT
> IDENTIFY AND RELEASE ASSASSINATION RECORDS?

I know you are new to the world of exchanging ideas, but you have to
at least be able to follow the discussions.

> > >>>> 2) AKN: "?The Warren Commission Report concluded that President Kennedy
> > >>>> had been killed by bullets fired by only one assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald,
> > >>>> from the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository. Three shots had been
> > >>>> fired; one hit the president but did not kill him, one went astray, and
> > >>>> the third killed Kennedy and wounded Governor Connally of Texas, who
> > >>>> shared the president's limousine as it slowly moved through downtown
> > >>>> Dallas. The commission further concluded that, while Oswald was influenced
> > >>>> by Marxist ideology and was sympathetic to Fidel Castro's government in
> > >>>> Cuba, his decision to kill the president came from internal demons, not an
> > >>>> external conspiracy?"
>
> BK: IF ANNA K. NELSON SAID THAT THE THIRD SHOT KILLED JFK AND WOUNDED
> GOVERNOR CONNALLY, AS SHE DOES IN THAT ESSAY, WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME
> HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE?

I missed where she said the third shot wounded Connally. You seem to
have found an error in the work. What now?

> > >>>> BK: Now that's not even what the WC concluded, so let me know if you think
> > >>>> anything is wrong with with she says there, will ya?
>
> > >>> Not much. She has the conclusions on the shots out of sequence, but she
> > >>> didn`t represent the information as being in any particular order. I don`t
> > >>> think the WC married themselves to a motive or a particular shot
> > >>> sequencing, but this is minor.
>
> BK: NO, SHE NOT ONLY GETS THE SHOT SEQUENCE WRONG, SHE SAYS THAT JFK
> WAS KILLED BY THE SAME SHOT THAT WOUNDED CONNALLY. DO YOU BELIVE THAT
> OR WOULD YOU CORRECT HER IF YOU KNEW BETTER?
>
>
>
> > >> BK: She has the conclusions of the shots out of sequence,
>
> > > Why do you assume she was trying to put them in sequence?
>
> > >> and that's
> > >> okay in an academic anthology edited by the serious historian Dr.
> > >> Athan Theoharis of Marquette University?
>
> > > If I`m running through all the indications of Oswald guilt I rarely put
> > > them in any particular order. Every component she relates is correct, and
> > > she doesn`t represent them as being in chronological order.
>
> BK: EVERY COMONENT SHE RELLATES IS NOT CORRECT. ALL FOUR THAT I CITE
> ARE WRONG, AND JOHN MCADAMS, IF HE WAS A REAL MAN AND SERIOUS
> ACADEMIC, WOULD CONFIRM THAT. AND IF DOESN'T THINK THEY ARE WRONG,
> THEN WHAT DOES HE THINK? THAT THE JFK ACT REINVESTIGATED THE
> ASSASSINATION AND DISPUTED ALL THE CRACKPOT CONSPIRACY THEORIES, AND
> THAT JFK WAS KILLED BY THE SAME SHOT THAT WOUNDED CONNALLY? NOT EVEN
> MCADAMS WILL DEFEND EITHER OF THOSE BECAUSE HE KNOWS BETTER.
>
> > >> Minor? Not if you are accused
> > >> of shooting them, and not if you are a real security expert trying to
> > >> figure out what really happened so it won't happend again, or trying
> > >> to determine the real truth so some justice can be had.
>
> > > If someone wanted to know what the WC concluded they`d be best off
> > > with the WCR.
>
> BK: YES, AND ANNA K. NELSON SHOULD HAVE READ IT AND SHE WOULD HAVE
> KNOW BETTER THAN TO SAY THAT THE JFK ACT REINVESTIGATED THE
> ASSASSINATION IN ORDER TO DISPUTE SILLY CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND JFK
> WAS KILLED BY THE SAME SHOT THAT WOUNDED CONNALLY. OH, YEA, AND THAT
> THE HSCA INVESTIGATED RFK'S MURDER, AND SHE GETS A HALF DOZEN THINGS
> WRONG, AND THEY SHOULD BE CORRECTED SO PEOPLE WHO READ THE BOOK DOWN
> THE LINE AREN'T MISLEAD BY HER MISTAKES AND THE ONES YOU MAKE HERE
> THAT AREN'T CORRECTED.

Thats whats good about a dynamic exchange of ideas like in a newsgroup
(as apposed to a static work like a book), errors can be pointed out and
corrected. I don`t always read (or write) as carefully as I should, and
some things are misread or misunderstood due to breezing through the
material and addressing what I think is the gist.


> > >>>> 3) AKN: "The most thorough and direct study of President Kennedy's
> > >>>> assassination was conducted in 1978-79 by the House Select Committee on
> > >>>> Assassinations (HSCA), which examined all three of the assassinations that
> > >>>> had rocked the country during the 1960s ? those of John F. Kennedy,
> > >>>> Martin Luther King, Jr., and Robert Kennedy?the HSCA questioned the
> > >>>> 'single-bullet theory,' the conclusion that a single bullet killed the
> > >>>> president and wounded Governor Connally?"
>
> > >>>> BK: Since Dr. Theoharis, the editor, was a chief documents expert to the
> > >>>> Church Intelligence Committee, one of the Committee's whose records were
> > >>>> thoroughly reviewed by the HSCA, I would have thought that he would know
> > >>>> that the HSCA did not investigate the assassination of RFK, and that the
> > >>>> JFK Act didn't cover the HSCA MLK records, which still remain sealed.
>
> > >>> He doesn`t say the JFK Act covered the MLK records that I can see.
>
> > >> BK: That's not the problem,
>
> > > No, you did add this as part of the problem.
>
> > >> SHE says that the HSCA covered the RFK
> > >> assassination and it didn't,
>
> > > No, she said "examined:, not "covered". So it is your position that the
> > > HSCA never looked at any material relating to Robert Kennedy`s
> > > assassination?
>
> BK; NO, THE HSCA NEVER LOOKED AT ONE IOTA OF MATERIAL RELATING TO
> RFK'S ASSASSINATION AND WHEN IT TRIED TO, IN REGARDS TO JIM BRADEN
> BEING AT THE LOCATON OF BOTH MURDERS, THEY WERE NOT PERMITTED TO DO SO
> BY THE VERY NATURE AND LETTER OF THE LAW.
>
>
>
> > Background information.
>
> > I was part of the lobbying effort to form the HSCA. Our original plan was
> > to reinvestigate ONLY the JFK assassination. But along the way we realized
> > that we needed the support of the Black Caucus so we added the MLK
> > assassination. There was a certain other conspiracy group which also
> > wanted to include the RFK assassination and even the Malcolm X
> > assassination, but we successfully argued that adding on every possible
> > case would dilute the efforts to solve the biggest one.>> something that she should have known and
> > >> something that Dr. Theoharis knew but since he apparently didn't
> > >> bother to even read or have his grad assistants read her article
> > >> before publication, it is there, published as a fact that all future
> > >> generations who are interested will read and, if they are
> > >> knowledgeable, know is wrong, or wrongfully belive is true.
>
> > >>>> One of the basic factors written into the JFK Act was that the members and
> > >>>> the staff would not include anyone who had worked for the government or
> > >>>> been involved in the previous investigations, but she misinterpets this to
> > >>>> mean:
>
> > >>>> 4) AKN: "?How do five individuals deliberately chosen for their
> > >>>> unfamiliarity with Kennedy assassination documents, arguments and
> > >>>> theories, carry out their legal mandate??"
>
> > >>>> BK: The Review Board was to be composed of five individuals who had no
> > >>>> prior experience working for the government, not deliberately chosen for
> > >>>> their unfamiliarity with the JFK documents. They were supposed to be
> > >>>> familiar with the documents as historians and librarians and scholars.
>
> > >>> Since you didn`t include the wording from the JFK Act, I can`t tell
> > >>> if she misinterpreted it.
>
> > >> BK: Since you are unfamiliar with the JFK Act, and apparently the
> > >> details of the assassination, nor do you care if they are accurately
> > >> reported in history books or the inernet, why do you care to post this
> > >> BS?
>
> > > I thought it was relevant to point out that you were countering the
> > > material with your opinions about what the JFK Act said, and not what it
> > > actually said. I`m not as impressed with your opinions as you seem to be,
> > > nor do I trust you to accurately represent the information.
>
> BK: YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRUST ME TO ACCURATELY REPRESENT ANYTHING. DO
> YOUR OWN HOMEWORK, BUT WHEN YOU GET TO READING THE WARREN REPORT, YOU
> WILL FIND THAT JFK WAS NOT KILLED BY THE SAME SHOT THAT WOUNDED
> CONNALLY, THAT THE HSCA DID NOT INVESTIGATE THE RFK ASSASSINATION,
> THAT THE JFK ACT DID NOT INVESTIGATE ANYTHING OR DISPELL ANY
> CONSPIRACY THEORY, HOWEVER REDICULIOUS, AND THAT NELSON AND THE
> MEMBERS OF THE REVIEW BOARD WERE NOT APPOINTED BECAUSE OF THEIR
> INFAMILIARITY WITH THE CASE, BUT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY
> EMPLOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT.
>
> But since you
>
> > > didn`t include the primary information and I`m not interested in chasing
> > > down every claim made by a CTer on usenet, either you make you case using
> > > reliable information or I remain unswayed and unimpressed.
>
> BK; MY PURPOSE ISN'T TO SWAY OR IMPRESS YOU, BUT TO LEARN IF MCADAMS
> KNEW HIS COLLEAGUE WHO EDITED AND PUBLISHED THIS BOOK WITH THE
> ERONIOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE JFK ASSASSINATION AND THE JFK ACT,
>
> BUT HE'S NOT INTERESTED IN CORRECTING ANYBODY BUT CONSPIRACY
> THEORIESTS.

That should keep him busy.

> BK
>
> > >>>> And I would wager a small bet that John McAdams is wrong in that these
> > >>>> types of Anthologies are published once and then forgotten, but rather,
> > >>>> these supossidly academic studies are supossed to be accurate, and a
>
> > >>> ...
>
> > >>> read more ?- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > >>> - Show quoted text -